WHY OUR MAINSTREAM MEDIA HAVE FAILED IN THEIR COVERAGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE

For decades now, our mainstream media have failed in their coverage of climate change. Earlier this year, Bill Moyers and the Schumann Media Center, which supports independent journalism, announced the creation of the Covering Climate Now project, a partnership of The Nation magazine and the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR). They hope to increase the coverage of climate issues and help journalism live up to its responsibility to connect the dots and tell important stories so that the public can understand them and act on the information presented. As Bill Moyers, the iconic journalist, said in his amazing speech (30 minutes) kicking off the project (there’s a 2.5 minute excerpt on the CJR website if you scroll most of the way down), “Reporting the truth is always the basis of any moral authority we can claim as journalists.” [1]

The first president to mention global warming was President Johnson in a speech to Congress in 1963. However, attention to it in public policy got lost due to a host of other hot issues (no pun intended). The fossil fuel industry, however, was paying attention and undertook a disinformation campaign that continues to this day.

In October 1970, the Mobil Oil Company began paying The New York Times to publish regular Op-Eds, also called advertorials, written by Mobil’s press office. Mobil viewed them as part of a major political campaign to prevent action against fossil fuels due to global warming. By 1983, Mobil’s press office felt they had succeeded in shifting the Times’ editorial positions to those Mobil had been espousing. [2]

Today, it is increasingly common for the mainstream media to present non-advertising “news” content that has been prepared by or for large corporations. For example, The New York Times and The Washington Post have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from fossil fuel companies and organizations, such as ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, and the American Petroleum Institute, to create the industry’s advertorials, which they then publish. [3]

The mainstream TV media haven’t done any better: combined coverage of climate change by the three major networks and Fox was just 142 minutes in 2018, down 45% from 2017. That’s an average of only 41 seconds per week per outlet! Not only have the major TV networks basically ignored this story, but they have failed to counter the false and deliberately deceptive propaganda promoted by the fossil fuel industry. [4] For example, extreme-weather events are linked to climate change, but the mainstream media almost never mention the climate change connection. Local weather forecasters are doing more to report the links between weather and climate change than the national networks.

The fight over climate change featuring environmentalists and scientists versus the powerful fossil fuel industry and its political supporters sounds like a David vs. Goliath story to which the mainstream media would love to give lots of coverage. But that has not been the case to say the least. [5] For example, in our general election presidential debates, the moderators who are from the mainstream media have not asked a single question about climate change in 2016, 2012, 2008, or ever.

The mainstream media, both TV and print, have been brainwashed by the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda to view climate change as a political story rather than a science story. The fossil fuel industry has successfully spread confusion and doubt about the science using the same public relations strategies and even some of the same “scientists” as Big Tobacco did in its campaign to spread doubt about the dangers of smoking. For example, Frederick Seitz, a physicist by training, received $45 million from Big Tobacco to obscure the risks of smoking and then, with funding from the fossil fuel industry, became the prominent US denier of human-caused climate change. [6]

The fossil fuel industry has bought enough politicians’ support through campaign spending and lobbying to make climate change appear to be a political issue rather than a scientific one. [7] The Republican Party in particular has bought into using climate change as a campaign issue (or perhaps it has been bought by the fossil fuel industry). Therefore, the mainstream media cover climate change as an issue of politics and not science.

As a result, the media typically give equal coverage to the scientific consensus that human activity is a major contributor to global warming and the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda that global warming is exclusively due to natural fluctuations in global temperatures and therefore not related to fossil fuel use.

Responsibility for the failure to accurately report and act on climate change goes beyond the mainstream corporate media and the fossil fuel companies. In many ways it includes much of corporate America, for example through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber is supported by most of the large corporations in the U.S. and has aggressively opposed action on climate change with multiple tactics: massive lobbying, substantial campaign spending, and extensive involvement in lawsuits and other legal actions. The Chamber spends roughly three times as much on lobbying as the next most active group. It has spent almost $150 million on congressional campaigns since 2010, when the Citizens United Supreme Court decision unleashed corporate campaign spending. In most congressional election cycles, the Chamber is the biggest “dark money” spender, meaning that it shields the identity of the donors for its spending. This provides corporations with a protective veil; they can oppose climate change action through contributions to the Chamber and no one will know. The Chamber is also active in court cases. In a three-year period during Obama’s presidency, it was involved in over 500 court cases. Although not all these court cases and all this spending is in opposition to climate change action, environmental issues were the third most frequent subject of its court cases and energy and environmental issues are a major part of its lobbying activities. The Chamber’s position on energy and environmental issues inevitably is in support of fossil fuels. [8] It would be hard to overstate the political clout of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the laundry list of major corporations that provide its funding.

In summary, the mainstream media have failed in their coverage of climate change in terms of both quantity and quality (i.e., accuracy) because of:

Their conflict of interest due to revenue from the fossil fuel industry for advertising and the preparation of advertorial Op-Ed pieces,
Brainwashing by fossil fuel industry propaganda, and
Being part and parcel of corporate America.

[1] Moyers, B., 7/15/19, “What if reporters covered the climate crisis like Murrow covered World War II?” The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/climate-change-media-murrow-boys/)

[2] Westervelt, A., May 6, 2019, “Why are The New York Times and The Washington Post creating ads for Big Oil?” The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/big-oil-pr-fossil-fuel-lobby-herb-schmertz/)

[3] Westervelt, A., May 6, 2019, see above

[4] Moyers, B., 7/15/19, see above

[5] Hertsgaard, M., & Pope, K., 4/22/19, “The media are complacent while the world burns,” The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/climate-change-media-aoc-gnd-propaganda/)

[6] Hertsgaard, M., & Pope, K., 4/22/19, see above

[7] Hertsgaard, M., & Pope, K., 4/22/19, see above

[8] Schumer, C.E., & Whitehouse, S., 11/21/19, “Climate change and dark money,” The Boston Globe

MEDICARE’S PROBLEMATIC PRIVATE OPTION

Medicare was created in 1965 when people over 65 found it virtually impossible to get private health insurance coverage. Medicare made access to health care a universal right for Americans 65 and over. It improved the health and longevity of older Americans, as well as their financial security. Initially, Medicare consisted solely of a public insurance program that included all seniors.

Today, a mixed public-private health insurance market exists under Medicare. An examination of it is very instructive in terms of how a mixed public-private system would be likely to work if extended to people under age 65. The Medicare-eligible population has been able to enroll in private health insurance plans since the 1980s. The private health insurance industry lobbied heavily for access to the large, Medicare market.

Private health insurers argued for a private option under Medicare, stating that they could deliver better quality services at lower cost due to their efficiencies, thereby saving Medicare money. Initially they were paid 95% of what a Medicare enrollee cost based on promised efficiencies. However, once they had their foot in the door, the private insurers successfully lobbied for their payment rate to be increased. In 2009, it was as high as 120% of what a senior enrolled in the traditional, public Medicare program cost.

Not only have private health insurers been getting paid more per enrollee than it costs the government to serve seniors in the traditional, public Medicare insurance pool, but they have healthier enrollees who cost less to serve! Clearly, these private Medicare plans, referred to as Medicare Advantage plans, have not been saving Medicare any money, but rather costing it more than it would have to serve these seniors directly. [1] [2] And there’s no evidence that they are providing better quality services that would justify such a high rate of reimbursement. The Affordable Care Act is now working to lower this over-payment to private insurers.

Since shortly after they began, the private Medicare Advantage plans have been getting over paid, and this is exactly what is likely to happen if private insurers are allowed to participate in a universal health insurance program for people other than seniors.

There are four main strategies the Medicare Advantage plans have used to get paid more than they should. Private insurers in a mixed market for non-seniors would be expected to do the same things: [3]

Cherry-picking: The private Medicare Advantage insurers have worked to enroll healthier seniors who are less expensive to serve. Through targeted advertising, special benefits (e.g., subsidized health club memberships), and specialized outreach they have successfully attracted a healthier than average clientele. In the market for non-seniors, the private insurers can be expected to successfully work to attract younger, healthier, and therefore less expensive enrollees, leaving sicker and more expensive people for the public plan.
Lemon-dropping: The Medicare Advantage insurers have implemented strategies to get sick and expensive enrollees to drop out of their plans, even though this is ostensibly illegal under Medicare. For example, they limit access to providers of expensive specialty services, require high co-pays for expensive drugs, and put a complex approval process and other barriers in front of patients trying to access expensive care. The data from Medicare Advantage plans are clear, when patients need expensive services like dialysis or nursing home care they switch back to the public, traditional Medicare in large numbers because the private insurers make it difficult to access these services and get them paid for. In the market for non-seniors, the private insurers can be expected to drop or force out the sicker, more expensive patients, dumping this burden onto the public plan.
Over-reporting the seriousness of diagnoses: Medicare Advantage insurers report more and more serious diagnoses than they should. This makes their enrollees appear to be sicker than they are and therefore eligible for more or higher reimbursements from Medicare. For example, knee pain can be reported as arthritis and an episode of distress can be reported as major depression. Medicare’s occasional audits of Medicare Advantage insurers indicate that they are getting paid $10 billion annually for fabricated diagnoses and much more for what appear to be overly serious diagnoses. Private insurers in a non-seniors’ market can be expected to game the payment system this way too.
Lobbying Congress for generous payments: Over the 35 years of Medicare Advantage plans, the private insurers have cost Medicare more than it would have cost for Medicare to serve their enrollees directly because Congress has directed Medicare to pay the insurers higher premiums than are warranted. These higher premiums support Medicare Advantage plans’ 14% overhead (e.g., profits, advertising, and executive salaries), which is seven times more than Medicare’s overhead of only 2%. The over-payment of Medicare Advantage plans peaked in 2009 at around 120% of the per patient costs of traditional, public Medicare. Since then, the over-payments have been reduced by provisions of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obama Care). The private health care industry has lots of lobbying clout with Congress and can be expected to strongly and successfully lobby for favorable treatment under any expansion of health care coverage to non-seniors, as they did when the Affordable Care Act was being passed. At that time, for example, they were able to eliminate a public option plan from being offered because they were scared (perhaps even knew) that a public option like Medicare for All might well out-perform them.

As the debate about changing the U.S. health care system to a universal single-payer system, e.g., Medicare for All, has been unfolding, some opponents of a single-payer system have proposed a mixed system with both private health insurers and a public health insurance option, often referred to simply as a “public option.”

Unfortunately, a mixed public-private health insurance market for non-seniors won’t achieve the efficiencies and quality of a single-payer system as is evident in the Medicare Advantage experience. A single-payer system is the only way to both improve quality and control costs. (See this previous post for more details.)

I urge you to contact your U.S. Representative and Senators, as well as candidates in the 2020 election, and ask them where they stand on moving toward a single-payer health insurance system, e.g., Medicare for All. The health care and related industries will lobby strenuously against this, but in the end a single-payer health care system will provide better health care and health outcomes for Americans and will save us all a lot of money.

You can find contact information for your US Representative at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and for your US Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

[1] Patel, Y.M., & Guterman, S., 12/8/17, “The evolution of private plans in Medicare,” The Commonwealth Fund (https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2017/dec/evolution-private-plans-medicare)

[2] McGuire, T.G., Newhouse, J.P., & Sinaiko, A.D., 2011, “An economic history of Medicare Part C,” The Milbank Quarterly (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3117270/pdf/milq0089-0289.pdf)

[3] Himmelstein, D.U., & Woolhandler, S., 10/7/19, “The ‘public option’ is a poison pill,” The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/insurance-health-care-medicare/

MONOPOLISTIC COMPANIES HARM THE ECONOMY AND DEMOCRACY

Forty years of plutocratic economics has resulted in monopolies and near monopolies in many business sectors due to the failure to enforce antitrust laws. This concentration of economic power, and, along with it, political power, has undermined our democracy both economically and politically. It has also contributed to rapidly growing income and wealth inequality. (For information on plutocratic economics in general, see this previous post. For more on the effects of its deregulation of business, see this post.)

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 laid the groundwork for antitrust regulation. Its purpose was to reduce the size and economic power of large, monopolistic companies. It was based on the federal government’s responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. At the time, the conglomeration of companies under trusts had come to dominate several major business sectors, such as the oil industry under the Standard Oil Trust. These trusts were monopolistic and destroyed competition.

The Sherman Act banned business activity that was “in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations”. The Sherman Act sought to balance the power of commercial, for-profit enterprises and the public interest. [1] The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 built on the Sherman Act and states that any merger is illegal if “in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly”. The reference to “any section of the country” is significant because when a few companies dominate an industry, they often have effectively divided the country up geographically so each one has a monopolistic position in some areas. Therefore, to effectively enforce antitrust laws, industry concentration should be analyzed in markets properly defined by product or service AND geography. Such an analysis often finds that market concentration is much higher than a nationwide analysis would suggest. [2]

In the 1960s, a concerted effort to undermine the historically broad economic and public interest goals of antitrust enforcement began. It was spearheaded by a group from the Chicago Law School with Robert Bork playing a leading role. (He was nominated for the Supreme Court by President Reagan in 1987 but was rejected by the Senate.) Bork and others argued that the only legitimate use of antitrust laws was to maximize consumer welfare, narrowly defined as low prices (often presumed to be the inevitable result of the economies of scale possible for large companies). This theory was adopted by pro-business economists, judges, and policy makers, including President Reagan.

Under President Reagan, antitrust enforcement was significantly scaled back and the Federal Trade Commission actually stopped collecting data on industry concentration. In eight years, President George W. Bush’s administration did not initiate a single antitrust case. [3] [4] The number of mergers grew from 2,308 in 1985 to 15,361 in 2017. [5]

Since 2000, three-quarters of U.S. industries have become more concentrated, including the technology, health care, communications, defense, and agriculture industries. This is perhaps most noticeable in the high-tech industry where Google and Facebook now control over 60% of all digital advertising and Amazon controls over half of all e-commerce. [6] From 1997 to 2012, the top four firms in any given industry saw their share of industry-wide revenue grow from 24% to 33%. [7]

There’s clear evidence that entrepreneurship and the number of start-up companies is down in the U.S. This is mostly due to dominant companies suppressing competition in multiple ways. They can block the entry of new firms simply by dominating the consumer and supplier markets. They can simply acquire competitors, especially given the lack of antitrust enforcement. Or these large companies can overwhelm start-ups in the market through fair and unfair competition using their vast resources. Among the evidence of reduced entrepreneurship and start-ups is that from 1987 to 2015 employment by companies under 10 years old has declined from 33% of the workforce to just 19%. [8]

Fewer, bigger employers have negative effects on workers and their compensation. Industry concentration means employees have fewer options, reducing their bargaining power. One reflection of this is the reduction in employment by newer companies. Furthermore, increasing numbers of companies, including low-wage, franchise businesses like McDonald’s, are forcing workers to sign non-compete agreements and franchisees to sign non-poaching agreements (banning solicitation or hiring of employees from other franchisees), further limiting workers’ options for employment, advancement, and wage growth. [9]

The growing size and reduced number of companies have exacerbated the economic divide between urban and rural areas. The large, highly profitable companies tend to be in urban areas, and people and economic vitality are drained from rural areas. Furthermore, the relatively small number of highly profitable, very large companies has made a handful of big cities the big economic winners, leaving many other cities behind.

The growing number of large, dominant companies also gives them power over suppliers. The condition of having a dominant buyer in a marketplace is called monopsony. It allows buyers like Wal Mart or Amazon to drive down suppliers’ prices, often forcing them to reduce the compensation of their workers, or in some cases, to drive the supplier out of business and take over the business for themselves. [10]

The result of industry concentration in the U.S. economy has been soaring profits, stagnant wages, and falling investment in companies’ equipment, research, and product development. In addition, service quality has fallen, along with entrepreneurship and innovation. This combination of rising profits with falling investment and stagnant worker pay violates the basic economic theory of competitive markets.

There is only one explanation: monopoly or near-monopoly conditions that allow companies to give their increased profits to owners while under-investing in human and physical capital, as well as service quality and innovation, because they can squelch competition, for example by buying up or crushing competitors and innovators. [11]

My next post will present solutions to the problem of large, monopolistic companies dominating our economy and democracy.

[1] Paul, S., 6/24/19, “The double standard of antitrust law,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/article/double-standard-antitrust-law)

[2] Abdela, A., & Steinbaum, M., Sept. 2018, “The United States has a market concentration problem,” The Roosevelt Institute (https://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-United-States-has-a-market-concentration-problem-brief-final.pdf)

[3] MacGillis, A., Jan./Feb./March 2019, “Taking the monopoly threat seriously,” Washington Monthly (https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january-february-march-2019/taking-the-monopoly-threat-seriously/)

[4] Dayen, D., 6/24/19, “In the land of the giants,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/article/land-giants)

[5] Abdela, A., & Steinbaum, M., Sept. 2018, see above

[6] MacGillis, A., Jan./Feb./March 2019, see above

[7] Shambaugh, J., Nunn, R., Breitwieser, A., & Liu, P., 6/16/18, “The state of competition and dynamism: Facts about concentration , start-ups, and related policies,” Brookings (https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-state-of-competition-and-dynamism-facts-about-concentration-start-ups-and-related-policies/)

[8] Shambaugh, J., Nunn, R., Breitwieser, A., & Liu, P., 6/16/18, see above

[9] Covert, B., 2/15/18, “Does monopoly power explain workers’ stagnant wages?” The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/does-monopoly-power-explain-workers-stagnant-wages/)

[10] Abdela, A., & Steinbaum, M., Sept. 2018, see above

[11] Covert, B., 2/15/18, see above

PLUTOCRATIC ECONOMICS HAS FAILED WORKERS

Forty years of right-wing, plutocratic economics (see this previous post for background) has produced stagnant worker compensation, decimating the middle class and leaving growing numbers of low-wage workers struggling to survive. The plutocratic economics of wealthy, elite members of society has intentionally and dramatically weakened public policies that provide support for workers and an economic safety net (including the minimum wage, unemployment benefits, and the right to join a union).

After adjusting for inflation, workers’ compensation has barely increased since 1980, in large part because:

The minimum wage’s value has been eroded by inflation and
Workers’ negotiating power with their employers has been decimated by concerted attacks on unionization and by the growing size and economic power of employers.

Currently, we are in the longest period since the establishment of the minimum wage, 12 years, without an increase in it. The $7.25 per hour federal minimum wage (about $15,000 per year for a full-time worker) has lost 17% of its purchasing power (or more than $3,000) over those 12 years. Since its peak value in February 1968 at about $22,000 per year for full-time work (adjusted for inflation), the federal minimum wage has lost 31%, or almost one-third, of its purchasing power ($6,800). [1]

As a result, minimum wage workers at Wal Mart, fast food outlets, and elsewhere do not earn enough to survive without public benefits such as food stamps, housing subsidies, subsidized health insurance, and the Earned Income Tax Credit. These public benefits for workers mean that the government and we as taxpayers are subsidizing large, very profitable companies when they pay their workers too little to live on. This is one example of government welfare for companies.

The proponents of plutocratic economics claim that raising the minimum wage will reduce the number of jobs and, therefore, hurt workers, but this ignores the obvious benefits for workers. A high estimate is that 1.3 million jobs might be lost – half of them for teenagers and many of those for adults being part-time jobs. On the other hand, wages would increase for over 27 million workers (roughly one out of every six workers). With an increase to $15 per hour (up from the current $7.25), workers would receive an overall increase in income of $44 billion. This would lift 1.3 million Americans out of poverty and significantly increase consumer spending in local economies. On the downside, companies would raise prices by an estimated 0.3% and business owners would lose $14 billion of profits (a small amount [0.07%] in a $21 trillion economy).

A study of the actual experiences in states and cities that have recently raised their minimum wages found no reductions in the number of jobs or hours at work. It did find that workers’ incomes increased and that poverty declined. [2]

Unionization is important because it allows workers to band together and increase their negotiating power when bargaining with employers for pay and benefits. The rate of unionization in the United States today is 10.5% overall (down from over 25% in the 1950s) and only 6.4% of private-sector workers are unionized. In the early 1950s, unions included over 40% of workers in manufacturing, over 60% in mining, and over 80% in the construction, transportation, communications, and utilities sectors. The attacks on unions have been very successful, to say the least, in reducing unionization and workers’ negotiating strength. By way of comparison, the rates of unionization in Scandinavia range from 81% in Iceland to 71% in Sweden to 52% in Norway. Under pressure from global trade, these rates have come down in recent years; for most of the postwar period the rate in Sweden was in the mid-80s, for example.

The disparity in unionization rates between the U.S. and the Scandinavian countries has produced a dramatic difference in economic inequality. The best measure of economic inequality is a nation’s Gini Coefficient, where a higher number indicates greater economic inequality. The scale is from zero to one with zero indicating complete economic equality (everyone has the same income) and one indicating that all of a nation’s income goes to just one person. In Denmark and Sweden, the Gini Coefficient is 0.25; in Finland and Norway, it’s 0.27; and in Iceland, it’s 0.28. However, in the United States, it’s 0.47. [3]

Employers’ power over workers has grown, not only due to reduced unionization, but also due to the growing economic power in the marketplace of fewer, larger employers. Overall, workers’ compensation has grown less than their increases in productivity since 1979 (productivity has grown 69.3% while compensation has grown only 11.6%). Previously, compensation tracked productivity growth quite closely (from 1948 to 1979 productivity grew 108.1% while compensation grew 93.2%). [4] In other words, workers are not receiving increases in pay despite increases in the value of their output per hour of work.

Instead of paying workers more for their increased output, companies have increased profits and, therefore, returns to shareholders, owners, and executives – in other words, they have increased income and wealth for plutocrats. As a result, income and wealth inequality have increased dramatically. Just three white men ‒ Jeff Bezos of Amazon, investor Warren Buffett, and Microsoft’s Bill Gates ‒ now own more wealth (a combined total of $248 billion) than the least wealthy half of all Americans (160 million people with combined wealth of $245 billion). The wealthiest 1% of Americans own 40% of all wealth. This is the highest level in at least 50 years and is higher than in any other country with an advanced economy. (Germany is closest with 25% of wealth in the hands of the top 1%). The 400 wealthiest Americans own an astonishing $2.9 trillion. [5]

Government policies set the rules for our economic markets and balance the power and interests of various parties. For 40 years, plutocratic economic policies have put returns to owners (i.e., wealthy investors including executives) ahead of the interests of workers. The result of these policies has been a dramatic growth in income and wealth inequality; the U.S. has the most unequal income distribution of any well-off democracy. [6] Economic security and the standard of living for many in the middle class has fallen dramatically, while many low-income workers are struggling just to make ends meet.

Future posts will review the politics of plutocratic economics and how it has damaged our democracy. They will also identify progressive policies that are needed to reverse its harmful effects.

[1] Economic Policy Institute, 7/15/19, “Minimum wage,” (https://www.epi.org/research/minimum-wage/)

[2] Dayen, D., 7/9/19, “Conservatives grasp at straws after CBO minimum wage analysis shows clear benefits,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/article/conservatives-grasp-straws-after-cbo-minimum-wage-analysis-shows-clear-benefits)

[3] Meyerson, H. 7/2/19, “How centrists misread Scandinavia when attacking Bernie and Elizabeth,” The American Prospect Today (https://prospect.org/article/how-centrists-misread-scandinavia-when-attacking-bernie-and-elizabeth)

[4] Economic Policy Institute, 8/27/19, “How well is the American economy working for working people?” (https://www.epi.org/files/pdf/174081.pdf)

[5] Anapol, A., 12/6/17, “Study: Wealthiest 1 percent owns 40 percent of country’s wealth,” The Hill (https://thehill.com/news-by-subject/finance-economy/363536-study-wealthiest-1-percent-own-40-percent-of-countrys-wealth)

[6] Tyler, G., 1/10/19, “The codetermination difference,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/article/codetermination-difference)

DEREGULATION HAS FAILED

The failure of 40 years of right-wing, wealthy elites’ plutocratic economics (see my previous post for background) is evident from multiple perspectives. The outcomes for workers and the middle class, along with those for the economy as a whole, have been resoundingly negative.

Proponents of plutocratic economics’ “free” markets and deregulation promised that:

Markets would be more efficient without government regulation,
Businesses would regulate themselves for the good of all, and
Social goals could be more effectively achieved by using market forces. [1]

In concert with their economic and political theories, plutocratic economics’ proponents (aka neoliberals) pushed to eliminate government regulation, stop anti-trust enforcement (which had limited the size and marketplace power of companies), reduce progressive taxation, and dramatically weaken support for workers and the economic safety net (including the minimum wage, unemployment benefits, unions, and public assistance for the poor).

Deregulation of businesses has failed more often than not, perhaps most notably in the financial industry. There, deregulation led to a series of financial scandals and collapses since the 1970s including the Savings and Loan crisis, the Enron scandal and collapse, the bursting of the Dot-com bubble, and, of course, the 2008 financial industry collapse and Great Recession. Today, we are left with a handful of bigger than ever, too big to fail, financial corporations that still have taxpayer insurance and present a significant risk to our economy.

Electricity deregulation has, contrary to the promises, raised costs for consumers, failed to stimulate green power generation, failed to modernize and strengthen the power transmission grid, and failed to provide meaningful choice to consumers.

Airline deregulation has produced bankruptcies at every major U.S. airline, resulting in cuts in workers’ compensation and in many cases costing workers their pensions. In the airline industry and elsewhere, the federal government and taxpayers, through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, have frequently had to step in to pay pension benefits to workers of corporations that declared bankruptcy. Although airline ticket prices declined somewhat after deregulation, customers face a bewildering fare system, shrinking seats and legroom, declining food service and other benefits, increasing add-on costs for luggage and even seats, fewer non-stop flights, and exorbitant penalties when plans and tickets must be changed. Studies have found that fares declined more in the 20 years before deregulation than in the 20 years afterwards, in part because more fuel-efficient planes have been the primary source of cost-savings for the airlines. [2]

Deregulation of the fossil fuel industry has led to huge oil spills into our water and onto our land, as well as accidents that have caused huge fires with the loss of lives and toxic smoke at refineries and oil platforms at sea.

Rather than the increased competition and better deals for consumers that the neoliberals promised, anti-competitive market concentration has grown – and continues to do so – with consumers and workers ending up worse off. The number of mergers has increased from 2,308 in 1985 to 15,361 in 2017. [3] In industry after industry, without anti-trust enforcement to prevent it, monopolies or near monopolies have emerged. Large companies frequently buy up innovative competitors or crush them in the marketplace. In some cases, rather than using their innovations, competitors are simply eliminated after being bought.

For example, in the technology sector, the giants, Google, Amazon, and Facebook, use their market power, control of Internet platforms, and superior access to consumer data and other resources to out-compete or steal the markets of potential rivals. [4] They use theoretically illegal predatory pricing – the selling of goods and services at below cost – and their ability to sustain financial losses in the short-term to drive competitors out of business. [5] The financial services and airline industries are also highly concentrated, along with the beer, health insurance, and medical devices industries, to highlight a few. The telecommunications, telephone / smart phone, and entertainment industries have all experienced substantial concentration with little consumer-benefiting competition.

Market concentration makes it hard for new businesses to enter the market and for small businesses to compete because suppliers and customers are tied to the dominant firms in the market. Dominant firms increase profits not by increasing efficiency, but by minimizing employees’ compensation; reducing investment in research, development, and productivity improvement; and driving down costs by using their marketplace power to squeeze suppliers. [6]

Plutocratic economics has resulted in anti-competitive consolidation, resulting in many industries with a few large, dominant companies. This does not stimulate economic growth as without competition, companies control prices, hire fewer workers, produce less, and pocket more in profits for executives and owners. [7] Huge rewards have gone to large companies, their executives, and big shareholders. As a result, economic inequality has grown sharply, workers’ wages have stagnated, the middle class has been decimated, and the number of low wage workers struggling to survive has grown substantially.

Market concentration is not good for the economy, for workers, nor for consumers. It reduces healthy competition, decreasing the incentives for innovation and investment to keep up with competitors. It depresses wages and worker mobility because there are fewer employers to choose from. As a result, economic security has disappeared for many workers and much of the middle class. Furthermore, market concentration and marketplace power have reduced entrepreneurship and the number of start-ups. [8]

Concentrated economic power in the marketplace also leads to concentrated political power for large companies and their wealthy executives and shareholders. The result is a self-reinforcing feedback loop where political power produces policies that further expand and entrench marketplace power and economic inequality.

Subsequent posts will summarize other failures of neoliberalism and plutocratic economics.

[1] Kuttner, R., 6/25/19, “Neoliberalism: Political success, economic failure,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/article/neoliberalism-political-success-economic-failure)

[2] Kuttner, R., 6/25/19, see above

[3] Abdela, A., & Steinbaum, M., Sept. 2018, “The United States has a market concentration problem,” The Roosevelt Institute (https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_comments/2018/09/ftc-2018-0074-d-0042-155544.pdf)

[4] Kuttner, R., 6/25/19, see above

[5] Sussman, S., July/August 2019, “Superpredators,” Washington Monthly (https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/july-august-2019/superpredators/)

[6] Abdela, A., & Steinbaum, M., Sept. 2018, see above

[7] Shambaugh, J., Nunn, R., Breitwieser, A., & Liu, P., 6/13/18, “The state of competition and dynamism: Facts about concentration, start-ups, and related policies,” Brookings (https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-state-of-competition-and-dynamism-facts-about-concentration-start-ups-and-related-policies/)

[8] Shambaugh, J., Nunn, R., Breitwieser, A., & Liu, P., 6/13/18, see above

DRUG COMPANY PRICE GOUGING: THE INSULIN CASE

A quintessential case of price gouging by drug companies, with serious and sometimes fatal consequences, is that of insulin. Roughly 30 million Americans have diabetes, a chronic disease where the body’s mechanism for controlling blood sugar levels isn’t working properly. About 7 million of them must take multiple doses of insulin daily to control blood sugar. Those with Type 1 diabetes, formerly referred to as early-onset or juvenile diabetes, suffer from a pancreas that doesn’t produced adequate amounts of natural insulin so they must use three to four 20-milliliter vials of manufactured insulin a month (or other equivalent forms of insulin). Failure to use insulin regularly to control blood sugar levels can be fatal or have serious long-term impacts on health, including on vision and mobility.

Insulin is a 100-year-old drug whose three developers at the University of Toronto in 1922 sold their patent rights to the University for $1 apiece. They thought this would guarantee affordable access to those needing it in perpetuity. They sold manufacturing and distribution rights to Lilly in the U.S. and Nordisk in Europe. After a year, competitors were free to enter the market.

Today, three big pharmaceutical corporations make the worldwide supply of insulin: Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Their prices for insulin have skyrocketed, tripling from 2007 to 2017, resulting in their making billions of dollars in profits from their insulin sales.

The U.S. market has 15% of global insulin users but generates 50% of worldwide revenue because prices here are so much higher than they are elsewhere. [1] For example, vials of insulin that sell for close to $300 in the U.S. sell for $30 in Canada.

Insulin for a Type 1 diabetic costs about $1,300 a month in the U.S. Because the U.S. does not regulate drug prices as other countries do, insulin’s manufacturers have increased U.S. prices dramatically in recent years. For example, a 20-milliliter vial of insulin that cost $175 fifteen years ago costs $1,487 today, eight and a half times as much. Because Medicare, the U.S. health insurance for seniors, is prohibited by law from negotiating drug prices (a gift to the industry from friendly Congress people and a friendly President), Medicare spending on insulin grew from $1.4 billion in 2007 to $13.3 billion in 2017. While some of this increase is due to increased numbers of patients using it, per patient Medicare spending on insulin increased 358% from $862 to $3,949. Out-of-pocket spending by Medicare patients themselves also increased, going from $236 million to $968 million. [2]

Estimates of the cost to produce a vial of insulin range from $2.28 to $6.16 depending on the version of insulin and other factors, [3] so the $300 retail cost represents a huge mark-up and huge profits for the drug makers. Until the 1970s, the price of insulin stayed relatively low. In the 1940s the U.S. Department of Justice leveled small anti-trust fines on entities in the Lilly supply chain, indicating the U.S. regulators would intervene if prices were jacked up. [4]

Starting in the late 1970s, changes in politics and laws created increased opportunities for drug makers to profit from the exclusive rights granted by patents on drugs and to effectively extend the longevity of patent protections by tweaking a drug or its delivery mechanism. This set the stage for the pharmaceutical industry to become the most profitable industry in America. For example, Sanofi filed for 74 different patents on its version of insulin, which meant that it could go 37 years without any competition. As of 2014, the three big insulin makers held 19 active patents on their insulin products.

Often the new, patented versions of insulin provide limited benefits to patients, despite their significantly higher prices. However, aggressive marketing campaigns and partnerships with improved delivery devices lead to prescriptions for the new more expensive, and more profitable, products.

A study published in the Internal Medicine edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association found that one in four insulin users (26%) in the U.S. had rationed their insulin use due to high costs; in other high-income countries the rate was only 6.5%. [5] Diabetics who couldn’t afford their insulin have died when they tried to do without or to ration their supply. Many others have endured financial hardships that have required them to use retirement savings, move to cheaper housing, sell possessions, or limit purchases of food and other drugs.

Even for individuals with health insurance, the high price of insulin is problematic because of increased co-payments for drugs and because deductibles they must pay before insurance coverage kicks in have, on average, quadrupled over the last 10 years.

The grassroots organizers of the #insulin4all campaign are working to change U.S. policies and make insulin affordable. Their campaign may prove to be the spark that leads to regulation and negotiation of all drug prices in the U.S. Advocacy is increasing in energy and urgency because diabetics are literally fighting for their lives as insulin makers jack up the price and they don’t see government standing up for them.

The issue of drug prices and particularly insulin prices is, finally, getting increased attention. Congress is holding hearings on insulin prices. Federal and state legislation is being considered. Colorado has passed legislation capping co-payments for insulin. Some advocates have called for nationalizing the insulin market and public manufacturing of generic drugs, including insulin.

I urge you to contact your state and federal elected representatives and to ask them to pass legislation to control the price of insulin and stop price gouging by the drug industry.

[1] Shure, N., 6/24/19, “The insulin racket,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/article/insulin-racket)

[2] Silverman, E., 6/22/19, “Insulin rationing high in US, survey finds,” The Boston Globe

[3] Silverman, E., 6/22/19, see above

[4] Shure, N., 6/24/19, see above

[5] Silverman, E., 6/22/19, see above

WHO WAS BAILED OUT AFTER THE 2008 FINANCIAL CRASH?

The 2008 financial crash and resultant bailout have been in the news recently for two reasons: 1) some critiques have been leveled at Sen. Bernie Sanders’ statement on the presidential campaign trail that no Wall St. executives went to jail and that they got a trillion-dollar bailout, and 2) a new book has come out: Crashed: How a decade of financial crises changed the world by Adam Tooze. The book has been described as insightful and telling a story that is both “opaquely complex and dazzlingly simple.” [1] In terms of Sen. Sanders’ statement, it takes a real spin doctor to dispute the truth of it (see below).

In the aftermath of the 2008 implosion of the huge Wall St. corporations, the U.S. government and Federal Reserve Bank came to the rescue. The government quickly made $700 billion available to bailout the Wall St. firms. Otherwise, twelve of the 13 largest ones probably would have gone bankrupt in late September or October of 2008 (as Lehman Brothers did before the rescue was in place and the scale of the disaster was clear). The government also bailed out the auto industry, insurance companies (e.g., AIG), and the quasi-public mortgage-purchasers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In addition, the Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) made unprecedented purchases of assets from the technically bankrupt financial corporations under the innocuous-sounding banner of “quantitative easing”, to the tune of over $4 trillion. The six largest firms alone (JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley) also borrowed about $500 billion from the Federal Reserve Bank in peak periods of need. [2] Furthermore, the Fed extended what were effectively loans to the central banks of other countries of an also unprecedented $10 trillion. Estimates of the overall contribution of the Fed to the bailout range from $7.7 trillion to $29 trillion.

In addition, the U.S. government supported the big financial corporations in a variety of other ways. For example, short-selling of 799 financial stocks was banned in 2008 to protect these companies from free market speculation, which boosted their stock prices. Emergency bank charters were given to Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley on Sept. 21, 2008, so they could borrow from the Fed as only banks can do. In October, the Fed, for the first time in history, paid interest to the banks on required reserve deposits. Shortfalls in required reserves and failed stress tests were effectively ignored. And except for one relatively low-level officer at Credit Suisse, no one and no company was criminally prosecuted or went to jail. The value of all these benefits is truly incalculable.

Therefore, pinning down a single figure for the total bailout is impossible because there were so many different pieces and the amounts in some of them fluctuated daily, given that banks borrow money from the Fed daily to meet their reserve requirements. However, to state that it was a trillion-dollar bailout is definitely true and to say that no Wall St. executives went to jail is also true for all meaningful purposes.

With all this bailout money and support for the financial corporations and the financial system, one might think that some significant money or support would have been made available to bailout out the workers and homeowners caught in the maelstrom of Wall St. malfeasance. However, precious little assistance was made available to the millions of homeowners trying to pay mortgages on homes where the mortgage was now greater than the value of the home, given that many homes had lost half their value. Very little was done for the millions of homeowners who suffered foreclosure. And it was not only individuals who suffered; whole communities – usually minority and low-income communities – were underwater due to predatory and discriminatory mortgage lending by the big financial corporations and their agents. Moreover, millions were unemployed as the economy went into a severe recession due to the malfeasance on Wall St. [3]

Two things make all this truly galling. The first is that despite the massive intervention of the U.S. government and the Fed, the rescued financial corporations were not required to change their basic mode of operation. The instability of speculative financial transactions that is endemic in their model of profitability and the huge financial rewards for employees, especially executives, was left intact, along with public insurance against losses that threaten consumers’ deposits.

The second galling outcome is that no executives of the financial corporations were punished, either through significant loss of compensation or criminal prosecution, let alone jail time. Remember, that in the 1980s Savings and Loan crisis, which was much smaller in scale, nearly 900 executives of Savings and Loan banks went to jail.

“The contrast between the solicitous care shown the culpable financial sector and the negligence shown to the innocent homeowner was startling.” [4] As a result, class-based economic inequality in the U.S. was exacerbated and economic gaps in income and wealth between Whites and Blacks grew dramatically.

The bailed out financial corporations were expected to make loans available to help households and businesses, as well as to avoid foreclosures whenever possible. When foreclosure was unavoidable, it was expected that the financial corporations would promptly resell those homes. These actions would have helped individuals, businesses, and communities recover. However, no requirements were placed on bailed out banks to do these things and, therefore, they did not happen.

The programs that were supposed to assist homeowners typically had draconian rules to prevent “undeserving” homeowners from benefiting. The story line from Wall St. and its backers on Capitol Hill was that home buyers were the ones at fault; they should have known better than to be duped by the predatory practices of the mortgage brokers or that the home buyers were simply trying to live above their means. This concern about benefiting undeserving individuals clearly did not extend to the undeserving bank and financial sector executives responsible for perpetrating fraud in the mortgage business and crashing their companies and the economy.

Similar opposition blocked the expansion of unemployment benefits and job training for workers who had lost their jobs. On the other hand, there were no significant limits put on the pay of executives whose corporations were bankrupt without the bailout, let alone requirements that executives pay back compensation they had received based on profits generated by fraudulent activities.

As the Great Recession lingered on and jobs, homes, and economic security did not return (still true today for many people), the deep anger and discontent that set in was the breeding ground for support for Trump.

The 2008 financial crisis and the bailout of the financial corporations and their executives, but not the homeowners and workers who suffered from the resultant crash, are exhibit one in the indictment of the corporate takeover of U.S. policy making. I urge you to contact your elected officials and ask them to stand up against corporatocracy and demand democracy back. Our government should work for the people, the workers and homeowners of America, not the big corporations.

[1] Bloom Raskin, S., Winter 2019, “Whose recovery was it?” The American Prospect (This article is a review and commentary on Tooze’s book.)

[2] Taibbi, M., 3/18/19, “Turns out that trillion-dollar bailout was, in fact, real,” RollingStone

[3] Bloom Raskin, S., Winter 2019, see above

[4] Bloom Raskin, S., Winter 2019, see above, page 86

U.S. CAPITALISM KILLS COMPETITION

The theory of capitalism says that free market competition will ensure quality products and services at competitive prices. Unfortunately, that theory is not the reality of U.S. capitalism today.

Deregulation and our business laws and practices, from anti-trust to financing to patent protections, have destroyed competition. Without competition, businesses have no incentives to restrain price increases, to ensure quality, or to provide consumers the choices that free market theories assume. Furthermore, monopolistic employers and business owners have little incentive to fairly compensate workers or even invest in the future of their businesses. Instead, they can and have been keeping profits high and lining their own pockets.

Rather than free markets, the U.S. economy is sea of monopoly or, at least, oligopoly, where a small group of sellers or producers control a market. For example: [1]

Four airlines control the bulk of air travel
Two corporations produce the bulk of beer
Six enormous banks / financial institutions hold over 40% of deposits and 50% of assets
Drug companies find ways to extend patents or otherwise restrict competition so they can jack up prices and make huge profits (see previous posts here, here, and here)
Two corporations control all on-line travel bookings
Two companies make nearly all the intravenous saline solution used in hospitals
Two firms control the majority of on-line advertising
Three companies control the agricultural markets for seeds and pesticides
Four firms make 89% of baby formula
Two companies make 76% of coffins
The supermarket and media industries are continuing to consolidate so that a handful of corporations control these markets
Two companies control the mobile app market

Furthermore, the oligopolists find ways, such as carving up geography or colluding (for example, generic drug makers) to make themselves effectively monopolists and charge exorbitant prices and/or deliver low quality goods and services. For example, there are many Internet service providers (ISPs) in the U.S., but three dominant providers (Comcast, Charter Communications, and AT&T, each with over 15 million subscribers) and six midsize providers (with between 3.5 and 7 million subscribers). Every other provider has under 1.3 million users. The nine dominant and midsized companies have carved up the country so that 76% of households have only one choice of Internet provider making the ISPs effectively monopolies.

The monopolists and oligopolists have used political and market place power to restrict new entrants to their markets. The rate of new business formation today is half of what it was in the late 1970s. When competition does emerge, the big, dominant companies often simply buy up the competition, sometimes to use its technology or innovations, and other times simply to eliminate it as competition.

Our anti-trust laws and regulators have failed to stop anti-competitive acquisitions. In the last ten years, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft have purchase 436 companies and startups without a single challenge from anti-trust regulators. [2] As a result, with almost every purchase consumers make, we are paying a toll, an excessive price, to one or another of the many monopolies or sets of oligopolies.

This trend of business and economic concentration, which allows companies to build high levels of market share and power, began in the 1980s under President Reagan and supposedly “conservative” Republicans. An important symbolic step in this trend was when the Federal Trade Commission stopped collecting data on market concentration in 1981.

Capitalism without real competition is not capitalism; it’s monopoly or oligopoly. The monopolists and oligopolists have very strong incentives to preserve their dominant status. Until the American public responds forcefully, and demands that its elected representatives do so as well, the number and size of monopolies and oligopolies are likely to grow.

Unfortunately, the mass media, which could provide the information to the public on the growing economic concentration, lack of competition, and harm to consumers and our politics, are highly concentrated corporations themselves. Therefore, our mass media have a vested interest in not telling us this story.

In the early 1900s, when the U.S. government fought back against the giant trusts such as Standard Oil and U.S. Steel, anti-trust laws and anti-monopoly regulatory actions were viewed as a check on excessive private power, and competition was seen as necessary to preserve opportunity, as well as human freedom and liberty. We need to fight back against the excessive private power of economic concentration again today.

An important piece of reclaiming our democracy from the plutocrats is reclaiming our economy from the monopolists and oligopolists. Some of the 2020 presidential candidates, especially Senator Elizabeth Warren, are talking about this and presenting policy proposals (e.g., here and here) to do so.

I encourage you to follow the presidential candidates’ proposals and the discussion of America’s Winner-Take-All, anti-competitive, faux free market, monopolistic capitalist economic system.

P.S. Sorry for the recent lack of posts to this blog. I was managing a campaign for the local Select Board (i.e., town council). The election was April 2 and we were successful! Over the last 3 years, we’ve replaced 4 of the 5 Select Board members with strong progressives, including two young mothers. A real turnaround!! All politics is local and political change does start at the grassroots.

[1] Dayen, D., Winter 2019, “The new economic concentration,” The American Prospect

[2] Dayen, D., Winter 2019, see above

WHY WE NEED EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT REGULATION

The need for effective government regulation has been highlighted by recent events including the crash of an airliner in Africa and a mass shooting in New Zealand. We rely on federal regulators to keep us safe and to make informed and independent decisions about the safety of consumer products and services. Deregulation and privatization over the past 40 years, which have accelerated in recent years, have weakened federal regulation and increased risks for consumers and the public.

The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) mission is to keep air travel safe. However, after the crash of a Boeing 737 in Africa, the second for that model airplane in four months, the FAA did not order this plane to be grounded, even though virtually every other airplane regulator in the world did. President Trump, of all people, overruled the FAA and ordered the plane to be temporarily grounded.

Because of the weakening of the FAA and privatization of some of its functions, the FAA relies on Boeing employees to certify that Boeing planes are safe. It’s hard to imagine a more obvious conflict of interest or lack of independent decision making, when the public’s safety should be the sole decision-making criterion.

The FAA’s regulatory mission has been compromised, at least in part, because Boeing is very active politically. It spent $15 million on lobbying in 2018. Its political action committee and employees have donated over $8 million to the election campaigns of members of Congress and presidential candidates since 2016. Trump’s decision was somewhat surprising because Boeing’s president and CEO frequently visits with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort and at the White House. He also gave $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee. A former Boeing executive has also been appointed acting Secretary of Defense by Trump. [1] [2] All these activities by Boeing and its executives are meant to increase its influence over policy makers who oversee the FAA and its budget.

On a different front, Facebook allowed a mass shooting by a White supremacist in New Zealand to be live streamed and widely viewed over its platform. YouTube / Google and Twitter were guilty of allowing this shocking video to be broadly shared. Despite safeguards these companies claim to have in place to prevent this, it took them many hours to remove this video from their platforms. And this isn’t the first time violent, disturbing videos have been widely shared on these platforms. Furthermore, Facebook had been used by the shooter and other like-minded individuals to communicate and share ideas and plans. [3] [4]

Facebook has also faced strong criticism for its repeated failures to protect the privacy of individuals’ data – even after it had promised regulators that it would do so, including in a 2011 consent agreement with the Federal Trade Commission. [5] It has also faced criticism for allowing the spread of false information and inflammatory, racist, bigoted, and terrorist messaging by individuals and groups who were able to establish accounts on Facebook often with false identities or to hijack the accounts of legitimate Facebook users. It has also allowed groups that traffic in such mindsets and mis-information to flourish on its platform, exacerbating extremism and societal divisions, tensions, and hatred. [6]

Finally, Facebook blocked an advertisement by presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren that promoted her policy proposal to regulate and break up huge, monopolistic technology corporations, such as Facebook. Facebook relented and let the advertisement run after a firestorm of criticism.

Clearly, Facebook and other social media platforms need better and stronger government regulation. Government regulators need to figure out how to better protect citizens from mis-use of personal information; on-line sharing of violent videos, inflammatory content, and false information; discrimination by platform operators; and hackers, bullies, and trolls. Ultimately, if regulators can’t get these companies to correct these problems, the social media companies should be forced to shutdown services they can’t run responsibly, such as live-stream video sharing.

As a third example, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was created in the aftermath of the 2008 financial collapse in which millions of Americans lost their homes, their savings, and/or their jobs. The collapse occurred because Wall St. financial firms were weakly regulated and were able to engage in fraud and speculative investing that lost huge amounts of money. [7] The CFPB is an example of a federal regulator that was created in the wake of a huge scandal but is now being hampered and weakened by elected officials in response to campaign contributions and heavy lobbying from regulated industries. (See previous posts here, here, here, and here for more background.)

Recently, President Trump and many members of Congress, especially Republicans but including some Democrats, have been working to roll back regulation of payday lenders that the CFPB spent five years carefully crafting. These lenders exploit financially stressed individuals who need a short-term loan until their next payday. The lenders charge annual interest rates as high as 400% and make loans they know the individual is unlikely to be able to pay back on time. When the borrower defaults, the lender then renews the loan (often again and again), typically with additional fees each time, capturing the borrower as a perpetual revenue stream. The payday lending industry makes most of its profits from these financially distressed and desperate repeat borrowers. [8] [9]

Clearly, we need the CFPB to protect consumers from abusive, predatory, and fraudulent behavior by financial companies and to protect our economy from the likelihood of another financial collapse like the one in 2008.

We rely on, or perhaps at this point in time I should say that we should be able to rely on, these and other regulators, such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Education, to protect us. However, due to regulatory failures, we are increasingly experiencing dangerous consumer products from manufacturers and importers, serious pollutants in our air and water, and fraudulent, for-profit colleges. Weakened federal regulators and increased influence of regulated industries over the regulators are to blame.

We, as citizens and voters in a democracy, and our elected representatives need to realize how important strong, independent regulation is to our health and safety. This is important to us individually and to the functioning of our economy. Regulators’ sole focus must be to protect the health and safety of consumers, workers, and the public. They must be truly independent of the industries they regulate and must have the necessary resources to effectively carry out their responsibilities.

[1] Robinson, M. S., 3/15/19, “We shouldn’t depend on Boeing to tell us whether Boeing planes are safe to fly,” The Boston Globe

[2] Lardner, R., & Lemire, J., 3/14/19, “Boeing packs massive lobbying arm,” The Boston Globe from the Associated Press

[3] Editorial, 3/15/19, “New Zealand mosque attack should be a wake up call for big tech,” The Boston Globe

[4] Pham, S., 3/15/19, “New Zealand shooting video,” CNN Business

[5] LaForgia, M., & Rosenberg, M., 3/14/19, “US aims probe at Facebook’s data-sharing,” The Boston Globe from The New York Times

[6] Schiffrin, A., Winter 2019, “The digital destruction of democracy,” The American Prospect

[7] Warren, E., 9/17/18, “10 years after Lehman collapse, Washington is back to its old tricks,” The Boston Globe

[8] Sweet, K., 10/27/18, “Federal agency eyes looser payday loan rules,” The Boston Globe from the Associated Press

[9] Gordon, M., 3/8/19, “Fresh scrutiny for consumer watchdog,” The Boston Globe from t/he Associated Press

PRIVATE WEALTH IS MADE ON PUBLIC INVESTMENTS

Private companies and individuals benefit from public investments in many ways. You may remember Senator Elizabeth Warren saying back in 2014 that “Nobody got rich on their own. Nobody. People worked hard, they built a business, God bless, but they moved their goods on roads the rest of us helped build, they hired employees the rest of us helped educate, they plugged into a power grid the rest of us helped build,” they are protected by police and firefighters that we all pay for, and so forth. [1]

Clearly, successful companies and individuals owe their success in part to public infrastructure and investments. Therefore, they should pay their fair share in taxes to support public spending on both the infrastructure they depend on and also to invest in the future so other individuals and companies can succeed as they did.

Another way that public investment supports and benefits private individuals and companies is that the federal government invests heavily in basic research that is then used by the private sector to develop products and services.

One example of this is that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends $30 billion each year on drug research and development (R&D). The pharmaceutical industry routinely justifies the high prices of drugs by citing the high cost of R&D to bring new drugs to market. This rationale is overstated from many perspectives (see my previous blog on drug pricing), but Representative Ocasio-Cortez shed new light on this overblown claim in a hearing in Congress earlier this year.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez asked Dr. Aaron Kesselheim [2] whether the public was receiving any return on the investments in drug R&D made by the NIH when they led to highly profitable drugs. His answer, “No, … when those products are … handed off to a for-profit company, there aren’t licensing deals that bring money back into the coffers of the NIH.” [3]

Every one of the 210 new drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2010 and 2016 benefited from NIH funded R&D.

The U.S. government is the biggest venture capital investor in the world. Examples outside of pharmaceuticals abound. The Internet grew out of the 1960s ARAPNET program funded by the Defense Department. Touchscreen technology was developed at a publicly-funded university using National Science Foundation grants. GPS technology began as a 1970s Defense Department program. Voice recognition technology came out of a project of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Every one of the 12 key technologies of smart phones grew out of government-funded research projects. The Department of Energy has made over $35 billion in loans to high-risk clean technology projects, including Tesla’s development of electric cars. [4]

Unfortunately, the U.S. public is not getting the return it deserves on these investments. One way to get a public return is to tax the profits of companies using technologies in which the government has invested. Currently however, some of these companies pay very little or nothing in taxes. Furthermore, the 2017 tax cuts reduced corporate taxes to a near-record low. In addition to taxes, in countries such as Germany and Finland, the government obtains partial ownership or royalty payments from companies that benefit from public investments.

Part of the reason the public does not get a return on public investments in the U.S. is that our political system has been skewed to favor the interests of the private sector through our campaign finance system, lobbying, and the revolving door between government and private sector jobs. For example, over the last ten years, the pharmaceutical industry has spent almost $2.5 billion lobbying Congress. This includes hundreds of millions of dollars spent to influence the drug coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act, which produce about $35 billion in additional profits for the pharmaceutical corporations.

Our elected officials and government regulators need to begin insisting that private companies and individuals provide the public – the taxpayers – with a reasonable return on public investments, including everything from roads, bridges, and air transportation, to our education system, to research and development. Fair taxation is one way to do this, but other avenues, such as partial ownership and royalty payments, should be explored as well.

[1] Senator Elizabeth Warren, August 2012, campaign event https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHFHznu-N-M (30 seconds in)

[2] Dr. Kesselheim is a doctor and a lawyer. He is an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. He is an expert on the effects of intellectual property laws and regulatory policies on pharmaceutical development, the drug approval process, the costs, availability, and use of prescription drugs, and bioethics. (https://bioethics.hms.harvard.edu/person/faculty-members/aaron-kesselheim)

[3] Karma, R., 3/6/19, “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the myth of American innovation,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/article/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-and-myth-american-innovation)

[4] Karma, R., 3/6/19, see above

EFFECTS OF THE 2017 CORPORATE TAX CUTS

There are new data on the effects of the federal tax cuts enacted in December 2017 by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). They are not what their Republican proponents promised. They promised that corporations would use their big tax cuts to create new jobs, hire new workers, and improve workers’ pay and benefits. And they promised the tax cuts would pay for themselves and not increase the federal debt. (See this previous post for some background information.)

The tax cuts did dramatically increase profits for corporations. Corporate profits for the biggest 500 corporations (the S&P 500) grew by almost 21% in 2018. At the six biggest U.S. banks, profits grew almost 30% to a record $120 billion. [1] AT&T projects profits will be up $3 billion in 2018 and Amazon doubled its profits to $11.2 billion.

So, what did corporations do with their record profits?

Corporations have rewarded shareholders, first and foremost. In 2018, they spent $1 trillion buying up their own shares of stock and paid out $500 billion in dividends to shareholders. Both figures are records. Because of foreign ownership of stock in US corporations and of corporations or subsidiaries in the US, a third of the money spent on stock buybacks and dividends goes to foreign nationals. Because this money doesn’t get spent in the US economy, the tax cuts probably made America poorer, not richer. [2] US corporations also spent a record $400 billion on cash acquisitions of other companies, which doesn’t add to the economy or benefit workers. [3]

Stock buybacks boost a stock’s prices, rewarding shareholders (not workers) and corporate executives, whose pay is almost always tied to the price of the stock. Senators Sanders and Schumer have proposed a law that would ban stock buybacks for any corporation that pays workers less than $15 per hour. [4]

Stock buybacks were illegal until 1982, which is roughly (and probably not wholly coincidentally) the same time wages stopped rising for most Americans. Before then, a bigger share of corporate profits was used to increase workers’ wages, rewarding them for their increased productivity. [5]

Given that the great bulk of the corporate tax cuts have been passed through to stockholders via dividends and stock buybacks, and given that 84% of stocks are owned by the wealthiest 10% of the population, the other 90% of residents will see little if any benefit from the corporate tax cuts. Therefore, these corporate tax cuts contribute to growing income and wealth inequality.

The creation of new jobs and the growth in wages have been modest. There certainly hasn’t been the boom in the economy or wages that Trump and the Republicans claimed would happen. Moreover, the largest corporations, which benefited the most from the tax cuts, have NOT been creating jobs or boosting workers’ wages.

The 1,000 largest public corporations in the U.S. have CUT nearly 140,000 jobs since the passage of the tax cut law. For example, General Motors recently announced plans to close several plants and cut 15,000 jobs, despite receiving a roughly $500 million benefit from the tax cuts.

AT&T cut over 10,000 jobs in 2018 and is closing three U.S. call centers, despite an estimated $3 billion annual increase in profits due to the tax cut. Although AT&T’s CEO had promised to create jobs and bolster its workforce with the benefits of the tax cuts, AT&T has only paid a one-time, $1,000 bonus to its employees at a cost of $200 million, which is only 7% of one year’s increase in profits. Meanwhile, three-quarters of its overall 2018 profits were spent on dividends and stock buybacks that benefit shareholders, including executives, and not its workforce. [6]

For the Wall Street financial corporations, profits for the first half of 2018 were up 11% at $13.7 billion, after rising 42% in 2017. The average salary in these firms jumped 13% to $422,500. Jobs in the financial industry account for less then 5% of private sector jobs in New York City, but 21% of private sector wages. [7] Wages for these highly-paid workers are rising, but not for most workers.

Due to the tax cut, federal tax revenue on corporate income plunged $130 billion (45%) from 2017 to 2018, from $290 billion to $160 billion. [8] Furthermore, Amazon, for example, paid no federal income taxes for the second year in a row despite having profits of $17 billion over those two years. [9]

The federal deficit is increasing and is estimated to be $830 billion for 2018 and to climb to $1,000 billion next year (i.e., $1 trillion) and remain at that level for subsequent years. The annual deficit had been declining under President Obama both in terms of dollars ($585 billion in 2016) and as a portion of the overall economy (i.e., 3.1% percent of Gross Domestic Product [GDP]). Under President Trump, it has jumped in dollars ($830 billion) and to 4.0% percent of GDP. [10] So, clearly the tax cuts are not paying for themselves.

Moreover, the increase in the federal deficit and the cost of interest on the growing federal debt will result in future cuts to government programs or increases in other taxes. These cuts or increases are much more likely to fall on the less wealthy 90% of the population.

Therefore, it’s a near certainty that the great majority of Americans will be worse off due to the Trump and Republican corporate tax cuts of 2017.

[1] Levitt, H., & Abelson, M., 1/16/19, “It’s official: Wall Street topped $100 billion in profit,” The Wall Street Journal

[2] Krugman, P., 1/1/19, “The Trump tax cut: Even worse than you’ve heard,” The New York Times

[3] Wursthorn, M., 12/16/18, “The rocky stock market stills pays dividends to investors,” The Wall Street Journal

[4] Inequality Weekly newsletter, 2/18/19, Inequality.org (https://inequality.org/resources/inequality-weekly/)

[5] Reich, R., 3/21/18, “The buyback boondoggle is beggaring America,” The American Prospect (http://prospect.org/article/buyback-boondoggle-beggaring-america)

[6] Johnson, J., 1/7/19, “After promising more jobs from Trump tax cut, report shows AT&T has ‘done just the opposite’ by slashing over 10,000 jobs in 2018,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/01/07/after-promising-more-jobs-trump-tax-cuts-report-shows-att-has-done-just-opposite)

[7] Talking Points, 9/18/18, “Wall Street salaries at highest level since 2008,” The Boston Globe

[8] Krugman, P., 1/1/19, see above

[9] Inequality Weekly newsletter, 2/18/19, see above

[10] Amadeo, K., 2/12/19, “US budget deficit by year, compared to GDP, debt increase, and events,” The Balance (https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306)

CONTROLLING DRUG PRICES

Clearly, we need better regulation of drug prices and the drug industry in the U.S. Unwarranted, steep increases in drugs’ prices and higher prices than in other countries are key indicators of the need for better regulation to lower prices. And, as recent investigations have uncovered, this applies to the generic drug makers as well as the brand name drug makers. It is estimated that if there were a truly free market for prescription drugs in the U.S., they would cost $80 billion instead of $430 billion, an annual savings of $350 billion. (See my previous post for more information.)

Three bills have been introduced in Congress to address the high and rapidly rising costs of prescription drugs in the U.S. They have been introduced in the Senate by Senator Sanders of Vermont and in the House by Representatives Khanna of California and Cummings of Maryland.

First, the Prescription Drug Price Relief Act would terminate patents, ending monopoly rights, for any drug whose price exceeded the median (middle) price among five comparable countries: Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan. Drug prices in these countries are roughly half of what they are in the U.S., so our drug prices would come down substantially under this law. It is expected that drug companies would lower prices voluntarily if this law is passed; they wouldn’t want to lose their patent protections because, if they did, competition would likely drive prices even lower.

Second, the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Act would allow Medicare to negotiate the prices it pays for drugs. Given that it spends roughly $100 billion a year on drugs, almost a quarter of all drug purchasing, it has substantial negotiating power. When the Medicare drug benefit was created, the Republicans in control of Congress and President George W. Bush did the pharmaceutical industry a huge favor by prohibiting Medicare from negotiating drug prices and also prohibiting the importation of drugs. The Veterans’ Administration and every private health insurance company, as well as every other country, save substantial amounts of money by negotiating drug prices with the drug manufacturers.

(In a classic case of the revolving door between government and industry, Representative Tauzin, chair of the committee that wrote the Medicare prescription drug law, resigned two months after the bill was signed into law to become the head of the pharmaceutical industry’s trade association at an estimated salary of $2 million. His pay would increase to $11.6 million five years later.)

Third, the Affordable and Safe Prescription Drug Importation Act would allow the importation of drugs from other countries with safety standards comparable to those in the U.S., such as Canada and Germany. This would be a step toward a truly free market, something our business community rhetorically supports, and would significantly reduce drug prices given that prices in these countries are roughly half of what they are in the U.S. The charge by opponents that this would let unsafe drugs into the country rings hollow because many of our drug companies themselves import the drugs they sell or ingredients for them – largely from China.

I urge you to contact your U.S. Representative and Senators to ask them to support these three bills. It is time to reduce the exorbitant profits of the drug makers by reducing the exorbitant prices of the drugs they sell. Furthermore, reducing their high profit margins would reduce the incentive to engage in fraudulent practices to promote additional sales of their drugs.

BAD BEHAVIOR IS PERVASIVE IN THE DRUG INDUSTRY

The bad behavior in the drug industry that has gotten the most attention is price gouging on brand name drugs. However, the bad behavior is more pervasive than just that.

The solution to price gouging on brand name drugs has typically been to wait for their patents to expire and assume that competition from generic drug makers would then drive prices down. The pharmaceutical industry has fought back against this by finding ways to extend their patents, for example by tweaking their drugs or the way they are delivered (e.g., pill, gel, slow-release formulation, etc.). The brand name drug makers have also paid generic drug companies not to release generic versions of their drugs. (See my previous posts on 1/2/18 and 1/13/18 for more detail.)

Recently, it’s come to light that generic drug makers have apparently been engaged in “illegal price-fixing schemes of massive proportion.” [1] An anti-trust lawsuit based on two drugs began in 2016 and has now grown to include 300 drugs and 16 generic drug makers. Consumers, health insurers, hospitals, and taxpayers have been paying illegally set high prices for antibiotics and medications for diabetes, asthma, high blood pressure, arthritis, anxiety, and much more.

The alleged collusion appears to have transformed the generic drug industry from a highly competitive and price-driven business into one where coordinated price increases occur regularly for identical or similar drugs. These price increases occur for no reason (other than greed) and are reminiscent of price hikes by brand name drug makers. However, in the case of generic drugs, claims of high research and development costs are irrelevant and big price increases shouldn’t be possible because they aren’t protected by drug patents.

For example, the cost of insulin, the life-saving drug used to manage diabetes, doubled between 2012 and 2016. Price increases occurred in a near lockstep manner across different manufacturers and different types of insulin. In January 2019, one drug maker’s prices on its insulin products increased by between 4.4% and 5.2%, while another manufacturer, simultaneously, raised its insulin prices by 5.2%. [2] In another example, Albuterol, a decades-old generic asthma medication sold by drug makers Mylan and Sun, saw its price from both manufacturers jump simultaneously from 13 cents a tablet to $4.70. (Price spikes in other generic drugs, such as the EpiPen, were highlighted in previous posts on 9/22/16 and 10/16/16.)

Generic drugs are a $100 billion a year business and represent 90% of all prescriptions. Therefore, the costs of this price fixing are undoubtedly in the billions of dollars. Forty-seven states are now plaintiffs in the expanding civil lawsuit, where new information keeps emerging and defendants are being added. Two former executives of Heritage Pharmaceuticals have pled guilty and are cooperating with prosecutors in a parallel federal criminal case.

On a different front, bad behavior in the marketing of brand name opioids is the target of increasing legal action. Executives of Insys Therapeutics are facing federal charges of racketeering, conspiracy, and mail fraud for their tactics in selling highly addictive fentanyl spray. They are charged with conspiracy to bribe and incentivize doctors, clinicians, pharmacists, and other medical professionals to prescribe the powerful opioid, including to patients who did not need it. Insys employees also contacted insurers, fraudulently claiming to be employees of medical practitioners, to lie about patients’ conditions so the insurer would pay for their fentanyl. Two executives, the former CEO and the head of sales, have pled guilty and are cooperating with prosecutors. Several doctors, a physician’s assistant, a nurse, and a former Insys sales representative (the CEO’s wife) have already been convicted. Insys has agreed to pay $150 million to settle civil and criminal charges. [3]

Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, misled prescribers and patients about the risk of addiction to OxyContin and worked to blame patients for becoming addicted. It engaged in a sophisticated and extensive marketing campaign that “educated” doctors about undertreatment of pain. It failed to report illegal activity, including blatant over-prescribing of OxyContin that clearly indicated sales in the black market. The company and three executives pled guilty in 2007 to federal charges of fraudulent marketing, with the company paying $600 million in fines.

There are scores of on-going lawsuits by states, local officials, and individuals against Purdue and other opioid makers. The Massachusetts Attorney General’s lawsuit and investigative reporting by the media are publicly revealing evidence against Purdue that was previously kept secret under plea deals engineered by Purdue and its executives. [4]

Learning the full truth about the marketing of opioids by U.S. drug makers still has a long way to go. We know enough to conclude that tens of thousands of lives could have been saved if our drug makers had not engaged in fraudulent practices or if information from earlier court cases had been made public instead of being kept secret under the terms of plea deals. [5] (See previous posts on the opioid crisis and drug makers here, here, here, and here, with a post on solutions here.)

Patients in the U.S. bought $430 billion of prescriptions drugs in 2018 that probably would have cost less than $80 billion in a truly free market, without patents and other constraints. This $350 billion difference is five times what we spend on food stamps, over eight times what the federal government spends on K-12 education and two-thirds of all state and local spending on K-12 education, and over 20 times what the federal government spends on Head Start and child care combined. [6]

Clearly, the prescription drug market in the U.S. is ineffectively regulated. Drug manufacturers have such huge profit margins that there are enormous incentives to use fraudulent methods to increase drug sales. These methods include bribing those who write prescriptions, misrepresenting the safety and effectiveness of drugs, pushing their inappropriate use, and more. This type of inappropriate, aggressive marketing is a major cause of the opioid epidemic and thousands of deaths. Predatory price increases and illegal price fixing by drug manufacturers are costing consumers, health insurers, and others billions of dollars a year that are pure profit for the pharmaceutical industry.

My next post will present steps that can be taken to control drug costs.

[1] Rowland, C., 12/10/18, “Price-fixing probes on drugs expand,” The Boston Globe from The Washington Post

[2] Silverman, E., 1/25/19, “Feeling the needle,” The Boston Globe

[3] Cramer, M., 1/10/19, “Former CEO pleads guilty to conspiracy in fentanyl marketing,” The Boston Globe

[4] Joseph, A., 1/16/19, “Opioid maker sought to put blame on addicted,” The Boston Globe

[5] Meier, B., 12/26/18, “Opioid makers are the big winners in lawsuit settlements,” The New York Times

[6] Baker, D., 1/14/19, “Three Bernie Sanders bills to arrest the highway robbery in the prescription drug market,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/article/three-bernie-sanders-bills-arrest-highway-robbery-prescription-drug-market)

FIGHTING TAX AVOIDANCE BY THE WEALTHY

A recent Op Ed in the Boston Globe caught my attention and I couldn’t resist sharing it. If you want to understand how wealthy individuals and corporations use off-shore tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of taxes and what we can do about it, this article provides answers. [1]

The best estimate is that 11.5% of personal wealth (i.e., $8.7 trillion), globally, is stashed in off-shore tax havens.
This costs the U.S. government an estimated $32 billion a year in lost tax revenue from individuals. (Other countries’ governments probably lose $140 billion a year in tax revenue.)
In addition, corporations dodge about $70 billion a year in U.S. taxes by using off-shore tax havens. This represents about 20% (one-fifth) of what the U.S. does collect in corporate income taxes each year. (Other countries’ governments probably lose $60 billion a year in tax revenue.)
The roughly $100 billion per year the U.S. is losing to off-shore tax dodging is what the federal government spends on Food Stamps, other nutrition programs (such as school lunches), the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Head Start, child care subsidies, and welfare COMBINED.
Taxing corporate income based on what is called formulary apportionment would stop this tax avoidance. Under this approach, a corporation would pay U.S. taxes based on the portion of its sales that are in the U.S., regardless of any accounting gimmicks or other strategies that made it look like the income from those sales was in another country. This tax approach is in wide use today; many states use it to calculate state corporate income taxes. It is a tax approach that has been used since the days of multi-state railroad construction in the 1800s.
Stopping individuals from using offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes would require international cooperation. Today, the IRS has a comprehensive system for tracking earned income. Even if you move from state to state or out of the country, the income you earn is reported to the IRS and you pay income taxes based on your total income. States with income taxes track income that you earn out-of-state and require you to pay state income tax on it. A similar approach should be applied to tracking other kinds of income and ownership of financial securities or assets that produce income. The U.S. passed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act in 2010 that requires foreign banks, including the notoriously secretive Swiss and Cayman Island banks, to share information with the IRS on accounts held by American clients. This is a starting point for the international cooperation needed to reduce tax dodging by the wealthy that hurts the U.S. and many other countries.

Tax avoidance by the wealthy contributes to the astronomical and growing inequality of wealth and income. It also means that everyone else must pay more in taxes to make up for the lost taxes when wealthy individuals and corporations don’t pay their fair share.

[1] Scharfenberg, D., 1/21/18, “A world without tax havens,” The Boston Globe

FIGHTING THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC

A recent Op Ed in the Boston Globe caught my attention and I couldn’t resist sharing. If you want to know what we can and should do to truly fight the opioid epidemic, it provides the answers.

Here’s a summary of its recommendations for fighting the opioid epidemic: [1]

To seriously tackle the opioid epidemic, the federal government needs to spend $4 – $5 billion a year on the effort for the next 10 years.
Laws and regulations at the state and federal levels must ensure that health insurance covers addiction treatment, mental health services, and other services that will reduce opioid addiction and successfully treat those who experience addiction.
Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act (aka Obama Care), and perhaps other initiatives need to ensure that as many Americans as possible have health insurance to pay for treatment.
Through oversight and research, addiction treatment must be as effective as possible.
Pharmaceutical corporations must be held accountable, financially and otherwise, for their significant role in creating the opioid addiction crisis. They should be required to make substantial contributions to treatment costs, including making addiction-related medications available and affordable.
Federal laws and regulations should prohibit direct-to-consumer marketing of prescription drugs. Only one other country in the world allows this and it is a relatively recent phenomenon in the U.S. The big pharmaceutical corporations spend over $5 billion a year advertising drugs, increasing sales but leading to inappropriate use and overuse of drugs.
Everyone, in the public sector and in private life, should address addiction as a health and public health problem, not a criminal justice issue, and should work to de-stigmatize it.
The federal government needs to increase the effectiveness of efforts to reduce the smuggling of opioids into the country, including diplomatic efforts with Mexico and China, particularly focused on stopping the flow of Fentanyl into the U.S.

[1] Tamasi, R.V., 1/22/18, “How to fight the opioid epidemic,” The Boston Globe

THE GREED OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY Part 2

The pharmaceutical industry can engage in the unethical and sometimes illegal practices that I’ve highlighted in previous posts [1] because they have:

Monopolistic power in the market place due to limited competition,
An absence of government regulation, and
Political power to block or weaken regulation and oversight due to campaign spending, lobbying, and the revolving door of personnel moving between these corporations and government regulatory positions.

The result is that the greed of the executives of these corporations is unconstrained by market place competition, government regulations, their ethics, or, in some cases, even legality. The examples presented in my previous posts have not been isolated incidents or past bad behavior that has been rectified. This behavior by the pharmaceutical corporations is an on-going pattern.

A 2010 study found that the U.S. prices of prescription drugs were, on average, double what those same drugs cost in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. And things have only gotten worse since then. As a result, one out of five Americans was unable to afford medicines prescribed by their doctors, while the five largest drug corporations had profits of a combined $50 billion in 2015. As Bernie Sanders wrote, “people go to the doctor because they are sick, they get a diagnosis from their doctor, but they can’t afford the treatment. Then they get sicker. Does this make any sense to anyone?” [2]

As part of their price gouging strategies, drug companies will go to great lengths to block competition. For example, Allergan corporation has transferred six drug patents to the St. Regis Mohawk Indian tribe. Because the tribe is a sovereign entity, it is immune from a type of challenge to drug patents that low-cost generic drug makers sometimes use to get the right to produce a generic version of a drug. It is expected that this will become a popular strategy to delay the availability of cheaper, generic versions of drugs, unless Congress intervenes and changes the law. Allergan will pay the tribe only $15 million a year under the deal for the right to continue to sell the drugs, which had $1.4 billion in sales last year.

For a different drug, Allergan tried to avoid competition from a generic version by pulling the drug from the market and forcing patients to buy a new, more expensive version. This move was blocked by a federal appeals court. By the way, Allergan has also moved its headquarters to Ireland to avoid U.S. taxes. [3]

There is no reason to believe that the behavior of pharmaceutical corporations is going to change on its own. Clearly, the free market and competition are not going to stop it. Public outrage, negative publicity, and criticism from elected officials may blunt the worst of the behavior, but it will not stop it.

The behavior of the pharmaceutical industry (which is evident in other industries like the financial industry as well) is not the way the economy should work in a democracy. This behavior is that of a corporatocracy, where large corporations are in control of both our (supposedly free) market place and our (supposedly democratic) government.

Only strong legislation from Congress and strong leadership from regulatory agencies in the executive branch of government will stop these harmful and greedy business practices of the pharmaceutical corporations (and other large corporations). The opioid crisis and the fueling of it by illegal and irresponsible marketing of narcotic prescription drugs has made this absolutely clear.

I urge you to contact your U.S. Representative and Senators and ask them to:

Support strong legislation to regulate the pharmaceutical industry,
Only confirm executive branch appointees (include the Secretary of Health and Human Services) who have a clear track record of supporting strong regulation of the drug corporations, including their drug pricing and marketing of narcotics, and
Pass legislation that not only allows, but requires, Medicare and insurance companies participating in the Affordable Care Act to negotiate drug prices with suppliers to receive the best price based on what other countries pay. A good place to start would be to ask them if they support the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2017, which would allow the government to negotiate directly with drug companies to lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries, much like the Veterans Health Administration and Medicaid do today.

As we approach the Congressional and state level elections of 2018, I encourage you to scrutinize and ask about candidates’ positions on these issues. Then we can elect candidates who support strong regulation of drug corporations, who will take meaningful steps to control drug prices, and who will seriously tackle the opioid crisis and the pharmaceutical industry practices that have led to it.

[1] You can go to any of the blog posts on my site and click on the categories in the right hand column to find other posts on corporate behavior or corporate power and influence to read more about unethical and illegal practices by large corporations.

[2] Sanders, B., 2016, “Our revolution: A future to believe in,” St. Martin’s Press, NY, NY. Page 327.

[3] Silverman, E., 9/19/17, “This CEO’s latest move is raiding eyebrows,” The Boston Globe

THE GREED OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY Part 1

The unconstrained greed of pharmaceutical corporations is abundantly clear on multiple fronts:

Huge price increases on existing drugs with no reasonable justification (See my previous posts on this here and here.)
Inhibiting competition however possible (See my previous posts that include this topic here and here.)
Blocking regulation and oversight (See my previous post here.)
Selling and distributing narcotics that are clearly being diverted to the black market (See my previous posts on this here, here, and here.)

Despite Trump’s campaign rhetoric about bringing down the cost of drugs, his administration has not taken any significant steps to make drugs more affordable. Roughly 45 million Americans don’t buy drugs that are prescribed for them because they can’t afford them.

President Trump has nominated Alex Azar to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. Azar was the CEO of the drug corporation Eli Lilly when it increased the price of an insulin product from $74 to $269. In Sweden, the same medicine is sold for the (still profitable) price of $18.38. Insulin is the life-saving drug needed by the 30 million Americans with diabetes. [1]

The production of insulin is effectively controlled by a cartel of three drug corporations, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, that produce more than 90% of the insulin products in the world. Because of the inflated prices in the U.S., the typical American with Type 1 diabetes spends about $571 each month on insulin. Many can’t afford the full amount they need, so they risk serious health consequences by stretching their supply and under-medicating their diabetes. Some die as a result. Worldwide, the leading cause of death for a child with Type 1 diabetes is lack of insulin.

The pharmaceutical corporations’ typical response to criticism of drug price increases is that they need the increases to pay for research and development (R&D). However, this is simply not true. [2] Insulin, for example, was developed at a publicly funded lab at the University of Toronto in 1921. Eli Lilly was a small company when it signed an agreement with the University for the right to sell insulin in 1922. Clearly, greed, not R&D costs, is fueling the insulin price increases.

Today, the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH) annually spends $34 billion to fund university research. When researchers develop new drugs, corporate drug manufacturers typically purchase the rights to them, tweak them, patent them, and then market them to maximize their profits. The U.S. needs to legislate a new, public health-focused drug licensing system that prioritizes access and affordability, along with innovation, instead of profit.

Another example of price gouging by drug corporations comes from the response to the opioid crisis and the increased demand for the drug naloxone, the antidote for a narcotic overdose. With over 60,000 Americans dying of drug overdoses each year, emergency responders, not-for-profit human service organizations, and family members want to have naloxone readily available to save lives. However, the drug manufacturers have responded by jacking up the prices of naloxone and its various delivery systems. Kaleo corporation has raised the price of its easy-to-use, naloxone auto-injector from $690 in 2014 to $4,500 in 2016. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals has raised its wholesale price for naloxone from $20 to $40. Adapt Pharma’s new Narcan nasal spray came on the market in 2015 at $150. These prices and the opioid crisis have increased the drug corporations’ revenue from sales of naloxone from $12 million in 2011 to $274 million in 2016. Economics, specifically economies of scale, would suggest that the price should be going down with increased demand, not up.

As prices for naloxone have risen, first responders and community-based non-profits who provide services to people with drug problems, who are on the front-lines of the opioid crisis, are finding that their tight budgets do not allow them to have the number of naloxone doses they’d like to have. [3] Naloxone has been available since 1985, although new delivery vehicles, such as a nasal spray, have been developed recently. Public funding through the NIH has contributed to the development of and conducting of clinical trials for some of these products. Only five corporations make naloxone and they have been working to block competitors. One of them is Mylan Pharmaceuticals, infamous for its price gouging with its EpiPen product.

Some drug companies are simply investors, buying the rights to drugs, often life-saving ones, that they believe can deliver big profits, usually through dramatic price increases. A recent example is NextSource, a start-up with no research and development costs. In 2013, it bought the rights to a cancer treatment drug with low demand and therefore a single producer. It was priced at $50 per dose. In three years, NextSource has raised the price to $768 per dose.

Soaring cancer drug costs are driving the cost of treatment well over $100,000 a year in many cases. As a result, some patients delay treatment to figure out how they can get the treatments paid for. A study earlier this year found that 24 cancer drugs had, on average, quadrupled in price over the last 8 years. [4]

In an interesting example of how our corporate media sometimes cover increasing drug prices – putting a positive spin on outrageous corporate behavior – The Boston Globe recently had a big headline on the front page of its Business Section that read “Price hikes on top-selling drugs were a lot smaller this year.” The article began with “Average annual price increases have declined at least four years in a row for 20 of America’s top-selling brand-name prescription drugs.” Nowhere in the article does it mention that the 6.9% increase over the last year is three times the rate of inflation or that over the last 5 years the cost of these drugs is up 66%. On a subsequent page the article does note that “these drugs have increased by an average of 213 percent since their launch, well out-pacing inflation.” It also notes that many of these drugs are very expensive with seven having an average, annual cost per patient of between $59,000 and $92,000. [5]

In my next post, I’ll discuss why the pharmaceutical corporations can get away with this price gouging and what we can do about it.

[1] Zaitchik, A., 11/28/17, “Beyond the planet of the pharma bros,” The American Prospect (http://prospect.org/article/beyond-planet-pharma-bros)

[2] Kesselheim, A.S., Avorn, J., & Sarparwari, A., 8/23/16, “The high cost of prescription drugs in the United States: Origins and prospects for reform,” The Journal of the American Medical Association

[3] Denvir, D., 12/15/17, “These pharmaceutical companies are making a killing off the opioid crisis,” The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/these-pharmaceutical-companies-are-making-a-killing-off-the-opioid-crisis/)

[4] Berr, J., 12/26/17, “Price of 40-year-old cancer drug hiked 1,400% by new owners,” CBS News, MoneyWatch (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cancer-drug-lomustine-price-hiked-1400-percent-by-new-owners/)

[5] Robbins, R., 12/29/17, “Price hikes on top-selling drugs were a lot smaller this year,” The Boston Globe

U.S. FAILS TO PROSECUTE PRESCRIPTION OPIOID DISTRIBUTOR

After years of work by U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) investigators building a case against a major drug distributor for fraudulently shipping millions of prescription opioid pills, high-ranking lawyers at the DEA and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) recently decided to settle the case and not pursue criminal charges. Instead, the lawyers settled for a $150 million fine (from a corporation with roughly $200 billion per year in revenue) and a temporary suspension of shipments of narcotics from four of its 30 distribution centers. The lenient settlement was agreed to despite the corporation having promised in a 2008 settlement to be diligent in preventing fraudulent shipments of controlled substances. However, rather than improving its oversight of narcotics shipments, its fraudulent shipments increased. [1]

The DEA team had compelling evidence that McKesson Corporation, the fifth largest public company in the U.S., had fulfilled and failed to report suspicious orders for millions of highly addictive painkillers from pharmacies, including Internet pharmacies. The nationwide DEA team, working with U.S. attorney’s offices in 11 states, wanted to fine the corporation over $1 billion and pursue criminal charges against the corporation and perhaps some of its executives. A senior DEA official stated that the corporation could have been put out of business through an indictment or a very large fine.

But when the team turned over the evidence to top lawyers at DEA and DOJ, the lawyers negotiated a settlement with the corporation and never even discussed possible criminal charges. They even allowed McKesson to keep its $31 billion federal government contract to supply drugs to the Veterans’ Administration, federal prisons, and the Indian Health Service.

Meanwhile, a pharmacy owner in a small town in Colorado that McKesson supplied was found guilty of drug trafficking and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. From 2008 (when McKesson had settled the first set of charges) to 2011, McKesson’s shipments of oxycodone (the narcotic drug that is OxyContin) to this small-town pharmacy had increased 15-fold.

The DEA team had convincing evidence that McKesson’s activities had fueled the nationwide opioid drug crisis. The $150 million fine was a slap on the wrist for a $200 billion corporation that paid its top executive $100 million last year, has 76,000 employees, and makes $100 million a week in profits. The DEA team felt insulted, undermined, and was demoralized.

This is another example of a powerful corporation, as well as its senior executives, getting off with a slap on the wrist for significant criminal activity that harmed hundreds of thousands of Americans. Purdue Pharma, the major player in the prescription opioid drug scandal, also has (so far) gotten off with a slap or two on the wrist, despite the deaths of over 200,000 Americans. (See my previous posts on Purdue Pharma here and here.) The Wall St. financial corporations and their executives have also gotten off with slaps on the wrist despite a long trail of criminal activity across many years and many business lines.

One must ask why this is happening today when in the late 1980s, during the savings and loan (S&L) bank scandal, 750 S&Ls were forced into bankruptcy and out-of-business and over 1,000 of their executives went to jail.

Since the 1980s, corporations have grown in size and power, while government regulation and oversight have been weakened. As corporations have grown, they have gained power in the economy and in the halls of government. In the economy, their size has led to monopolistic power, a lack of competition, and, therefore, the power to control prices and make huge profits.

In the halls of government, the deregulation of campaign financing now allows wealthy corporations and individuals (often business executives) to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on candidates’ campaigns for legislative, executive, and judicial branch offices. As a result, elected officials – legislators, governors, presidents, and judges – are indebted to wealthy donors. These wealthy special interests further influence government decision making by spending millions of dollars on lobbying and by having individuals move back and forth between government roles and private sector jobs, in what is referred to as the revolving door. An example of this is that one of McKesson’s lawyers negotiating the settlement with the DEA and DOJ was a former top DEA official.

Therefore, government decisions tend to favor the interests of wealthy corporations and individuals. Examples include the lack of meaningful punishment for serious wrong doing, favorable tax policies, a failure to protect the public from rip offs in the market place, and weak regulation of the safety of consumer products and our air and water.

In this environment of market place power and weak regulation, the greed of large corporations and their executives is unconstrained and ethics, morality, and often legality get pushed aside. The public interest is overwhelmed by the power of wealthy special interests. This power imbalance is exacerbated by the growing inequality of income and wealth.

We need to elect officials who will represent the public interest and not wealthy corporations and individuals. We also need to let our elected officials know that we are watching and that we know when they are doing the bidding of the wealthy interests, such as in the recent tax bill. And we need to hold them accountable by being informed and voting. That alone could create dramatic change in our country if more people did so.

Only 53% of eligible voters voted in the last presidential election. Many of them were understandably voting against the tilt in favor of the wealthy in Washington. However, they were hoodwinked by the promises of a con man who, now that he is in office, is tilting the scales even further in favor of the wealthy.

Hopefully, this election woke people up to the fact that democracy is NOT a spectator sport. We need a broad, informed, and engaged electorate for our democracy to deliver on its promise of government of, by, and for the people.

[1] Bernstein, L., & Higham, S., 12/17/17, “‘We feel like our system was hijacked’: DEA agents say a huge opioid case ended in a whimper,” The Washington Post

PURDUE PHARMA AND OXYCONTIN CAUSED THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC Part 2

Purdue Pharma, a privately-owned corporation, and its narcotic pain-killer, OxyContin, caused the current opioid epidemic. My previous posts gave an overview of Purdue’s development and marketing of OxyContin, as well as of the complicity of Congress and the Executive Branch in allowing OxyContin to cause the national opioid epidemic.

This post describes Purdue’s efforts to conceal the harm that OxyContin is causing, while continuing to aggressively market – and profit – from it. The most detailed reporting of the role of Purdue and OxyContin in the opioid epidemic that I am aware of is the article that appeared in the October 30^th issue of The New Yorker, “The family that built an empire of pain”. [1] This blog post is largely drawn from that article.

OxyContin is a large dose of oxycodone that can be taken all at once due to Purdue’s innovative time release formula, which means that the pain killer’s effect lasts for 12 hours (supposedly).

Purdue claimed that OxyContin’s time release formula made it virtually non-addicting and hard to abuse. However, ironically, the information sheet provided with it basically gave instructions on how to abuse it. The information sheet warned against crushing the pills and then ingesting them. Abusers quickly figured out that snorting the crushed pills gave a heroin-like high. The information sheet also warned against dissolving the OxyContin pills in liquids. Abusers quickly figured out how to dissolve the pills and inject the solution, which was just like shooting heroin.

Soon after OxyContin’s release, signs of abuse were evident in Maine and Appalachia. Purdue’s own sales data indicated that doctors were over-prescribing OxyContin and that some were engaged in writing large numbers of clearly fraudulent prescriptions. Evidence that patients were selling extra pills on the black market also surfaced.

Problems with the use of OxyContin as prescribed also quickly became evident. Some patients were displaying signs of addiction and withdrawal within the 12 hours between scheduled doses. Many patients were finding that the pain-killing effect didn’t last 12 hours, so they took the pills more often, which increased the likelihood of addiction. A 1999 study found that 13% of patients who used OxyContin for headaches became addicted.

Purdue said the concerns over addiction were overblown. It told sales reps to say that less than 1% of OxyContin patients became addicted. Purdue claimed that patients were not experiencing addiction and withdrawal symptoms, but were just feeling their underlying pain. It coined the term “pseudo addiction” to describe this supposed phenomenon. It claims there is no inherent problem with OxyContin, saying the problem is individuals who misuse it.

However, internal Purdue documents, which have emerged due to litigation, reveal that it knew, even before it got approval to market OxyContin, that not all patients achieved 12-hour pain relief and that more frequent use was a recipe for addiction. Purdue’s records show that in 1998 it was aware that taking OxyContin at 8-hour intervals was becoming more and more common. A Purdue employee called this “very scary.” It appeared that in some cases these more frequent doses were due to addiction and to keep the patient from going into withdrawal, rather than to treat pain.

In 2001, the Attorney General of Connecticut wrote to Purdue expressing his alarm over the growing abuse of OxyContin. Three years later, having received no response, he filed a lawsuit. In 2003, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) found that Purdue’s aggressive marketing had “very much exacerbated OxyContin’s widespread abuse.” It concluded that Purdue had “deliberately minimized” the risks of OxyContin. The DEA sent Purdue a warning letter saying that its ads “grossly overstate the safety profile of OxyContin by not referring in the body of the advertisements to serious, potentially fatal risks”. Nonetheless, Purdue continued to aggressively market OxyContin and no government agency took steps to – or was allowed to – regulate its sale. (See my previous post for more detail on the lack of regulation.)

Purdue currently faces thousands of OxyContin-related lawsuits, including 10 from states and numerous ones from cities and counties. To-date, it has settled or pled guilty in the cases that have reached a conclusion. Many experts believe this is a strategy to avoid going to trial where it would have to disclose internal documents that would reveal very damaging information about what Purdue knew about the dangers and harm of OxyContin.

In 2006, Purdue paid $75 million to settle a case brought by 5,000 patients. In another case, it pled guilty to criminal misbranding and acknowledged marketing OxyContin “with intent to defraud or mislead.” Three senior officials pled guilty, but no one from the Sackler family that owns Purdue was punished. The 3 officials all got off with probation and fines totally $35 million. Purdue itself paid a $600 million fine.

The total of $700 million in fines and settlements to-date seems small and hardly a sufficient deterrent, let alone punishment, for Purdue’s blatantly irresponsible marketing and selling of OxyContin. It is only about 2% of the roughly $35 billion in revenue that Purdue has received from OxyContin. Furthermore, it is only about 1% of the $50 billion estimated cost of treatment for those with opioid addiction problems.

In 2010, Purdue reformulated its OxyContin pills, so they are harder to crush or dissolve and, therefore, to abuse. As a result, many of those who had become addicted to OxyContin have now turned to illegal drugs, such as heroin and fentanyl.

Many industry observers believe that an important motivation for the reformulation of OxyContin was not to make it safer, but to extend its patent, which would have run out in 2013. Purdue is now working to block sales of generic versions of the original OxyContin by claiming that they are unsafe.

Purdue continues to fight any restrictions on the prescribing of OxyContin, claiming that such steps would deny law-abiding patients needed pain medication. It has continued to spend heavily on lobbyists and campaign contributions to block enactment of restrictions by government regulators. And, taking a page from the tobacco industry, it is expanding its marketing of the original OxyContin overseas.

I urge you to contact your US Representative and Senators to ask them to support the regulation of prescriptions for opioid pain killers. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has introduced guidelines that would reduce the use of OxyContin and other opioid pain medicines. The guidelines state that “Opioids should not be considered first-line or routine therapy for chronic pain”. The guidelines recommend the use of non-drug pain treatment, such as physical therapy, and of non-opioid drugs as the first responses to pain.

Please urge your elected officials to support the implementation of the CDC guidelines on opioid pain killers and to fund opioid treatment, along with addiction prevention and education programs.

[1] Keefe, P.R., 10/30/17, The family that built an empire of pain, The New Yorker (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/30/the-family-that-built-an-empire-of-pain)

PURDUE PHARMA AND OXYCONTIN CAUSED THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC Part 1

Purdue Pharma, a privately-owned corporation, and its narcotic pain-killer, OxyContin, caused the current opioid epidemic. The mainstream media have not provided much coverage of Purdue Pharma’s role in their reporting on the opioid epidemic, which is perhaps the worst health epidemic in US history. The most detailed coverage of the role of Purdue and OxyContin that I am aware of is the article that appeared in the October 30^th issue of The New Yorker, “The family that built an empire of pain”. [1] This blog post is largely a summary of that article.

This story is a familiar, but particularly deadly one, of greed, the power of wealthy corporate executives, and the willingness of members of Congress and government to do the bidding of powerful, wealthy interests. Many facets of the story mirror that of the tobacco industry, such as denial of known deadly effects. However, the connection between OxyContin and death is much quicker and clearer.

Purdue Pharma developed OxyContin in 1995. It is oxycodone, a chemical cousin of heroin and twice as powerful a pain-killer as morphine. Purdue’s innovation was a time release formula that allowed a large dose of oxycodone to be taken all at once and whose effect would last for 12 hours (supposedly). This meant that a pill had to be taken only twice a day and that its effect would last through the night, so the patient could get a full night’s sleep. Other narcotic pain-killers come in pills with much smaller doses and must be taken more frequently.

Potent, narcotic pain-killers like OxyContin were, at the time, only used to treat the acute pain of cancer and end-of-life situations. However, Purdue’s marketing worked to broaden the use of OxyContin to less acute pain. It targeted both the public and prescribing doctors. It included hiring doctors, researchers, and other experts to downplay the risks of OxyContin and argue that pain was being under-treated.

Using this strategy, Purdue engaged in one of the most extensive marketing campaigns in the history of the drug industry. It built a salesforce of over 1,000 people who were strongly incentivized through commissions and bonuses to sell lots of OxyContin. Some salespeople made over $100,000 in commissions and in 2001 Purdue paid out over $40 million in bonuses. Within 5 years of its introduction, sales of OxyContin hit $1 billion.

Today, roughly 250 million opioid pain-killer prescriptions are being written each year. In Ohio, a state hard hit by the opioid epidemic, 2.3 million people, about 1 out of every 5 people in the state, received a prescription for an opioid in 2016.

It is estimated that 2.5 million Americans are addicted to opioids and over 300,000 people have died due to the opioid epidemic. An addicted baby is now born every 30 minutes in the US and 10% of newborns in Huntington, West Virginia, are born opioid addicted. According to the American Society of Addiction Medicine, 4 out of every 5 people who use heroin start opioid use with a prescription pain killer.

Purdue has realized about $35 billion in revenue from OxyContin and billions in profits. The Sackler family that owns Purdue is worth an estimated $13 billion.

In my next post, I’ll outline the fraudulent marketing Purdue engaged in to profit from OxyContin and its on-going efforts to block any restrictions on the prescribing of it.

[1] Keefe, P.R., 10/30/17, The family that built an empire of pain, The New Yorker (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/30/the-family-that-built-an-empire-of-pain)

THE OPIOID CRISIS: SAVING LIVES VS. SAVING PROFITS

President Trump pledged months ago to declare the nationwide opioid crisis a national emergency. He now says he’ll do so this week. The crisis has claimed well over 200,000 lives and the death rate continues to climb.

Declaring opioid deaths a national emergency would be nice, but taking effective action is even more important. So far, the Trump administration and key Republicans in Congress have shown no interest in doing so.

Trump recently nominated Representative Tom Marino, a Pennsylvania Republican, to be his national drug czar. Marino withdrew his name from consideration last week after it was revealed that he had spearheaded a successful effort in Congress to block the Drug Enforcement Agency’s (DEA) efforts to stop fraudulent distribution of prescription opioids. [1]

In April 2016, as the deadliest drug epidemic in US history raged, Congress passed a bill stripping the DEA of its ability to stop the distribution of large quantities of prescription narcotics. Drug industry experts blame the origins of the opioid crisis on the over-prescribing, some of it fraudulent, of narcotic pain killers. [2] The pharmaceutical corporations’ marketing of these drugs has also come in for blame, as they downplayed the potential for addiction to the drugs and promoted the supposed under-treatment of pain.

At the behest of the drug industry, Representative Marino in the House and Senator Hatch in the Senate (a Utah Republican) led the efforts by a handful of members of Congress to undermine DEA enforcement efforts aimed at blocking the supply of narcotic pain killers to corrupt doctors and pharmacists who were selling them on the black market. They passed a law making it impossible for the DEA to freeze suspicious shipments of narcotics by drug distributors who had repeatedly ignored DEA warnings while selling millions of pills for billions of dollars. Marino had spent years working to pass such a law.

The drug industry contributed at least $1.5 million to the campaigns of the 23 members of Congress who sponsored the bill and spent over $100 million lobbying Congress.

Besides the sponsors of the bill and the drug industry, few members of Congress or others outside of Congress knew of the impact the bill would have. It was passed in Congress by “unanimous consent,” an expedited process supposedly reserved for non-controversial bills. Former White House officials say they and President Obama were unaware of the bill’s impact when it was signed into law. Requests for interviews with current and former officials, as well as dozens of Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests, have been submitted to the DEA and the Justice Department by the media to try and find out who knew what when. The interview requests have been declined or ignored, and the FOI requests have been denied or delayed; some have been pending for 18 months. [3]

This is a powerful example of the incredible influence and control our large corporations have over policy making in Washington, D.C. The large pharmaceutical corporations and their distributors have gotten Congress to make their profits from illegally selling narcotic painkillers more important than the 60,000 deaths that are occurring each year from opioid use. These deaths are roughly twice the number that occur due to gun violence or car accidents. The number of deaths last year was roughly 50% more than occurred at the peak of the HIV/AIDS crisis. Drug overdoses have become the leading cause of death among those under 50. [4]

I urge you to contact your US Representative and Senators and ask them to take real action to fight the opioid crisis. This includes spending money on addiction treatment and drug enforcement. And it requires repealing the 2016 legislation that undermined the DEA’s efforts to control the distribution of prescription, narcotic pain killers. We must assert that people’s lives, as well as recovery from and avoidance of addiction, are more important than profits for large pharmaceutical corporations.

[1] Superville, D., & Daly, M., 10/18/17, “Marino pulls name from US drug czar consideration,” The Boston Globe from the Associated Press

[2] Higham, S., & Bernstein, L., 10/16/17, “Drug industry quashed effort by DEA to cut opioid supply,” The Boston Globe from The Washington Post

[3] Higham, S., & Bernstein, L., 10/16/17, see above

[4] Katz, J., 6/5/17, “Drug deaths in America are rising faster than ever,” The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/05/upshot/opioid-epidemic-drug-overdose-deaths-are-rising-faster-than-ever.html)

THE DEMOCRATS’ “A BETTER DEAL”

Congressional Democrats have announced a package of policy proposals they are calling “A Better Deal.” It’s apparently their policy platform for the 2018 Congressional elections and its focus is on re-establishing Democrats as the party that stands up for working people. It proclaims that too many American families feel that the rules of our economy are rigged against them. It notes that incomes and wages are not keeping up with the cost of living for many workers. It states that large corporations, the rich, and other special interests are avoiding paying taxes and meanwhile are spending huge sums of money to influence our elections. Democrats claim that A Better Deal will grow and strengthen the middle class and reverse the failure of so-called trickle-down economic policies (i.e., tax cuts for the wealthy) to do so.

A Better Deal has three overarching goals: [1]

Raise the wages and incomes of American workers and create millions of good-paying jobs,
Lower the costs of living for families, and
Build an economy that gives working Americans the tools to succeed in the 21^st Century.

A Better Deal calls for raising the national minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2024 and then increasing it automatically so it keeps up with inflation. A Better Deal promises that Democrats will fight the offshoring of Americans’ jobs by penalizing corporations that move jobs overseas and by cracking down on unfair trade policies of other countries, including currency manipulation. It calls for renegotiating the NAFTA trade agreement with Canada and Mexico to increase US exports and jobs, while also improving wages. Federal contractors who move jobs to foreign countries would be penalized and there would be Buy American requirements in government purchasing.

The Democrat’s plan calls for $1 trillion in federal spending on the infrastructure, such as bridges, roads, railroads, airports, and waterways, that is the transportation backbone of our economy. The plan projects that 15 million good-paying jobs would be created by these investments. It would also support job creation by prioritizing support for small businesses and entrepreneurs over benefits for large corporations. It would invest in research and innovation, as well as making high-speed Internet service available to everyone. It pledges to ensure that workers will be able to “retire with dignity,” by protecting pensions, Social Security, and Medicare.

A Better Deal calls for lowering the costs of drugs, post-secondary education, child care, cable TV and Internet service, and credit cards. It promises a crackdown on big price increases by pharmaceutical corporations as well as their practices that drive up drug costs. Medicare would be allowed to negotiate drug prices (which it is currently barred by law from doing!).

A Better Deal would curtail the monopolistic practices of large corporations that lead to higher prices and reduced consumer choice. It notes that concentrated market power leads to great political power, which has been used by big corporations to obtain beneficial policies from government. Strengthening anti-trust laws and their enforcement are identified as key strategies for achieving these goals. A Better Deal calls for eliminating unlimited and/or undisclosed spending by corporations and the wealthy in our elections, as well as reducing the power and influence of lobbyists and special interests.

A Better Deal promises paid leave for workers when they are sick or when a family situation merits taking time off. Paid leave for a new child or a family member’s illness would be covered. It notes that this will keep families healthy, both medically and financially.

In A Better Deal, Democrats commit to expanding government investment in workers’ access to the education, training, and other tools they need to succeed in the 21^st Century. In addition, employers would receive incentives to invest in their workers’ skills and knowledge. Apprenticeships would be expanded and training programs would be better coordinated with businesses’ needs for workers.

There is much in A Better Deal for workers to like. Democrats appear to be recommitting themselves to putting workers first, ahead of monied interests, reversing their mid-1990s decision to cozy up to those with big money to get the funding they needed for their campaigns. Despite its good points, there are notable weaknesses in A Better Deal and its presentation that I will outline in my next post.

[1] Schumer, C., retrieved 8/20/17, “A better deal,” U.S. Senate Democrats (https://democrats.senate.gov/abetterdeal/#.WZydEbpFzIU)

PROTECTING CONSUMERS FROM WALL STREET

The collapse of the financial corporations in 2008 was due in large part to their predatory and illegal practices in pushing unaffordable home mortgages onto gullible home buyers. Congress and President Obama enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (known as Dodd-Frank) to help protect consumers from such abusive behavior.

Dodd-Frank’s most notable consumer protection provision was the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The CFPB’s role is to protect consumers from illegal and predatory practices, as well as discrimination, by financial corporations and to work to ensure that consumers receive the information necessary to make good financial decisions and to avoid “unsafe” financial products and services.

Since its creation, the CFPB has been hard at work punishing financial corporations that violate the law, returning almost $12 billion to over 29 million victimized consumers. In less than 8 years, it has helped consumers by responding to over 1.2 million complaints and issuing, for example, new standards for home mortgage documents that are clearer and easier to understand. At CFPB’s website you can find information on understanding your credit score and to help you make a good decision about a car or student loan.

Given that financial products and services (such as bank accounts, credit cards, and car and student loans) are essential for individuals, families, and our economy, appropriate regulation of them is necessary. Before the creation of the CFPB, financial services regulation was spread among 6 federal agencies and state regulators. None of them had consumer protection as its sole or primary role nor had the power to establish a single set of regulations for the whole financial industry. The CFPB has this power and a sole focus on consumer protection, much as the Consumer Product Safety Commission does for non-financial products. [1]

In July, the CFPB finalized a rule prohibiting financial corporations from putting mandatory arbitration clauses in their customer contracts. These clauses, which are in most agreements consumers sign when they open a bank account or get a loan or credit card, prohibit customers from suing the financial corporation in court. (They are also in many contracts or agreements for other consumers products and services, such as cell phones and cable TV, Internet, and phone services.) They require the customer to submit any complaint, even one due to illegal activity, to an arbitrator, who is usually selected by the financial corporation. They eliminate the ability of customers to band together in a class action lawsuit, and require them to pursue any grievances only through individual arbitration cases.

In addition to preventing class action lawsuits, the mandatory arbitration clauses often prohibit customers from sharing their experiences with regulatory or law enforcement agencies and the media. Corporations know that consumers will rarely spend the time and money (the typical cost to file an arbitration claim is $161) to pursue arbitration, given that the amount of money at stake is usually small. The result is that corporations evade accountability and can hide illegal or unethical behavior. [2]

The CFPB rule banning mandatory arbitration clauses was put in place after 5 years of study and development pursuant to a Congressional directive to study mandatory arbitration clauses and restrict or ban them if they harm consumers. The CFPB study found that customers win only 1 out of 11 arbitration cases and when they win they receive an average of $5,389. However, when a financial corporation makes a claim or counterclaim against a customer, it wins 93% of the time and the customer is ordered to pay, on average, $7,725 to the financial corporation! [3]

The CFPB study also found that in an average year 6,800,000 consumers get cash awards due to class action lawsuits while only 16 do so in arbitration cases. Consumers in these lawsuits receive a total of $440,000,000 (after deducting lawyers’ and courts’ fees), while consumers across all arbitration cases receive a total of $86,216.

Three recent examples of practices by Wells Fargo & Company make clear the significance and importance of banning mandatory arbitration clauses and allowing class action lawsuits by customers. (By the way, Wells Fargo is the third largest US bank and a multi-national financial corporation headquartered in San Francisco with $22 billion in annual profits.) It recently paid $185 million to settle with the CFPB and other regulators for having illegally opened and charged customers for over 2 million unauthorized checking and credit card accounts. When customers tried to sue Wells Fargo for this starting back in 2013, it forced them to make their claims in individual arbitration cases. This allowed Wells Fargo to continue its illegal behavior and theft from customers for 3 more years (5 years in total) before its behavior came to the attention of regulators.

In July, another class action lawsuit was filed against Wells Fargo based on illegal behavior on car loans. Apparently, Wells Fargo was requiring customers with car loans to buy car insurance they didn’t need (it was typically redundant with insurance they already had). And Wells Fargo was getting kickbacks from the company selling the insurance. The extra cost of the unneeded insurance pushed 250,000 car loan customers into default on their loan payments and resulted in 25,000 cars being repossessed. If these customers are forced into arbitration and are unable to participate in a class action lawsuit, it’s likely that most of them will not receive any compensation from Wells Fargo for its illegal and harmful behavior.

Finally, Wells Fargo is the defendant in an on-going, 8-year-old case over overdraft fees and practices. It is arguing in court that these customers’ claims must be handled in individual arbitration cases rather than a class action lawsuit, despite complaints from customers in 49 states. [4]

Despite these examples, and the fact that Congress has banned mandatory arbitration in home mortgage agreements, members of Congress have quickly introduced legislation to repeal the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s new rule banning mandatory arbitration clauses in financial product and service agreements. [5] Weakening or eliminating the CFPB in general, not just its ban on mandatory arbitration, has been a goal of Wall St. corporations and their friends in Congress ever since its creation by the Dodd-Frank law.

I urge you to contact your US Representative and Senators and ask them to support the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and its ban on mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer product and service agreements.

[1] Servon, L.J., 7/17/17, “Will Trump kill the CFPB?” The American Prospect (http://prospect.org/article/will-trump-kill-cfpb)

[2] Germanos, A., 7/12/17, “Serving Wall Street predators, GOP launches swift attack on new rule protecting consumers,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/07/12/serving-wall-street-predators-gop-launches-swift-attack-new-rule-protecting)

[3] Shierholz, H., 8/1/17, “Correcting the record: Consumers fare better under class actions than arbitration,” Economic Policy Institute (http://www.epi.org/publication/correcting-the-record-consumers-fare-better-under-class-actions-than-arbitration/)

[4] Brumback, K., 8/25/17, “Wells Fargo wants customer suits tossed,” The Boston Globe from the Associated Press

[5] Germanos, A., 7/12/17, “Serving Wall Street predators, GOP launches swift attack on new rule protecting consumers,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/07/12/serving-wall-street-predators-gop-launches-swift-attack-new-rule-protecting)

PROTECTING OUR ECONOMY FROM WALL STREET SPECULATION

After the collapse of the financial corporations in 2008 due to their greed, predatory and illegal practices, and malfeasance, Congress and the President enacted legislation to try to prevent such a collapse in the future. This was the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (known as Dodd-Frank).

The Dodd-Frank law is not as strong as many people thought it should be, because Wall St. executives, along with their lobbyists and friends in Congress, worked hard to weaken it as it was being written and passed. For example, it did not break up the “too-big-too-fail” financial corporations or limit their growth. (They are now all bigger than they were in 2008.)

A key provision of Dodd-Frank, known as the Volcker Rule, restricts banks from making certain kinds of speculative investments that do not benefit their customers and actually put customers’ deposits (and the banks and the economy) at risk if large investment losses result. Such speculative investments and big losses from them played a key role in causing the 2008 financial collapse. The Volcker Rule restricts but does not ban such investments, as many people thought it should and as had been the case from 1933 to 1999 under the Glass-Steagall Act. [1] In particular, many people believe that banks with deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) should be prohibited from making such risky investments because these investments, which only benefit the bank’s executives and shareholders, are, in effect, insured against big losses by the FDIC, i.e., the federal government and taxpayers.

The Volcker Rule was supposed to be implemented in 2010, but continuing opposition from Wall St. and its supporters has continued to delay (and further weaken) the rule. It finally went into effect in 2015, but banks continue to be granted extensions for when they have to come into compliance with its provisions.

The Trump Administration, through the five agencies that regulate the financial industry, is currently working to rewrite and further weaken the Volcker Rule. They are moving to loosen the restrictions on risky investments, even though they were a major cause of the 2008 financial collapse. [2]

The Dodd-Frank law in general, not just its Volcker Rule, has been a target for weakening and delaying tactics ever since its original drafting and passage, as well as at every step in its implementation. The US House recently passed the so-called Financial Choice Act that would significantly weaken Dodd-Frank’s regulation of the financial industry.

I urge you to contact your US Representative and Senators and ask them to:

Oppose efforts to weaken the Volcker Rule and to support an outright ban on speculative investment activity by banks that have customer deposits and FDIC insurance, and
Oppose efforts to weaken the Dodd-Frank law in general and its regulations that reduce the likelihood of another financial industry collapse.

[1] Wikipedia, retrieved 8/15/17, “Volcker Rule,” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcker_Rule)

[2] Bain, B., & Hamilton, J., 8/1/17, “Wall Street regulators are set to rewrite the Volcker Rule,” Bloomberg News (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-01/volcker-rewrite-is-said-to-start-as-trump-regulators-grab-reins)

CORPORATE BEHAVIOR DRIVES INEQUALITY

Several corporate practices, particularly those of large, multi-national corporations, are major contributors to income and wealth inequality. One is their avoidance of taxes, which means other taxpayers must make up the difference. Another is their employee compensation practices.

The huge and growing differential between the compensation for corporate executives and workers needs to be reduced. Increasing the minimum wage is one step. However, taxing or limiting compensation for executives should also occur.

Wall Street gave out $24 billion in bonuses last year to 177,000 workers who got an average of $138,200 each. The average Wall Street bonus has increased 900% since 1985, while the minimum wage has increased a little over 100%. This $24 billion in bonuses for 177,000 workers is over one and a half times the total pay for the year for all 1,000,000 (1 million), full-time, minimum wage workers. [1]

This excessive Wall Street compensation not only contributes to overall inequality, it contributes to gender and racial income disparities. Roughly 85% of Wall Street executives and senior managers are white and over two-thirds are male. By contrast, 56% of minimum wage workers are non-white and almost two-thirds of them are female.

Huge Wall Street bonuses and “performance pay” provide incentives to Wall Street to engage in the kind of high risk, high return financial strategies that led to the 2008 financial collapse. The Dodd-Frank financial reform law called for regulation of these bonuses but these regulations have been blocked and delayed. Furthermore, the 20 largest US banks gave out over $2 billion in so-called performance pay to their top executives between 2012 and 2015. Not only do these huge amounts provide incentives for risky behavior, they are also tax deductible for the corporations, saving them $725 million in taxes.

A recent study of corporate taxes showed that many large, profitable corporations frequently pay no federal taxes. The analysis found that 258 large corporations that were consistently profitable from 2008 to 2015 and had $3.8 trillion in profits rarely paid the 35% tax rate that they, President Trump, and Republicans in Congress say needs to be cut. On average, the study found they paid only 21% of their profits in taxes – a lower rate than many individuals pay on their incomes.

In fact, 18 of these large, consistently profitable corporations paid no federal tax over the study’s 8-year period. And 100 of them paid no taxes in at least one year of the 2008 and 2015 period studied, despite reporting a profit. They did this by using tax loopholes and avoidance strategies such as shifting profits to overseas entities, depreciating assets very quickly, deducting the cost of huge stock options given to executives, and using special industry-specific tax breaks they’ve gotten slipped into our tax laws.

These tax breaks are highly concentrated with most of them going to a few, very large, multi-national corporations. Just 25 corporations received over half of the tax subsidies of all 258 corporations in the study. The study reported that the corporations with the biggest tax subsidies over the 8-year period were AT&T ($38 billion), Wells Fargo ($31 billion), JPMorganChase ($22 billion), and Verizon ($21 billion). [2]

The study refutes the argument that the US’s corporate tax rate is higher than that of foreign countries and that it makes the US an unfavorable location for doing business. The tax rates paid over the 8-year period by certain industries were quite low: gas and electric utilities – 3%, industrial machinery – 11%, telecommunications – 12%, oil, gas, and pipelines – 12%, and Internet services and retailing – 16%. The industry-specific tax breaks that lead to these low tax rates are unfair and unnecessary.

The study’s report recommends five changes to US tax laws to remedy these problems:

Repeal the tax exemption for overseas profits,
Limit the deduction for the phantom costs of executive stock options,
Eliminate tax provisions that allow for rapid, let alone immediate, depreciation of assets,
Reinstate a strong corporate Alternative Minimum Tax, and
Increase transparency by requiring full, country-by-country disclosure of corporate financial information. [3]

I urge you to contact your members of Congress and ask them to support these changes to our tax laws so that large, multi-national corporations pay their fair share of taxes. Please also ask them to support increasing the minimum wage and implementing regulations on Wall Street compensation to reduce incentives for risky behavior that could lead to another financial disaster.

[1] Anderson, S., 3/15/17, “Off the deep end: The Wall Street bonus pool and low-wage workers,” Moyers & Company (http://billmoyers.com/story/wall-street-bonus-pool-2017/)

[2] Cohen, P., 3/9/17, “Profitable companies, no taxes: Here’s how they did it,” The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/business/economy/corporate-tax-report.html?_r=0

[3] Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, 3/9/17, “The 35 percent corporate tax myth: Corporate tax avoidance by Fortune 500 companies, 2008 to 2015” http://itep.org/itep_reports/2017/03/the-35-percent-corporate-tax-myth.php#.WM6CaYWcHIU

STOP COMMERCIALIZATION OF OUR NATIONAL PARKS

Unfortunately, the National Park Service (NPS) has just enacted a policy that allows expanded commercialization of our national parks. Corporations have been pushing for years to commercialize our national parks with their names, logos, and products. The timing of the new policy is particularly inappropriate because this year is the 100^th anniversary of our national parks. Their pristine beauty and intergenerational legacy were celebrated in the Ken Burns’ wonderful 2009 PBS special, “The National Parks: America’s Best Idea.” [1]

This new policy has been put in place despite overwhelming public opposition – hundreds of public comments in opposition and over 200,000 signatures on a petition opposing this policy. [2] The new policy will allow corporate sponsorships and partnerships, lift naming rights restrictions, allow advertising in parks (including for alcohol), and allow, if not require, parks to seek donations from corporations.

The new policy allows facilities from auditoriums to benches to have corporate names on them. Buses in national parks can now be plastered with advertising. Bricks or paving stones can have corporate names and logos on them. Educational programs and endowed positions can be branded by corporations. Large banners with corporate logos will now be allowed in the parks.

Even before this policy was in place, Coca-Cola, after donating $13 million to the NPS, blocked a proposed ban on bottled water in Grand Canyon National Park. The ban would have reduced trash in the park by 20%, saving money and employees’ time, while reducing litter and wasteful use of plastic. After public pressure, NPS allowed a park-by-park ban that requires a rigorous cost-benefit analysis and a multi-layered approval process. In another pre-policy example, Budweiser had a joint marketing campaign with NPS that allowed it to use the image of the Statue of Liberty on its labels and to co-sponsor a concert in a national park.

This is happening because our national parks are starved for money. While attendance at the parks has been up for three years in a row and is 20% higher than it was in 2013, Congress and the President have provided flat funding for operating the parks. [3] Despite the increased wear and tear, as well as the need for more parking and greater capacity on trails and roads, due to the increased number of visitors, the parks have received dramatically insufficient funding to maintain, let alone expand, infrastructure. It is estimated that there is an $11 billion backlog in maintenance projects. [4] Park superintendents struggle to meet their goals of preserving their parks for future generations, while providing a safe and enjoyable experience for visitors. They will now be put in the awkward position of needing to be involved in fundraising to support their park while being banned by federal law from directly soliciting donations.

As a poignant example of the problems commercialization can cause, Delaware North Corporation (DNC) is suing the NPS for $51 million for compensation for trademarks on the names of facilities in Yosemite National Park. DNC had been the concessionaire at the park since 1993, but recently lost the contract. Because this suit could take some time to resolve, Yosemite National Park has had to rename facilities in the park. The iconic Ahwahnee Hotel has been renamed, despite having operated under this name since 1927. It was named after the Native Americans who lived in the valley and whose descendants still work in the park. The Badger Pass Ski Area, among other facilities, has also been renamed and the trademark on the name “Yosemite National Park” may also be disputed. [5]

Commercialization is spoiling the pristine beauty of our national parks and detracting from the inspiring experience of visiting them. Conservationist and President Teddy Roosevelt envisioned our national parks as being preserved for future generations “with their majestic beauty all unmarred.” Commercialization of our national parks is antithetical to that vision and to the basic principle for creating national parks – to preserve our natural wonders and beauty for future generations in their natural, awe-inspiring state. We need to do a better job of protecting our national parks and the experience of visiting them.

I encourage you to contact your members of Congress and urge them to adequately fund our national parks and to ban commercialization of them. We must resist the efforts by corporate America and budget cutting politicians to commercialize and privatize these truly unique and irreplaceable public assets.

[1] Burns, K., & Duncan, D., 2009, “The National Parks: America’s Best Idea,” Public Broadcast System, (http://www.pbs.org/nationalparks/)

[2] Strader, K., 1/4/17, “Disregarding public concern, the National Park Service finalizes commercialism policy and opens parks to industry influence,” Public Citizen as reported by Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2017/01/04/disregarding-public-concern-national-park-service-finalizes-commercialism-policy)

[3] Associated Press, 1/17/17, “National Parks set yet another attendance mark,” The Boston Globe

[4] Rein, L., 5/9/16, “Yosemite, sponsored by Starbucks? National Parks to start selling some naming rights,” The Washington Post

[5] Howard, B.C., 1/15/16, “National park advocates appalled by Yosemite name changes,” National Geographic (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/160115-yosemite-names-ahwahnee-hotel-wawona-curry-badger-pass/)

THE RIGHT WAY TO STOP THE OFFSHORING OF US JOBS

The US needs to stop hemorrhaging jobs to other countries. For starters, we need to do three things:

Impose financial disincentives for offshoring jobs,
Change the mindset among corporate executives that offshoring jobs is the right and acceptable thing to do, and
Reverse the resignation among workers and the public who believe that the offshoring of jobs is inevitable.

To create financial disincentives, we should pass laws that place special taxes or restrictions on corporations that have offshored say 100 or more jobs in the last five years. Possible examples include:

Bar such corporations from receiving federal contracts. Or there could be demerits subtracted from the scores of proposals from such corporations in competitive bidding situations. Or there could be financial penalties on existing federal contracts such as the deduction of $10,000 per offshored job or of 1% of a contract’s annual payment per 1,000 offshored jobs, whichever is greater.
A corporation’s taxes could be increased by $10,000 per offshored job or its tax rate could be increased by 1% per 1,000 offshored jobs, whichever is greater – with no offsets to allow a corporation to avoid this tax.
Bar such corporations from receiving government tax breaks, loans, or grants.
Require such corporations to pay a special, unavoidable, and substantial tax on aggregate executive compensation that is over $1 million. [1]

Senator Bernie Sanders has announced that he will introduce a bill in Congress that will include provisions similar to these to discourage the offshoring of jobs. He is calling it the Outsourcing Prevention Act. [2]

To counter the mindset that favors offshoring jobs, we should pass laws or establish executive branch procedures that publicize a corporation’s offshoring of jobs. Possible examples include:

Require such a corporation to hold a public hearing in the community losing the jobs 90 days before the termination of the jobs. If the number of jobs is 500 or more, a hearing in Washington before a congressional committee should be required.
Establish a new anti-offshoring czar in the Office of the President who would visit any such corporation’s CEO to make it clear that offshoring jobs is viewed negatively.

Providing financial rewards to corporations to keep jobs in the US is not an efficient way to stop offshoring. Typically, state or local governments provide tax abatements or other tax benefits to corporations to keep jobs. However, state and local taxes are generally only 2% or so of a corporations’ costs. Labor costs are a far greater portion of operating costs. Therefore, tax abatements are not likely to offset the savings in labor costs provided by offshoring. For example, in the recent United Technologies / Carrier (UT/C) case in Indiana, the state will provide $7 million in tax benefits over 10 years. However, UT/C estimated was that it would save $65 million per year ($650 million over 10 years) for offshoring 2,100 jobs. [3]

Corporations’ demands for financial benefits from state and local governments to keep or create jobs are really just blackmail. To stop this job-based blackmail, which robs states or municipalities of needed tax revenue, the federal government should put a 100% tax on these financial benefits, so there is no overall financial incentive for the corporation. The federal government should also reduce grants to state and local governments that give financial incentives to corporations to keep jobs. For example, awards under the Community Development Block Grant or other economic development programs could be cut for states or municipalities that agree to pay job blackmail to corporations. The federal government has used a similar strategy in other instances to get states to change policies. For example, the federal Transportation Department used cuts in federal transportation grants to get states to raise their alcohol drinking ages to 21. This reduced car accidents and saved thousands of lives. [4]

I encourage you to contact your US Representative and Senators and ask them what they plan to do to reduce the offshoring of US jobs. Request that they support a systematic approach to discouraging offshoring such as that offered by Senator Sanders’ Outsourcing Prevention Act.

[1] Greenhouse, S., 12/8/16, “Beyond Carrier: Can Congress end the green light for outsourcing?” The American Prospect (http://prospect.org/article/beyond-carrier-can-congress-end-green-light-outsourcing)

[2] Sanders, B., 11/26/16, “Sanders statement on Carrier and outsourcing,” Press release from Senator Bernie Sanders (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/-sanders-statement-on-carrier-and-outsourcing)

[3] Leroy, G., 12/7/16, “Can Trump’s wild one-off at Carrier combat corporate welfare?” The American Prospect (http://prospect.org/article/can-trumps-wild-one-carrier-combat-corporate-welfare)

[4] Leroy, G., 12/7/16, see above

DRUG PRICE GOUGING CONTINUES

Valeant Pharmaceuticals is price gouging again. Having acquired the rights to the drug used to treat severe lead poisoning in 2013, it has increased the price from $950 to $27,000. There is no reason other than greed for this huge price increase on a decades-old drug. The cost is limiting availability of the drug to children with lead poisoning, including those from Flint, Michigan. [1] Lead poisoning can be life-threatening, but more often causes problems with growth and development, including anemia, neurological damage, and cognitive impairments.

Valeant is the corporation that acquired two heart drugs in 2014 and more than doubled the price of one and quintupled the price of the other. This was on top of a quintupling of their prices in 2013 by the previous owner (who had recently purchased the rights to the drugs). So, overall their prices have jumped to 10 and 25 times what they were in 2013.

Valeant has been one of the poster children for pharmaceutical greed. It has repeatedly purchased drug companies and then dramatically boosted the prices of their medicines. [2]

My previous post, Drug Prices: A Big Problem in Our Privatized Health Care System, provides more information on the problem of unrestrained drug price increases. It also gives 8 more examples of dramatic drug price increases where the only explanation is greed coupled with a lack of regulation.

Drug prices in the U.S. are not regulated or routinely negotiated as they are in other countries. Therefore, the pharmaceutical corporations, which often have monopolistic power, can increase drug prices more or less at will.

In September 2015, Senator Bernie Sanders filed a bill in the U.S. Senate to address price gouging by pharmaceutical corporations. The Prescription Drug Affordability Act would allow the Medicare prescription drug program to negotiate prices with drug companies, a practice that is currently banned by a 2003 law. It would also require the pharmaceutical corporations to report information about the factors affecting their drug pricing, such as research and development costs.

I encourage you to contact your U.S. Senators and Representative to urge them to support the Prescription Drug Affordability Act and efforts to control drug prices in general.

[1] Prupis, N., 10/14/16, “As Flint suffers, big pharma slammed for lead poisoning drug price hike of 2,700%,” Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/10/14/flint-suffers-big-pharma-slammed-lead-poison-drug-price-hike-2700)

[2] Silverman, E., 10/11/16, “Huge Valeant price hike on lead poisoning drug sparks anger,” Stat (https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2016/10/11/valeant-drug-prices-lead-poisoning/)

PROBLEMS WITH PRIVATIZED PRISONS

The problems with privatized prisons have come to public attention largely due to the investigative journalism of The Nation and Mother Jones. Their reporting underscores the importance and challenges of investigative journalism. It has become relatively routine for targets of investigative journalism to sue (or at least threaten to sue) the journalists and their publishers. Both corporate and government entities have built an ever stronger set of legal protections including employee non-disclosure agreements and other employer protection laws and legal precedents. The mainstream, corporate media have largely abandoned investigative journalism at least in part due to the threat of litigation and because news and reporting budgets have been slashed to increase profits.

When Mother Jones published its report based on a guard’s experiences at a private prison run by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA, see overview and link below), it received a threatening letter from a law firm on behalf of CCA. It was the law firm that had represented a billionaire and large political campaign donor who had spent 3 years suing Mother Jones over its reporting of his anti-LGBT activities. Although the billionaire lost his case, the legal costs Mother Jones incurred in defending itself were a very serious financial burden. Furthermore, he pledged $1 million to support others who might want to sue Mother Jones over its reporting. [1] Needless to say, this type of aggressive behavior by the subjects of investigative reporting puts a chill on this valuable kind of journalism.

The Nation’s investigative reporting was based on reviewing a large number of documents from the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) in the US Department of Justice. The documents were obtained only after a lengthy and costly process using the Freedom of Information Act to gain access to these public records.

The records showed that the Bureau of Prisons’ monitors had documented, between January 2007 and June 2015, the deaths of 34 inmates who were provided substandard medical care in the BOP’s private prisons. Fourteen of these deaths occurred in prisons run by the Corrections Corporation of America, while fifteen were in prisons operated by the GEO Group. These two corporations are the largest operators of for-profit prisons. [2]

Despite this and other documentation of serious problems at the for-profit prisons, top BOP officials repeatedly failed to enforce the remediation of dangerous deficiencies and routinely extended contracts for the prisons. This was due, at least in part, to a cozy relationship between BOP leadership and the private-prison operators because of the revolving door of personnel between the BOP and the private providers. In 2011, for example, Harley Lappin, who had served as the Director of the BOP for eight years, left to join CCA as executive vice president. There he earned more than $1.6 million in one year; roughly 10 times his salary at BOP. Two previous BOP Directors, J. Michael Quinlan and Norman Carlson, had gone to work for CCA and the GEO Group, respectively. Five BOP employees recalled the former BOP Directors participating in meetings between the BOP and the contractor for whom they worked. The BOP employees felt this influenced decisions that were made and made taking disciplinary action against the contractors difficult.

Mother Jones magazine’s investigative reporting was done by Shane Bauer, a reporter who spent 4 months as a guard at one of CCA’s private prisons in Louisiana. [3] He found that cost cutting was a focus of both the state and CCA. Employee costs made up 59% of CCA’s operating expenses and therefore were a key target for cost-cutting. Starting guards at Bauer’s CCA facility made only $9 per hour while those at public prisons in the state made $12.50. To further save money and increase profits, the CCA facility was typically under-staffed. The facility’s guard towers were unmanned on a regular basis and staffing inside the facility was typically 10% – 20% below standard. Lockdowns, where prisoners can’t leave their wing of the prison, were supposed to be punishments for major disturbances, but they also occurred over holidays and other times when there simply weren’t enough guards to run the prison. Security checks on prisoners were logged as being done even when they weren’t because of understaffing. However, when the state’s Department of Correction was coming for an inspection, guards were required to work overtime so the facility was fully staffed.

As a result of under-staffing and perhaps under-training (another cost-cutting strategy), the use of force or chemical agents, typically pepper spray, occurred more often at the CCA prison than at comparable facilities: twice as often for force and 7 times as often for chemical agents. With 1,500 inmates, 546 sexual offenses were reported at Bauer’s prison in 2014, 69% higher than at a comparable government-run facility. Between 2010 and 2015, CCA was sued more than 1,000 times nationwide, with approximately 3% of the cases involving a death, 6% sexual harassment or assault, 10% physical violence, 15% injuries, 15% medical care issues, and 16% prison conditions and treatment.

Louisiana’s efforts to cut costs and use contractors to run cheap prisons was reflected in the $34 per inmate per day that it paid CCA, while funding for state-run prisons was about $52. In addition, the inflation-adjusted cost per prisoner at the CCA facility Bauer worked at had dropped by 20% between the late 1990s and 2014.

CCA has an incentive to keep prisoners in its prisons in order to maximize revenue. An inmate can be charged with an infraction of the rules and lose credit for good behavior. This can mean that an inmate stays in prison an extra 30 days and that CCA gets paid an additional $1,000.

In Louisiana, the state also had an incentive to keep the prison full because CCA’s contract with the state required that CCA get paid for a minimum of 96% of full occupancy. Occupancy guarantees are common in private prison contracts and are one aspect of privatization that leads to perverse incentives for the state. The state’s incentive to keep the prison full may mean that prisoners who could be released are kept in prison or that the criminal justice system is pressured to arrest and sentence enough people to ensure that the prison is full.

CCA has been very active politically through lobbying and campaign contributions. Since 1998, CCA has spent $23 million on lobbying the federal government. Since 1990, it and its employees have contributed more than $6 million to candidates and other political activity. It has lobbied for high levels of incarceration. It co-chaired the criminal justice task force of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a corporate and conservative think tank that drafts and promotes state-level legislation. Among the pieces of legislation it has promoted are mandatory sentencing laws, punitive immigration reform, and truth-in-sentencing laws, all of which helped fuel the growing prison population of the 1990s.

CCA and other for-profit prison corporations aggressively lobbied Congress in 2009 for a minimum number of undocumented immigrants to be in private detention centers. They succeeded; US taxpayers are required by law to pay for a daily minimum of 34,000 beds in private detention centers. [4] These corporations have also lobbied against bills in Congress that would require private prisons to be subject to public information laws, such as the Freedom of Information Act. Such bills have been introduced at least 8 times in Congress, but have failed to pass each time.

These are examples of the problems and issues with private prisons, and with privatization in general. The problems with the private prisons were severe and intractable enough that the BOP concluded that it had to terminate its use of them. The BOP’s experiences and decision to end privatization should be kept in mind as other privatization efforts are reviewed or proposed.

[1] Jeffery, C., July/August 2016, “Why we sent a reporter to work as a private prison guard,” Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/cca-private-prisons-investigative-journalism-editors-note)

[2] Wessler, S.F., 6/15/16, “Federal officials ignored years of internal warnings about deaths at private prisons,” The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/federal-officials-ignored-years-of-internal-warnings-about-deaths-at-private-prisons/)

[3] Bauer, S., July / August 2016, “My four months as a private prison guard,” Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/cca-private-prisons-corrections-corporation-inmates-investigation-bauer)

[4] Editorial, 8/27/16, “Dump private prisons – all of them,” The Boston Globe

PRISON PRIVATIZATION: A FAILED EXPERIMENT

The risks of privatizing government services have been highlighted by the recent bad experience with private prisons. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) in the federal Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced that it will end its 20 years of using privately-run, for-profit prisons due to significant, clear cut problems.

A DOJ Inspector General’s report in August 2016 found that private prisons were less safe, less secure, and more costly than the BOP’s own government-run prisons. Among other problems, dozens of deaths linked to substandard medical care were documented. [1] Private prisons also had higher rates of assaults and 9 times more lockdowns (used to quell disturbances and punish prisoners) than government-run facilities.

Earlier reports on the BOP’s privatized prisons had found that any cost savings were negated by the costs of oversight and that the quality of services was lacking. These are common problems with privatization. Frequently, the cost of oversight is not factored into the cost-benefit analysis of privatization. Therefore, privatization may appear to save money when in actuality it doesn’t. Furthermore, the oversight that occurs is often unsuccessful in ensuring efficient and high quality performance by the private provider, as occurred with the BOP’s private prisons.

Despite these earlier findings, the use of private prisons grew and by fiscal year 2015 the BOP was paying private prison contractors $1.05 billion a year. [2] Today, the BOP houses about 22,000 of its prisoners in 13 private prisons out of a total of roughly 175,000 prisoners under its jurisdiction. Its announcement stated that it will phase out the use of these private prisons as their contracts expire over the next few years.

The US Department of Homeland Security, on the other hand, has said nothing about its future use of private detention facilities, which house about 25,000 immigrants. These detention centers have also been found to provide substandard medical care linked to deaths. They also have experienced high suicide rates. [3]

Turning over a public service to a private, for-profit corporation often creates perverse and counterproductive incentives. Privatization at the BOP, as in most cases, was focused on reducing public sector costs. The goals of minimizing cost and maximizing profit often conflict with the social mission of a public service. In the case of privatized prisons, the goals of humane treatment and rehabilitation are undermined.

In private prisons, the corporate providers cut costs (and increase profits) by increasing the number of inmates in a facility (resulting in overcrowding); decreasing the services provided to them (including rehabilitation, education, job training, and medical care); providing cheap (and sometimes unhealthy) food; using substandard facilities; and decreasing the number, pay, and training of staff (including guards, supervisors, and medical staff). In addition, to generate revenue, they charge fees to inmates and their families (that are often unaffordable), and also sell inmate labor typically without paying the inmates for it. [4] Another frequent problem with privatization is that private providers bill government for services that were not needed or in some cases were not actually provided in order to increase revenue and profits.

Because the for-profit prison corporations are private entities, they are not subject to public information laws. This lack of transparency is another frequent problem with privatization. Not surprisingly, the for-profit prison corporations tend to be quite secretive, which makes public scrutiny of them and their service delivery difficult.

The private prison business began in the 1980s. The war on drugs was underway; tough on crime and strict sentencing laws were in their political heyday. Between 1980 and 1990, state spending on prisons quadrupled and still many prison were over-crowded. [5]

At the federal level, detention of undocumented immigrants exploded in the 1990s. Until then, border crossing was treated as a civil offense, punishable by deportation. But then, as part of the tough on crime and anti-immigrant politics, Congress changed that. By 1996, crossing the border was a federal crime. Prosecutions for illegal entry rose from fewer than 4,000 in 1992, to 31,000 in 2004 under President George W. Bush, to a high of 91,000 in 2013 under President Obama.

Privatization of public services was a hot topic in the 1980s as it was purported to be more efficient, to reduce costs, improve quality, and reduce government expenditures. It also provided opportunities for private profit.

Therefore, it wasn’t surprising that privatization of prisons blossomed as a way to meet a growing need and, supposedly, reduce governments’ costs. To handle the flood of undocumented immigrants into its prisons, the BOP turned to private corporations to operate a new type of facility: low-security prisons designed to hold only non-citizens. As of June 2015, these facilities — which are distinct from immigration detention centers, where people are held pending deportation — housed nearly 23,000 people. Three private corporations now run 11 immigrant-only prisons for BOP: five are run by the GEO Group, four by the Corrections Corporation of America, and two by the Management & Training Corporation. [6]

The Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) began operation in 1983 and grew from 5 facilities in 1986 to 60 today. It houses 66,000 inmates and in 2015 reported revenue of $1.9 billion with net income of $221 million. Its main competitor is GEO Group, which has 70,000 inmates in its private facilities.

The problems with private prisons have come to public attention largely due to investigative journalism by The Nation and Mother Jones. My next post will provide an overview of their reporting. The failures of the BOP’s 20-year experience with private prisons hold many lessons for efforts to privatize other government services including roads, bridges, and public transportation; schools; water and sewer systems; and trash collection.

[1] Wessler, S.F., 8/18/16, “The Justice Department will end all federal private prisons, following a ‘Nation’ investigation,” The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/justice-department-to-end-all-federal-private-prisons-following-nation-investigation/)

[3] Editorial, 8/27/16, “Dump private prisons – all of them,” The Boston Globe

[4] Vanden Heuvel, K., 8/23/16, “On private federal prisons, a victory for independent journalism,” The Washington Post

[5] Bauer, S., July / August 2016, “My four months as a private prison guard,” Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/cca-private-prisons-corrections-corporation-inmates-investigation-bauer)

[6] Wessler, S.F., 1/28/16, “ ‘This man will almost certainly die’,” The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/privatized-immigrant-prison-deaths/)

SOLVING THE PROBLEMS OF OUR PRIVATIZED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

Clearly, the private market is not working well for health insurance or health care in the U.S. Costs are rapidly escalating in a system that is already the most expensive in the world, but that has mediocre to poor outcomes. Many private health insurance, pharmaceutical, and health care corporations are putting profits before patients.

Increasing premiums for health insurance and high drug prices (see my previous post on drug prices) are undermining efforts to control health care costs. The exorbitant and fast growing costs of U.S. health care are squeezing state and federal governments’ budgets, as well as employers and individuals. In many states’ budgets, increased costs for health care for poor families and seniors through Medicaid, as well as for employees and retirees, are eating up all the increases in revenue from economic growth – and then some. This means that without tax increases or other sources of increased revenue, states and the federal government are having to cut spending in other areas of their budgets.

Increasing costs for employees’ health insurance are hurting employers’ competitiveness with foreign companies and reducing their profitability. Some employers have dropped health insurance as an employee benefit, while others have increased the portion of health insurance premiums employees must pay or are offering insurance plans with less comprehensive coverage as well as higher deductibles and co-pays. As fewer employees get health insurance through their employers, the number of people in subsidized government health programs increases, further increasing costs for governments.

Individuals are not getting the health care they need because insurance is not making it accessible and affordable. Many people are suffering financial hardship and some file for bankruptcy because of the costs of health care.

The clear solution to these problems is to provide everyone access to what’s referred to as a “public option” or a Medicare-for-all type health insurance plan. This would be a government run insurance pool, which is what Medicare is for seniors. When the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was being considered by Congress, a public option was initially included. In other words, a government run insurance plan would have been offered by each of the ACA’s state-level health insurance marketplaces (aka exchanges) where people without health insurance would buy coverage. A public option was vehemently opposed by the private insurers and was eventually dropped from the ACA legislation. They opposed it because they didn’t want the competition from a Medicare-type program that would be likely to expose their inefficiencies – despite, of course, these private corporations’ dedication to free markets and competition whenever any government regulation is proposed.

With problems in our privatized health care system becoming increasingly apparent, including a public option in the ACA exchanges is gaining increased support. [1] With some private health insurers abandoning the exchanges, it is projected that 7 states will have only one private insurer offering coverage. [2] In these state, having a public health insurance plan as an option would mean that there was still competition. This would serve as a check on the sole private insurer, ensuring that its coverage and pricing remained competitive and that it didn’t exploit a monopoly situation.

More broadly, there have been numerous proposals over many years to allow anyone over 50 or 55 years old to “buy into” Medicare. In other words, although they hadn’t yet reached the normal Medicare eligibility age of 65, these individuals would be allowed to pay an appropriate premium to buy health insurance as part of the Medicare insurance pool.

Senator Sanders, in his presidential campaign, highlighted his proposal for Medicare-for-All. This proposal would allow anyone to pay an appropriate premium to buy health insurance as part of a large, Medicare-like, government insurance pool. This proposal received broad and often enthusiastic support. [3]

A public option in the ACA exchanges or a Medicare-for-All option for everyone is the only way to realistically address the shortcomings of our privatized system of health care. By providing real competition for the private insurers, this would ensure the quality and affordability of health insurance. By giving the public option or Medicare-for-All insurance pools the right to negotiate with the pharmaceutical corporations over drug prices, prescription drug costs could be brought under control. (The Medicare drug benefit should also be changed to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices.)

If we want quality and affordability in our health care system, a public option or Medicare-for-All program is essential as a check on the private corporations that currently dominate our health care system. Currently, a proposal in the U.S. Senate would add a public option to the ACA exchanges. It already has the support of over 30 Senators, including Senators Bernie Sanders (VT), Elizabeth Warren (MA), Jeff Merkley (OR), Charles Schumer (NY), Patty Murray (WA), and Dick Durbin (IL).

I encourage you to contact your U.S. Senators and other elected officials to tell them you support a public option under the Affordable Care Act specifically and a Medicare-for-All program in general. The for-profit health insurance, pharmaceutical, and health care corporations will fight tooth and nail to stop this competition. They will make huge campaign and lobbying expenditures to try to maintain their ability to manipulate our health care system to generate large profits and exorbitant executive compensation. Only a huge outcry and sustained pressure from the grassroots – from we the people – will get our policy makers to enact the significant reforms needed to create a health care system that delivers affordable, high quality care for all.

[1] Willies, E., 8/28/16, “Recent headlines signal need for single-payer Medicare for All – now,” Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/8/28/1563720/-Recent-headlines-signal-need-for-single-payer-Medicare-for-All-now)

[2] Alonso-Zaldivar, R., 8/29/16, “Challenges mount for health law,” The Boston Globe from the Associated Press

[3] Nichols, J., 9/16/16, “Make the public option a central focus of the 2016 campaign,” The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/make-the-public-option-a-central-focus-of-the-2016-campaign/)

HEALTH INSURANCE: A BIG PROBLEM IN OUR PRIVATIZED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

The goals of health insurance are to provide affordable access to health care and to protect people from the catastrophic costs of serious health problems. The health insurance system in the US is failing to meet these goals for many Americans.

The most recent and newsworthy issues with private health insurance are occurring in the so-called health insurance exchanges. These are state-level marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA, aka Obama Care) where individuals without health insurance can buy coverage.

Many of the private health insurers offering policies through the exchanges are increasing the premiums they charge; some by as much as 62%. This is happening in part because some insurers initially set premiums unrealistically low in order to attract customers and gain market share. In addition, health care costs for those enrolling through the exchanges have been greater than some insurers estimated. [1]

As a result of these increased premiums, customers may switch to less expensive policies with less comprehensive coverage as well as higher deductible and co-payment amounts. This will increase the costs of health care for these customers, leaving some of them under-insured and vulnerable to financial hardship or bankruptcy if a major medical expense occurs.

Some insurers are terminating their participation in the exchanges, ostensibly because they aren’t making money on the policies they are selling there. However, in the case of Aetna, apparently it is planning to withdraw from 11 of the 15 exchanges in which it participates as retaliation for the federal government’s opposition to Aetna’s proposed merger with Humana. Both Aetna and Humana are among the 5 largest health insurers in the country. If this merger and another one (between Anthem and Cigna) that the government is blocking were approved, the top 5 health insurers would become 3 huge corporations. These are exactly the kinds of mergers that are resulting in decreased competition, increased prices, and near monopolistic power. (See my earlier blog post for more details.)

Overall, the health insurance corporations are raising premiums and cutting their participation in the exchanges to cut losses or increase profits. Profits are more important to them than meeting the goals of health insurance for customers.

Furthermore, private insurers are much less efficient than Medicare, the public health insurance program for our seniors. This is well documented. Medicare spends over 95% of its budget on actual health care. Private health insurers spends as little as 67% of premiums on actual health care. They use money from premiums to pay for advertising, profits, and executives’ compensation. To ensure a reasonable level of efficiency, the ACA requires health insurance policies offered on its exchanges to spend 80% of their premiums on actual health care – as opposed to administrative and corporate expenses.

Private health insurance simply doesn’t make sense from two key perspectives. First, health insurance and health care are not “markets” as defined by economics. Consumers don’t have perfect and clear information about the competing products. Consumers can’t and don’t effectively shop around for health insurance plans or health care services. When one needs a medical procedure, one doesn’t have the time, information, or capacity to shop around and find the best combination of quality and price.

Second, the whole premise of insurance is that risk is shared among a large, random pool of people. However, the multiple health insurers fragment the pool and, furthermore, each one works to attract healthy people (who are less costly to serve) and avoid those who are sick. With one large, random pool, the unpredictable nature of health care needs and costs is shared. The financial hardship of a serious medical issue does not fall on one individual or family. However, our private health insurance industry fragments the pool and tries to only insure healthy people. They do this through advertising, which therefore becomes a major expense, along with special perks like coverage for membership in a fitness center. They do it by denying payment so sick customers get frustrated and leave. This is clearly documented in Medicare, where the private insurers that provide services under Medicare are clearly successful at attracting the healthier seniors but then dumping them back into the government insurance pool when they get sick.

In addition, the presence of multiple private health insurers also increases costs for doctors, hospitals, and other providers of health care. Each insurer has its own forms and procedures with which the providers have to cope.

Roughly 50 – 60 million adults struggle with health care bills each year and the great majority of them have health insurance. This includes roughly 20% of the adult population under 65, the age of eligibility for automatic health insurance under Medicare. [2] Nearly 2 million Americans will file for bankruptcy this year in cases where unpaid medical bills are a major factor. Overwhelming health care bills are the number one reason for personal bankruptcy filings. [3]

More Americans have health insurance today than ever before thanks to the ACA, which has provided health insurance to 15 million people. However, because of the dysfunction of privatized health insurance, this has not significantly reduced financial hardship due to medical bills. Notably, the easiest way for health insurers to reduce costs and increase profits is to refuse to pay for health care services. Having a health insurer deny authorization or payment for care is something almost all Americans have experienced. In addition, health insurers are increasing premiums while reducing coverage and raising deductibles and co-payments.

Clearly, private health insurance is not meeting the goals of affordability and protection from financial hardship. My next post will present solutions to the problems of our privatized health care system.

[1] Alonso-Zaldivar, R., 8/29/16, “Challenges mount for health law,” The Boston Globe from the Associated Press

[2] Sanger-Katz, M., 1/5/16, “Even insured can face crushing medical debt, study finds,” The New York Times

[3] Mangan, D., 6/25/13, “Medical bills are the biggest cause of US bankruptcies,” CNBC (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148)

DRUG PRICES: A BIG PROBLEM IN OUR PRIVATIZED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

A series of recent events have highlighted the problems with our privatized, for-profit health care system. First, there have been numerous cases of drug prices that have increased dramatically. I’ll discuss this topic in this post.

Second, health insurance corporations have been merging (and continue to try to) to create a few, enormous corporations that have monopolistic power, which leads to increases in health insurance costs. A similar pattern is occurring among health care providers, although this tends to be more regional than national. I’ll discuss these issues in my next post, followed by a post on solutions to the problems of our privatized health care system.

These recent events highlight that per capita health care spending in the U.S. continues to climb more rapidly than overall inflation. And they underscore that our health care spending is already exorbitant compared to every other country, while our health outcomes are worse.

The dramatic increase in the cost of EpiPens has been the most recent and perhaps most prominent of the extraordinary increases in drug prices. Perhaps this is because of its widespread usage and dramatic life-saving potential, especially for allergic reactions in children. The history here is that the EpiPen cost $50 in 2004. It was bought by Mylan in 2007, which began to steadily increase its price. It hit $250 in 2013 and then, in August, Mylan jumped the price to $600 – 12 times what it cost in 2004. By the way, the actual drug in the EpiPen costs about $1. [1]

The pharmaceutical corporations typically argue that their high drug prices are needed to pay for research and development. The validity of this argument is questionable at best and clearly false in many cases, such as the EpiPen case. A recent study found no evidence of a connection between drug research and development costs and prices. It concluded that drug prices are based on what the manufacturer can squeeze out of consumers and their insurance. [2]

For example, in August the price of Daraprim was raised to $750 per pill from $13.50. It had been $1 per pill in 2010. This is a 62-year-old drug that treats a life-threatening parasitic infection in babies and those with compromised immune systems, such as AIDS and cancer patients. In 2010, GlaxoSmithKline sold the drug to CorePharma, which quickly increased the price from $1 to around $10 per pill. In August, the drug was acquired by Turing Pharmaceuticals, a start-up run by a former hedge fund manager, and its price was immediately increased to $750 – 750 times its cost in 2010. [3] Turing is not a pharmaceutical company; it doesn’t do research and development. It is basically a hedge fund that buys the rights to drugs on which it believes it can dramatically increase prices to make a great return on its investment. Why the price increases? Greed coupled with a lack of regulation is the only answer.

Similarly, Rodelis Therapeutics bought Cycloserine, a drug to treat drug-resistant tuberculosis. It quickly increased the price per pill to $360 from about $17. Likewise, Valeant Pharmaceuticals acquired two heart drugs and more than doubled the price of one and quintupled the price of the other. This was on top of a quintupling of their prices in 2013 by the previous owner that had recently purchased them. So, overall their prices have jumped to 10 and 25 times what they were in 2013.

Per capita prescription drug spending in the U.S. is the highest in the world. U.S. drug spending is more than twice as high as the average for 19 other advanced countries and one-third higher than in the next most expensive countries, Canada and Germany.

Medicare, the huge health insurance plan for our seniors, is prohibited from negotiating with pharmaceutical corporations for lower drug prices. [4] This was written into the expansion of Medicare that added coverage of drugs by the George W. Bush administration at the behest of the pharmaceutical corporations. Meanwhile, the Veterans Administration, many health insurers, and health care systems in other countries negotiate far lower prices for drugs than what Medicare ends up paying.

U.S. patent laws and other market protections slow the availability of less expensive, generic versions of drugs, thereby supporting high prices for brand name drugs here in the U.S. Brand name drugs (as opposed to generics) represent 10% of prescriptions but 72% of drug spending.

The pharmaceutical corporations also use multiple business strategies to limit competition so they can maintain high prices for their drugs. One strategy is to use what the pharmaceutical industry calls “controlled distribution.” This means that the drugs are not distributed through drugstores but only directly by the corporation. Therefore, companies that want to make and sell a generic version of the drug, cannot get the samples they need to analyze, replicate, and test a generic version of the drug. Another strategy is to pay generic drug manufacturers not to make a generic version of a drug, even after its patent has expired. A third strategy is to make a minor modification to a drug, one that often has no functional impact, in order to obtain a patent extension based on the modification.

Dramatic increases in the prices of generic drugs (i.e., non-brand-name drugs that are no longer covered by a patent) are a relatively new phenomenon. Prices of generic drugs declined from 2006 to 2013. However, there are numerous examples of dramatic price increases over the past 3 years: [5]

Tetracycline (a common antibiotic): $0.06 to $4.60 per pill (77 times as expensive)
Amitriptyline (an antidepressant): $0.04 to $1.03 per pill (26 times)
Clobetasol (a prescription skin cream): $0.26 to $4.15 per gram (16 times)
Captopril (a blood pressure med): $0.11 to $0.91 per pill (8 times)
Digoxin (a heart med): $0.12 to $0.98 per pill (8 times)

Drug prices in the U.S. are not regulated or routinely negotiated as they are in other countries. Mergers of pharmaceutical corporations have reduced competition. Increasingly, the remaining large corporations have monopolistic power in the marketplace, and hence can increase prices more or less at will.

In California, the pharmaceutical industry, led by Merck and Pfizer, is spending over $80 million to defeat a ballot question that would limit state health plans to paying the discounted drug prices negotiated by the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Back in 2005, the pharmaceutical industry spent $135 million to defeat a ballot question that would have required it to provide discounted drugs for the poor. [6]

Perhaps not surprisingly, prescription drug costs represent the fastest growing portion of health care costs. Overall spending on prescription drugs has been growing at 10% per year, double the rate of increase of total health care spending, and roughly 5 times the rate of general inflation in the economy. Prescription drugs now account for 17% of all health care spending. [7]

[1] Rosenthal, E., 9/2/16, “The lesson of EpiPens: Why drug prices spike, again and again,” The New York Times

[3] Pollack, A., 9/21/16, “Huge hikes in prices of drugs raise protests and questions,” The Boston Globe from The New York Times

[4] Weisman, R., 8/24/16, “Exclusivity rule seen driving up drug costs,” The Boston Globe

[5] McCluskey, P. D., 11/7/15, “The not-so-cheap alternative,” The Boston Globe

[6] Robbins, R., 9/7/16, “A revolt against high drug prices,” The Boston Globe

[7] Weisman, R., 8/24/16, see above

COUNTERACTING THE LOW-WAGE BUSINESS MODEL OF PARASITIC CORPORATIONS

The low-wage business model of Walmart and McDonald’s, for example, is a choice, both of corporations and of our policy makers. In the restaurant industry, there are restaurants in Seattle and San Francisco that are paying their servers $13 per hour and are doing fine. Costco successfully competes with Walmart and In-N-Out-Burger with McDonald’s even though the former eschew the low-wage business model of their competitor. [1]

Economists have a label for the behavior of corporations that rely on a low-wage business model where employees need public assistance to survive: it’s called “free riding.” It’s a free ride for the employer, as public assistance programs are subsidizing their payrolls. It’s anything but a free ride for taxpayers and the workers.

In the fast food industry, over half of employees are enrolled in at least one public assistance program. The estimated cost to taxpayers is $76 billion per year. Ironically, the taxes paid by high-wage businesses and their employees, including those competing with the likes of McDonald’s and Walmart, help to pay for the public benefits that subsidize the low wages of these parasitic corporations. Until recently, McDonald’s actually assisted its employees in signing up for public benefits – to the tune of $1.2 billion per year. Walmart employees are estimated to receive $6 billion per year in public assistance. By the way, in 2015 McDonald’s profit was $4.53 billion and Walmart’s was $130.2 billion.

Economic theory states that workers get paid what they are worth. Clearly, this is an over simplification given the variations in pay that exist among employers within an industry, such as within the fast food or restaurant industries. It is more accurate to say that workers get paid what they negotiate, and that some employers are friendlier negotiators than others. At the top end of the pay spectrum, some CEOs negotiate to get paid far more than they’re worth, while many ordinary workers get paid far less than they are worth because they don’t have the power to negotiate better pay.

The U.S. labor market has a dramatic imbalance of power. Unless a worker is a member of a union, he or she has little or no power to negotiate with an employer. The rate of union membership has fallen from roughly 1 in 3 private sector workers in 1979 to only about 1 in 10 workers today. Unions negotiate higher wages and benefits for union members and also, indirectly, for nonunion workers. This occurs for several reasons: union contracts set wage standards across whole industries and strong unions prompt employers to keep wages high in order to reduce turnover and discourage unionizing at non-union employers. The decline in union membership has resulted in reduced wages for both union and nonunion workers. It is estimated that this decline is costing non-union workers $133 billion a year in lost wages. [2]

Individual workers lack bargaining power because there are relatively few employers and job openings but lots of workers looking for a job. Furthermore, a worker has an immediate need for income to pay for food and shelter, while most employers can leave a job unfilled for a while without suffering any great hardship. They can take the time to search for someone willing to take the job at whatever pay they offer.

Since 1980, employers have aggressively exploited this imbalance of power, while our federal government has stood aside and, in many ways, supported them in doing so. As a result, $1 trillion per year that used to go to workers now goes to executives and profits. Workers’ rewards for their contributions to our economic output (gross domestic product [GDP]) has dropped from 50% of GDP to 43%.

There is truth to the argument that in very competitive, price-sensitive industries producers have to squeeze workers’ wages to remain in business. However, this is where the role of government and public policy is critical. If every producer in the industry is required to pay a minimum wage, then a floor is set and all producers are on a level playing field, but with workers getting better pay. Without a good minimum wage, the competition drives wages down to the point where workers are suffering and public subsidies are required.

Public policies and laws, as well as collective action (such as unions negotiating on workers’ behalf), regulate the marketplace and affect the balance of power among competing economic interests. A market economy cannot operate effectively without the rules put in place by policies and laws. They are not antithetical to capitalism; rather, they are essential for markets to function.

Rules are necessary to prevent cheating, such as regulation of weights and measures of goods sold, and to protect the health and safety of consumers and workers. Laws and court systems enforce contracts between parties for the exchange of goods and services for money. Rules are needed to prevent companies from gaining an unfair advantage by being a free rider or externalizing costs (i.e., shifting the costs to others such as by polluting public air and water or by paying such low wages that employees need taxpayer-funded support).

Our low-wage, parasite economy is a collective choice, made by corporations but allowed and abetted – and subsidized – by public polices enacted by elected officials. We, as voters, can change this by electing representatives who support:

Increasing the minimum wage,
Enforcing and strengthening laws that allow workers to bargain collectively through unions, and
Stopping the free riding and externalizing of costs by large, profitable corporations.

Increasing the minimum wage and strengthening unions are two key policies that would strengthen our economy and the middle class by reducing the prevalence of the low-wage business model of parasitic corporations. I encourage you to ask candidates where they stand on these issues and to vote for ones who support fair wages and bargaining power for workers.

[1] Hanauer, N., Summer 2016, “Confronting the parasite economy,” The American Prospect

[2] Rosenfeld, J., Denice, P., & Laird, J., 8/30/16, “Union decline lowers wages for nonunion workers,” Economic Policy Institute (http://www.epi.org/publication/union-decline-lowers-wages-of-nonunion-workers-the-overlooked-reason-why-wages-are-stuck-and-inequality-is-growing/)

A LARGE CORPORATION BLACKMAILS OUR GOVERNMENT

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is blocking two mergers, each of which would combine two of the five largest health insurance corporations in America. Aetna and Humana have plans to merge as do Anthem and Cigna. As a result, the big five health insurers would become three, reducing competition and choice for consumers, and, presumably, increasing the cost of health insurance. As I’ve written about in previous posts (here, here, and here), huge corporations with near monopoly power are bad for our economy and our democracy.

It appears in this case that Aetna is using its marketplace and political power to attempt to blackmail the federal government into approving its merger. On August 15, Aetna announced that it will withdraw from 11 of the 15 state health insurance marketplaces (called exchanges) in which it currently participates. These exchanges were created by the Affordable Care Act (aka Obama Care) and are where people without health insurance go to find and buy insurance.

Aetna claims it is dropping out of the exchanges because it cannot afford the losses it is experiencing on consumers from them. However, this is a dramatic reversal from the corporation’s statements four months ago when its CEO Mark Bertolini said that Aetna planned to stay in the exchanges and was “in a very good place to make this a sustainable program.” It appears the major reason for the shift was the DOJ’s decision to block its merger with Humana. [1]

Back in July, in a letter to the DOJ (obtained by The Huffington Post through a Freedom of Information Act request), Aetna CEO Bertolini stated that Aetna would reduce its participation in the health exchanges if the merger wasn’t approved. [2] Note that Bertolini would personally receive up to $131 million if the merger goes through [3] and that Aetna made a profit of $2.4 billion in 2015 on revenue of $60 billion.

The withdrawal of Aetna from the health insurance exchanges will force consumers to switch plans and will result in fewer choices and perhaps increased costs for Americans obtaining health insurance through the exchanges. Other health insurers, including regional Blue Cross Blue Shield plans, find their participation in the exchanges profitable or plan to continue their participation even if currently there are some losses. Obama Care has brought 20 million new consumers to the health insurers through its exchanges and subsidies.

Many people, including former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, are pointing to Aetna’s action as an example of the unhealthy amount of power that giant corporations have. More specifically, many health advocates are concerned about corporate power in the health care arena and are citing this as another example of corporations putting profit before people’s health. Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote that “The health of the American people should not be used as bargaining chips to force the government to bend to one giant company’s will.” [4]

The need for a publicly sponsored alternative (sometimes referred to as Medicare-for-All) to the private, generally for-profit, health insurers in the health insurance exchanges, is being put forth as the solution to counter the pitfalls of for-profit health insurance. [5]

Corporations shouldn’t have the power – which largely comes with size and near-monopoly market share – to effectively blackmail our federal, state, and local governments. These large health insurers and other huge corporations have amassed unhealthy amounts of power. Fortunately, the DOJ is blocking the two proposed mergers that would only make the situation worse.

The “laws” of economics (more accurately economic theory) assume that markets have multiple small suppliers of goods and services. Therefore, there would be real competition and consumer choice that could constrain market prices and companies’ behavior. Small is beautiful (to revive an old saying).

However, major, critical sectors of our economy have one or a very few large corporate suppliers. Aetna’s actions provide a poignant example of how corporate power can harm consumers, our economy, and democracy.

[1] Bryan, B., 8/17/16, “Now we know the real reason Aetna bailed on Obamacare,” Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/aetna-humana-merger-reason-for-leaving-obamacare-2016-8)

[2] Cohn, J., & Young, J., 8/17/16, “Aetna CEO threatened Obamacare pullout if Feds opposed Humana merger,” The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/aetna-obamacare-pullout-humana-merger_us_57b3d747e4b04ff883996a13)

[3] Knight, N., 8/17/16, “Sanders: Aetna’s Obamacare threat shows what ‘corporate control looks like’,” Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/08/17/sanders-aetnas-obamacare-threat-shows-what-corporate-control-looks)

[4] Knight, N., 8/17/16, see above

[5] McCauley, L., 8/16/16, “Aetna’s greed proves that Medicare-for-All is the best solution,” Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/08/16/aetnas-greed-proves-medicare-all-best-solution)

BIG CORPORATIONS BEHAVING BADLY PART 2

In my previous post, I focused on the big Wall St. corporations’ efforts to weaken financial regulations and consumer protections. In this post, I’ll share two much less visible examples of the power of big corporations to tilt the playing field in their favor:

H-1B visas
Consumer agreements and employee contracts

First, large corporations are dominating and gaming the H-1B visa program set up to help US companies hire foreign workers with special skills needed for their businesses that they are unable to find among US citizens. Only 85,000 of these visas are issued each year and many small companies with such needs are being shut out by large corporations requesting tens of thousands of the visas. It used to be that companies could apply and get one of these visas at any point during the year when the need arose. Now, immediately after the application process starts on April 1 each year, big corporations request thousands of visas so that a week later applications have already exceeded the year’s supply. [1]

Just twenty corporations took nearly 40% of the visas last year, about 32,000 of them, with one company applying for over 14,000. Thirteen of these 20 corporations are global outsourcing operations that typically bring in their employees from India to fulfill large contracts with US corporations that are outsourcing customer contact, marketing, or other functions. Their dominance and gaming of the system mean that many of the 10,000 other companies, many of them small businesses, that want and need these visas can’t get them.

These large corporations’ claims that they can’t find US citizens to perform these jobs is somewhat suspect. It seems likely that in some cases they simply want to pay the foreign workers less than they would have to pay Americans to do these jobs. Furthermore, a number of these corporations aren’t actually US corporations; they have their headquarters in India or Ireland, for example.

On a different front, many of the agreements that consumers must sign or agree to to shop online, rent a car, put a relative in a nursing home, or to get a credit card, cell phone, or many other products and services, contain a clause that goes something like this: “the company may elect to resolve any claim by individual arbitration.” Increasingly, this language is also showing up in contracts individuals must sign to get a job. This means that the corporate employer or provider of the product or service can force employees and consumers to resolve any complaint, problem, or claim, including ones that may involve fraud, illegality, or serious risk to the individual, through a corporate-controlled arbitration process and as an individual (i.e., not through any group action such as a class-action lawsuit).

This prevents the individual from going to court, from suing, and from joining with others in a class-action lawsuit. Class-action lawsuits, where a group of individuals who have been similarly harmed by a corporation’s actions band together to bring a lawsuit, are often the only realistic way to fight the power and deep pockets of a large corporation. Many attempts to bring class-action lawsuits have been rejected by the courts due to such arbitration clauses, including ones against Time Warner Cable for unauthorized charges on customers’ bills, AT&T for excessive cancellation fees, a travel booking website for price fixing, and ones for predatory lending, wage theft, and multiple cases of race and sex discrimination. The evidence indicates that once a class-action suit is blocked, most individuals simply drop their claims because they aren’t worth pursuing on an individual basis given the time and effort required and the small likelihood of winning any significant compensation.

“This is among the most profound shifts in our legal history. Ominously, business has a good chance of opting out of the legal system altogether and misbehaving without reproach,” according to US District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee. The effort to prevent class-action lawsuits was led by a coalition of credit card companies and retailers; it has been underway for 10 years. The Attorneys General of 16 states have written to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) warning that “unlawful business practices” could flourish with the growing inability to use class-action lawsuits to seek compensation for victims. [2]

In October, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau outlined rules to prevent financial corporations from banning class-action lawsuits in consumer agreements. Wall St. and the US Chamber of Commerce immediately mobilized to block the CFPB’s effort.

Large corporations are continuously working to gain benefits for themselves at a cost to consumers, workers, and small businesses. I urge you to contact your elected officials and tell them that big corporations don’t need or deserve a playing field that’s tipped in their favor. If anything, the field should be tipped in favor of the little guy – individuals and small companies.

[1] Preston, J., 11/11/15, “Top companies ‘game’ visa system, leaving smaller firms out of luck,” The Boston Globe from The New York Times

[2] Silver-Greenberg, J., & Gebeloff, R., 11/1/15, “Hidden in fine print, clause stacks deck against consumers,” The Boston Globe from The New York Times

BIG CORPORATIONS BEHAVING BADLY

FULL POST: One of the themes that runs through many of my blog posts is the prevalence of corporate power in our politics, policies, economy, and lives. The power of large, often multi-national, corporations is evident in:

Financial industry regulation (See my posts Protecting our economy and democracy from Wall Street and Government by the big Wall St. corporations.)
Trade treaties (See my post Stop “trade” treaties that favor big multinational corporations.)
Tax laws (See my post Corporate welfare is making us poor.)

as well as in consumer protection laws, workplace and labor law, and the topics that our corporate media cover and don’t cover.

In this post, I’ll focus on efforts to weaken financial regulations and consumer protections, including some that are likely to come up in Congress in the near future. In my next post, I’ll share some other examples of the power of big corporations to tilt the playing field in their favor.

The large Wall St. financial corporations are wielding their power in opposing regulations and oversight intended to prevent another financial sector collapse and bailout like the one in 2008. Much of the fighting is over provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that it created. Wall St. has been working hard to delay, water down, and repeal regulations under the Dodd-Frank law, in spite of their success in weakening the original law.

One of their tactics is to slip provisions weakening regulations and oversight into unrelated legislation that must pass, hoping their provisions will pass with little or no attention in Congress or among the public. Last December, when a must-pass year-end budget bill was being considered, they slipped in a provision repealing the requirement that their trading of risky investments called swaps (a kind of derivative) had to be conducted by entities separate from those that held insured deposits from individuals. The budget bill passed as did the repeal of the swap regulation. This means that $10 trillion of risky trades are held by banks that have federal deposit insurance. If these risky trades turn sour and produce big losses, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and perhaps other government agencies will have to bailout the banks to make sure depositors don’t lose their insured deposits.

More recently, in October, Wall St. lobbied hard as bank regulators set the amount of money banks have to keep in reserve to cover potential losses on these risky trades. They were able to reduce the amount of these reserves, called the “margin requirement,” which increases the likelihood of a bailout at taxpayers’ expense.

With two pieces of must-pass legislation coming up Congress, the expectation is that Wall St. will again try to slip additional provisions into these bills to weaken regulation and oversight. The two bills are the year-end budget bill and the bill funding highway construction and maintenance. [1] One target appears to be the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was the target of a recent $500,000 advertising campaign that falsely accuses the CFPB of denying people loans. (The CFPB doesn’t make loans; it regulates lenders to prevent them from making predatory and fraudulent loans.)

We have a Consumer Product Safety Commission to regulate and protect us from dangerous consumer products and a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to protect us from dangerous automobiles (e.g., ones with faulty air bags or ignition switches). However, until Dodd-Frank passed, we did not have an agency to protect consumers from unsafe or predatory financial products. In Canada, where they did have such an agency, the incidence of predatory lending and mortgages was a tiny fraction of what it was in the US in the years leading up to the financial crash. This is a key reason the impact of the crash on homeowners and consumers in Canada was minor compared to the trillions of dollars of losses suffered by Americans.

I urge you to keep an eye out for efforts by our large corporations to bend policies – laws and regulations – to benefit themselves at a cost to consumers, workers, citizens, and small businesses. Contact your Members of Congress and tell them you’re tired of big corporations making out like bandits (sometimes literally) and getting away with it at your expense.

[1] Hopkins, C., & Brush, S., 11/11/15, “Lawmakers urge regulators to hold the line on risky trades,” The Boston Globe from Bloomberg News

THE UNDERMINING OF THE MIDDLE CLASS

ABSTRACT: Senator Elizabeth Warren gave a great speech recently in which she laid out how actions taken by corporations and related policy changes have undermined the middle and working class. She also spelled out what we need to do to change the rules of our economy so it works for everyone, not just the wealthiest. Up until the 1980s, our economy and the wages of the middle and working class grew together. But since the 1980s, all the growth of the economy has gone to the wealthiest 10%. Wages for the 90% of us with the lowest incomes have been flat, while our living expenses for housing, health care, and college have grown significantly.

This change in our economy, where all the benefits of growth go to the wealthiest 10%, represents a huge structural economic shift. It occurred because of cutting taxes; trade treaties; financial manipulation via leveraged buyouts and bankruptcies; minimum wage erosion with inflation; reductions in health care, unemployment, sick time, and overtime benefits; cutting of pensions and retiree benefits; and restrictions on employees’ rights to negotiate pay and working conditions as a group. Furthermore, corporations have been allowed to turn full-time employees into independent contractors or part-time workers who get no benefits and no job security.

These changes affect all workers, those in the private and public sectors, as well as both union and non-union employees. The changes were promoted by corporations and their lobbyists. Senator Warren states that it doesn’t have to be this way. We can make different choices and enact different policies that reflect different values. More on that next time.

FULL POST: Senator Elizabeth Warren gave a great speech recently in which she laid out how actions taken by corporations and related policy changes have undermined the middle and working class. She also spelled out what we need to do to change the rules of our economy so it works for everyone, not just the wealthiest. [1] She notes that up until the 1980s our economy and the wages of the middle and working class grew together. The rising tide of our growing economy did lift all boats. While the wealthiest 10% got more than their share of the growth (about 30%) in those years, the other 90% of us got 70% of the money generated by the growing economy.

But since the 1980s, all the growth of the economy has gone to the wealthiest 10%. The pay for Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of corporations was 30 times that of average workers in the 1980s; today it is 296 times that of workers. And in the last 25 years, corporate profits have doubled as a portion of our economy, while the portion going to workers has declined. [2]

Wages for the 90% of us with the lowest incomes have been flat, while our living expenses for housing, health care, and college have grown significantly. Mothers have gone to work and parents are working more hours but this has not been enough to maintain a middle class standard of living. It certainly looks like today’s young people will be the first generation in America to be worse off than their parents.

Since 1980, the wages of the wealthiest 1% have grown by 138% (adjusted for inflation) while wages for the 90% with the lowest wages have received only a 15% increase (less than half of one percent per year). Workers have not received the benefit of their increased productivity, as was the case up until 1980. Since 1980, productivity has increased 8 times faster than workers’ compensation. If the federal minimum wage had kept up with productivity, it would be $18.42 instead of $7.25. And if it had kept up with inflation since 1968, it would be $19.58. [3]

This change in our economy, where all the benefits of growth go to the wealthiest 10%, represents a huge structural economic shift. So how did the economy get rigged so the top 10% get all the rewards of economic growth?

In the 1980s, government was vilified by politicians who were supported by corporate money. The supposed evils of big government were used to argue for deregulation and cutting taxes. This turned Wall Street’s financial corporations and other large multi-national corporations loose to maximize profits with no holds barred. Furthermore, trade treaties allowed corporations to manufacture goods overseas and bring them back into the U.S. with low or no tariffs, few U.S. regulations, and no regulations on how foreign labor was paid or treated. In addition, the U.S. corporations were allowed to cut benefits and pay for U.S. employees, including by undermining workers’ bargaining power in multiple ways, and through financial manipulation via leveraged buyouts and bankruptcies, as well as changes in tax laws.

Middle class workers have been undermined by corporations moving (or threatening to move) their jobs overseas and by changes in state and federal laws. The minimum wage has been eroded by inflation; workplace safety and legal protections have been weakened; health care, unemployment, sick time, and overtime benefits have been reduced; restrictions on child labor have been lifted; and it has become harder to sue an employer for discrimination. Pensions and retiree health benefits have been cut or eliminated. Just 34 of the Fortune 500 list of the largest corporations offered traditional pensions to new workers in 2013, down from 251 in 1998. [4] And wage theft through failure to pay the minimum wage or overtime wages, or through manipulation of time cards and other means, has spread. Meanwhile, enforcement of labor laws has been weak.

Employees’ rights to negotiate pay and working conditions as a group have been restricted. In addition, the middle class has been hammered by labor laws that allow corporations to turn full-time employees into independent contractors or part-time workers who get no benefits and no job security.

These changes affect all workers, those in the private and public sectors, as well as union and non-union employees. The changes were promoted by corporations and their lobbyists, along with corporate-funded think tanks, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Restaurant Association, the National Association of Manufactures, and other business groups. These efforts were also advanced by corporate-funded advocacy organizations such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Americans for Tax Reform, and Americans for Prosperity. [5]

Senator Warren states that it doesn’t have to be this way. We can make different choices and enact different policies that reflect different values. My next post will discuss those values and policies. In the meantime, I encourage you to listen to Warren’s speech (just 23 minutes while you’re doing something else) or to read the press release. (See footnote 1 for links to them.)

[1] You can listen to and watch Warren’s 23 minute speech at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY4uJJoQHEQ&noredirect=1. Or you can read the text in the press release her office put out at: http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=696.

[2] Tankersley, J., 12/25/14, “Amid gain, middle class wages get no lift,” The Boston Globe from the Washington Post

[3] Economic Policy Institute, 12/24/14, “The 10 most important econ charts of 2014 show ongoing looting by the top 1 percent,” The American Prospect

[4] McFarland, B., 9/3/14, “Retirement in transition for the Fortune 500: 1998 to 2013,” Towers Watson (http://www.towerswatson.com/en/Insights/Newsletters/Americas/Insider/2014/retirement-in-transition-for-the-fortune-500-1998-to-2013)

[5] Lafer, G., 10/31/13, “The legislative attack on American wages and labor standards, 2011-2012,” Economic Policy Institute (http://www.epi.org/publication/attack-on-american-labor-standards/)

THE CORPORATE EDUCATION INVASION Part 2

ABSTRACT: The most recent embodiment of the corporate efforts to capture (i.e., privatize) funding from public K-12 education is the new Common Core national curriculum standards and the testing that accompanies it. Common Core’s implementation will require public school systems to spend billions of dollars on new curriculum materials and on new testing, including software, hardware, and technology infrastructure as the testing is computer and Internet based. This comes at a time when school budgets are being cut, teachers and other staff are being laid off, and music, art, and extracurricular activities are being eliminated.

All the focus on privatization, on charter schools, on testing, and on the Common Core standards as the solutions to our supposedly failing public schools has diverted attention from the real failure of our public schools and our society. The failure of our public schools is their inability to close the gap in educational outcomes between well-off white children without special needs and everyone else. Low-income and minority students, along with those with special needs and English as a second language, typically arrive at school already well behind their better-off peers. Catching up is difficult and we don’t give our school systems the resources to have a realistic chance of closing the gap.

Expecting our schools to fix the pervasive impacts of poverty and inequality is a prescription for failure. To use that failure as an excuse to privatize schools and force public schools to spend billions on new curricula and testing is misguided (assuming the best of intentions) and only exacerbates the problem. It would be far more effective and efficient to use those billions of dollars to provide high quality early care and education (i.e., child care) and other supports to low income families with children under school age.

FULL POST: The most recent embodiment of the corporate efforts to capture (i.e., privatize) funding from public K-12 education is the new Common Core national curriculum standards and the testing that accompanies it. The corporations and their allies have convinced the public and policy makers that our public schools are failing through an extensive and inaccurate PR campaign. Their solutions are new education standards and accountability through testing.

The new Common Core standards have been widely adopted, in large part due to federal grants that effectively required their adoption. However, the pushback against Common Core is now taking hold with a broad and surprisingly varied set of opponents. The opposition includes working and upper class suburbanites, right wing Tea Partiers, and teachers. [1]

Common Core’s implementation will require public school systems to spend billions of dollars on new curriculum materials and on new testing, including software, hardware, and technology infrastructure as the testing is computer and Internet based. This comes at a time when school budgets are being cut, teachers and other staff are being laid off, and music, art, and extracurricular activities are being eliminated. [2]

It’s worth noting that the Gates Foundation spent over $200 million, given to a wide range of over 30 organizations (e.g., colleges and universities, for-profit and not-for-profit education corporations, states and local school systems, think tanks and advocacy groups, and teachers’ unions) developing and building support for the Common Core. [3] The Common Core standards were NOT developed and adopted through a democratic process that engaged the public and a broad set of stakeholders. The writers of the standards included no experienced classroom teachers, no educators of children with special needs, and no early childhood educators. The single largest group on the drafting committee was from the testing industry. Furthermore, the standards were not pilot tested in the real world and there is no process for challenging or revising them. [4]

While the stated goals of the Common Core are to improve student outcomes and produce a better prepared workforce, it’s hard to overlook the billions of dollars of immediate business for corporations. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Chamber of Commerce spent more than a million dollars promoting the adoption of the Common Core. [5]

All the focus on privatization, on charter schools, on testing, and on the Common Core standards as the solutions to our supposedly failing public schools has diverted attention from the real failure of our public schools and our society. The failure of our public schools is their inability to close the gap in educational outcomes between well-off white children without special needs and everyone else. However, this failure goes well beyond the school system. Low-income and minority students, along with those with special needs and English as a second language, typically arrive at school already well behind their better-off peers. Catching up is difficult and we don’t give our school systems the resources to have a realistic chance of closing the gap.

It would be much more cost effective and the likelihood of success would be higher if we addressed the root causes of the school readiness gap. This means supporting families and children in the years from birth until they enter school, and during pregnancy. However, our political leaders haven’t mustered the political will to seriously address these issues. And corporations haven’t figured out how to profit of off these services.

[1] Murphy, T., Sept./Oct. 2014, “Tragedy of the Common Core,” Mother Jones

[2] Ravitch, D., 6/9/14, “Time for Congress to investigate Bill Gates’ role in Common Core,” Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/06/09/time-congress-investigate-bill-gates-role-common-core)

[3] Murphy, T., Sept./Oct. 2014, “Tragedy of the Common Core,” Mother Jones

[4] Ravitch, D., 6/9/14, “Time for Congress to investigate Bill Gates’ role in Common Core,” Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/06/09/time-congress-investigate-bill-gates-role-common-core)

[5] Murphy, T., Sept./Oct. 2014, “Tragedy of the Common Core,” Mother Jones

THE CORPORATE EDUCATION INVASION Part 1

ABSTRACT: Corporations covet public funding streams, especially large and consistent ones. A relatively recent example of a focused effort by corporations to capture public funding is evident in our public schools. These efforts have included an extensive public relations campaign aimed at convincing the public and elected officials that our public schools are failing. This is a standard corporate strategy: create a real or imagined crisis in a public service and push privatization as the solution.

This attack on our public schools is not only inaccurate, it diverts attention from the real issues underlying poor educational outcomes, which are poverty and inequality. Another key component of the PR strategy is to blame teachers for the supposed failure of our public schools. This undermines teachers and their unions, who are the most likely constituency that would stand up and oppose these privatization efforts.

The PR strategy has worked and privatized public education and testing are now multi-billion dollar corporate revenue streams. Charter schools, despite the promises of privatizers to produce better results, are no better on average than public schools with comparable populations of students.

Corporate efforts to profit off of public funding streams are not new. Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex back in the 1950s. The flow of money to private corporations, privatization in the broad sense, threatens to distort public services, decisions, and spending, because the interests and priorities of the corporations receiving the public funds are different from those of the public.

FULL POST: Corporations covet public funding streams, especially large and consistent ones. A relatively recent example of a focused effort by corporations to capture public funding is evident in our public schools. Although corporations have long sold textbooks and other curriculum materials to public schools, a lucrative business with a large and reliable funding stream, recent efforts have focused on privatizing the actual delivery of education, as well as designing and implementing testing.

These efforts have included an extensive public relations campaign aimed at making the public receptive to privatized spending in these areas. A major focus of this public relations (PR) campaign has been to convince the public and elected officials that our public schools are failing, that alternatives are necessary, and that the private sector is by definition more effective and efficient than the public sector. This is a standard strategy straight out of the playbook of corporate America and their political allies: create a real or imagined crisis in a public service and push privatization as the solution. (For more on this strategy, see my blog post, “Find a crisis, demand privatization,” of 6/5/14 [https://lippittpolicyandpolitics.org/2014/06/05/find-a-crisis-demand-privatization/].)

The PR campaign makes the case that our schools are failing by comparing US students to those from other countries. Although average scores indicate that US students perform worse than others, white children from well-off families do just fine in international comparisons. It is the gap between those students and less affluent and minority students that drags the average down. In actuality, a reliable nationwide test of student performance, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), finds that US students’ performance is at the highest level on record. [1] So this attack on our public schools is not only inaccurate, it diverts attention from the real issues underlying poor educational outcomes, which are poverty and inequality in the US.

A second component of the PR strategy is the assertion that standardized, high stakes testing is necessary to measure the performance of US students and to establish accountability for improving results. Although testing is presented as part of a “no child left behind” goal, the commitment and funding to improve schools and education (including preschool education) for the students identified as being behind has never materialized. Meanwhile, policies and the funding to address poverty and inequality more broadly are not even on the radar screen.

A final component of the PR strategy is to blame teachers for the supposed failure of our public schools. This again diverts attention from the real underlying issues of poverty and inequality in the US. It also undermines teachers and their unions, who are the most likely constituency that would stand up and oppose these privatization efforts. Undermining unions (and the bargaining power and rights of workers in general) is an overarching goal of large corporations, so this kills two birds with and one stone from their perspective.

The PR strategy has worked and privatized public education and testing are now multi-billion dollar corporate revenue streams. Testing alone is a $2.7 billion a year industry in the US and the new Common Core standards will grow the testing business further. Wall Street investors, including private equity and hedge fund managers, are investing in for-profit corporations in the student testing and charter school industries because they are seen as opportunities for high profits and growth.

Charter schools, despite the promises of privatizers to produce better results, are no better on average than public schools with comparable populations of students. Many of the charter schools that show good results achieve them by attracting motivated students from motivated families. And they also cull students along the way, forcing or pushing out students who aren’t performing well, thereby improving testing results and other statistics. They also typically serve fewer students with special needs and with English as a second language than the public schools. [2]

Corporate efforts to profit off of public funding streams are not new. Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex back in the 1950s, when private corporations’ receipt of Defense Department funds was already distorting public policy making and spending. The corporate effort to tap into health care funding from Medicare and Medicaid is another example. For-profit prisons, water and sewer systems, and public education are more recent examples.

In all these cases, the flow of money to private corporations, privatization in the broad sense, threatens to distort public services, decisions, and spending, because the interests and priorities of the corporations receiving the public funds are different from those of the public. Most notably, the corporations are primarily interested in increased revenue and profit, while public goals such as quality and effectiveness of services, public health and safety, and equitable treatment of all service recipients, are typically secondary, at best, to the corporation. Furthermore, there is substantial evidence that private delivery of these services is NOT more effective or more efficient. Nonetheless, the advocates of privatization continue to assert that they are. (For more detail, see my previous posts on privatization, especially the ones on 10/16/12 and 10/23/12.)

[1] Ravitch, D., 2/17/14, “Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools,” as reviewed by Featherstone, J., in The Nation

[2] Ravitch, D., 2/17/14, see above

REASONS FOR LACK OF PROSECUTIONS AFTER 2008 COLLAPSE

ABSTRACT: In Judge Rakoff’s article entitled “The Financial Crisis: Why have no high-level executives been prosecuted?” [1] he discusses the reasons given by officials of the Department of Justice (DOJ) for the failure to criminally prosecute either individuals or corporations.

Finding the publicly presented explanations for the failure to prosecute unconvincing, Rakoff then proposes some other reasons. First, he suggests that law enforcement agencies had other priorities and limited resources. Another possible explanation is the government’s own involvement in setting the stage for the 2008 financial crisis. The de-regulation of banks and the financial industry was a contributing factor. The federal government also had for years encouraged the growth of home ownership and the availability of mortgages, including to low income home buyers. It had also supported less stringent documentation and underwriting standards for obtaining a mortgage.

Finally, Rakoff notes a 30-year trend toward prosecuting corporations rather than prosecuting individuals. He states that the traditional approach was based on the fact that organizations do not commit crimes, only their human agents do. Rakoff believes that prosecuting individuals has a much stronger deterrence value than prosecuting corporations. He also believes that prosecuting just the corporation and not any individual is both legally and morally wrong.

FULL POST: In Judge Rakoff’s * article entitled “The Financial Crisis: Why have no high-level executives been prosecuted?” [2] (See previous post of 2/9/14 for more details: https://lippittpolicyandpolitics.org/2014/02/09/too-little-punishment-for-misbehavior-in-the-financial-sector/), he discusses the reasons given by officials of the Department of Justice (DOJ) for the failure to criminally prosecute either individuals or corporations that were involved in causing the 2008 crisis. First, they argue that proving fraudulent intent is difficult. However, Rakoff points out that with clear evidence of mortgage fraud (e.g., numerous reports of suspected mortgage fraud from within the financial institutions themselves), executives couldn’t escape prosecution by claiming they didn’t know what was going on. Furthermore, convictions, despite claims ignorance, are well established in criminal law based on the doctrine that “willful blindness” or “conscious disregard” does not exonerate a defendant.

Second, Department of Justice (DOJ) officials sometimes argue that fraud couldn’t be proved because the buyers of the mortgage-backed securities were sophisticated investors who knew enough not to rely on any misrepresentations and deception by the sellers. Rakoff states that this “totally misstates the law.” The law says that if society or the market is harmed by the lies of a seller, criminal fraud has occurred.

Third, Attorney General Holder himself said in testimony to Congress that in considering a criminal prosecution the impact on the US and world economies had to be taken into consideration. This is called the “too big to jail” excuse. Holder has said that his comment was misconstrued. Rakoff notes that this rationale is irrelevant in terms of prosecuting individuals because no one believes that a large financial corporation would collapse if one or more of its high level executives was prosecuted.

Finding the publicly presented explanations for the failure to prosecute unconvincing, Rakoff then proposes some other reasons. First, he suggests that law enforcement agencies had other priorities and limited resources. He notes that in 2001 the FBI had over 1,000 agents assigned to investigating financial fraud. In 2007, there were only 120 agents working on financial fraud and they had more than 50,000 reports of possible mortgage fraud to review. The shift of agents to anti-terrorism after 9/11 and budget limitations are the two causes he cites for this reduced capacity to respond to financial fraud.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has been focused on Ponzi schemes and misuse of customers’ funds. It too is experiencing significant budget limitations. The DOJ has been focused on insider trading cases. When the 2008 financial collapse occurred, it spread the investigation of financial fraud among numerous US Attorney’s Offices in various states, many of which had little or no previous experience with sophisticated financial fraud.

Another possible explanation of the failure to prosecute, according to Rakoff, is the government’s own involvement in setting the stage for the 2008 financial crisis. The de-regulation of banks and the financial industry, including the repeal of Glass-Steagall, was a contributing factor. Both the SEC and the Treasury Department had had their power and oversight weakened by de-regulation. The federal government also had for years encouraged the growth of home ownership and the availability of mortgages, including to low income (and therefore higher risk) home buyers. It had also supported less stringent documentation and underwriting standards for obtaining a mortgage. Hence, the federal government helped create the conditions that led to mortgage fraud and a corporate executive could, with some justification, claim in his defense that he believed he was only trying to further the government’s goals.

In addition, after the 2008 collapse, the government made little effort to hold the financial corporations accountable when it bailed them out.

Finally, Rakoff notes a 30-year trend toward prosecuting corporations rather than prosecuting individuals. He states that the traditional approach was based on the fact that organizations do not commit crimes, only their human agents do. In addition, prosecuting an organization inevitably punishes totally innocent employees and shareholders. However, in recent years “deferred prosecution agreements” and even “non-prosecution agreements” with corporations have become the standard fare. Under these, a corporation and its employees avoid prosecution by agreeing to take internal, preventive measures to protect against future wrongdoing, often while paying a fine.

Rakoff believes that prosecuting individuals has a much stronger deterrence value than the internal preventive measures of “deferred prosecution agreements” that are often little more than window dressing. He also believes that prosecuting just the corporation and not any individual is both legally and morally wrong. Under the law, a corporation should only be prosecuted if one can prove a managerial agent of the corporation committed the alleged crime. If so, why not prosecute that manager? Morally, punishing a corporation and many innocent employees and shareholders for crimes committed by an unprosecuted individual(s) seems unjust.

* Jed Rakoff is a United States District Judge on senior status for the Southern District of New York. A full-time judge from 1996 to 2010, he moved to senior status in 2010. Senior status is a form of semi-retirement for judges over 65 where they continue to work part-time. Judge Rakoff is a leading authority on securities laws and the law of white collar crime, and has authored many articles on those topics. He is a former prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s office in New York. [3]

[1] Rakoff, J.S., 1/9/14, “The Financial Crisis: Why have no high-level executives been prosecuted?” The New York Review of Books

[2] Rakoff, J.S., 1/9/14, see above

[3] Wikipedia, retrieved 2/5/14, “Jed S. Rakoff,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jed_S._Rakoff

TOO LITTLE PUNISHMENT FOR MISBEHAVIOR IN THE FINANCIAL SECTOR

ABSTRACT: One person who has both spoken out and acted when he felt the punishment for misbehavior in the financial sector was too lenient or lacking is federal District Court Judge Jed Rakoff.* In 2011, he refused to approve a proposed settlement with Citigroup related to the 2008 financial crisis because he thought that it was too lenient. Currently, he is withholding approval of settlement of an insider trading case. The proposed settlement would allow two men to settle the case for $4.8 million without admitting guilt.

SAC Capital, a huge, $15 billion hedge fund, has been charged in what probably is the biggest insider trading scandal ever. Five employees of SAC have already pleaded guilty to insider trading and the company itself has agreed to a record $616 million settlement. However, it is unlikely that anyone will go to jail and the head of SAC, despite any fines and restitution he may be required to pay, is likely to remain a billionaire.

Judge Rakoff recently wrote an article entitled “The Financial Crisis: Why have no high-level executives been prosecuted?” [1] Multiple authorities, including enforcement agencies, have describe what occurred in the run up to the 2008 financial crisis as fraud. Rakoff states that if the financial crisis was the result of intentional fraud, then “the failure to [criminally] prosecute those responsible must be judged one of the most egregious failures of the criminal justice system in many years.”

Rakoff notes that in previous financial crises individual perpetrators were successfully prosecuted. In the 1980s savings and loan crisis, which has strong parallels to the 2008 crisis but at a much smaller scale, over 800 individuals were successfully, criminally prosecuted.

Rakoff concludes by writing, “if it was [fraudulent misconduct] – as various governmental authorities have asserted it was – then the failure of the government to bring to justice those responsible … bespeaks weaknesses in our prosecutorial system that need to be addressed.”

FULL POST: One person who has both spoken out and acted when he felt the punishment for misbehavior in the financial sector was too lenient or lacking is federal District Court Judge Jed Rakoff.* For example, in 2011, he refused to approve a proposed settlement by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with Citigroup related to the 2008 financial crisis because he thought that it was too lenient.

Currently, he is withholding approval of settlement of an insider trading case where two men, acting on an illegal insider’s tip, bought $90,000 worth of securities a day before the announcement of the buyout of H.J. Heinz (the ketchup maker). The next day, when the buyout was announced, the securities became worth $1.8 million. The SEC’s proposed settlement would allow the two men to settle the case for $4.8 million without either admitting or denying guilt. Such settlement language had been standard practice for insider trading cases until a public debate erupted, prompted in large part by Judge Rakoff. In June 2013, the new chair of the SEC, Mary Jo White, announced a new SEC policy that would require some defendants to admit guilt. [2]

There have been a number of insider trading cases in the news lately. These are cases where an individual buying or selling securities benefited from illegally obtained, confidential information that gave him or her an unfair opportunity to profit from securities transactions. For example, SAC Capital, a huge, $15 billion hedge fund, responsible for about 1% of all US securities exchanges’ average daily trading, has been charged in what probably is the biggest insider trading scandal ever. Five employees of SAC have already pleaded guilty to insider trading and the company itself has agreed to a record $616 million settlement for more than 10 years of trading based on illegal tips from corporate insiders. More legal action is still to come, but it is unlikely that anyone will go to jail and the head of SAC, Steven A. Cohen, despite any fines and restitution he may be required to pay, is likely to remain a billionaire. [3][4]

However, Judge Rakoff’s primary focus has not been on insider trading but on the financial industry’s misbehavior that led to the 2008 financial crisis and the Great Recession. He recently wrote an article entitled “The Financial Crisis: Why have no high-level executives been prosecuted?” [5] In it, he explores why there have been no criminal prosecutions when multiple authorities, including enforcement agencies, have describe what occurred in the run up to the 2008 financial crisis as fraud (i.e., intentional deception for financial or personal gain). Rakoff states that if the financial crisis was the result of intentional fraud (and he makes clear that he has no personal knowledge of whether that was the case or not), “the failure to [criminally] prosecute those responsible must be judged one of the most egregious failures of the criminal justice system in many years.”

Rakoff notes that in previous financial crises – the junk bond scandal of the 1970s, the savings and loan (S&L) crisis of the 1980s, and the accounting frauds of the 1990s (e.g., Enron and WorldCom) – individual perpetrators were successfully prosecuted. Specifically, in the S&L crisis, which has strong parallels to the 2008 crisis but at a much smaller scale, over 800 individuals were successfully, criminally prosecuted.

There is strong evidence of criminal fraud in the events leading to the 2008 crisis. The federal government’s Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission uses the word “fraud” 157 times in its report describing what led to the crisis. Furthermore, indications that fraud was occurring emerged well before the 2008 collapse. There were 20 times as many reports of suspected mortgage fraud in 2005 as in 1996, and the number kept growing. In 2008, the number of fraud reports was double that of 2005. As early as 2004, the FBI was publicly warning of the “pervasive problem” of mortgage fraud. In the years before the 2008 crisis, sub-prime mortgages, in other words mortgages with more risk of default than normal mortgages, increasingly provided the underpinnings for mortgage-backed securities that continued to be sold with AAA ratings. This rating is supposed to identify securities of very low risk. It seems impossible that this could have occurred without fraud taking place.

Rakoff discusses reasons given by officials of the Department of Justice (DOJ) for the failure to criminally prosecute either individuals or corporations and finds them unconvincing. He then proposes some reasons that he finds more believable. I’ll summarize all of this in my next post.

Rakoff concludes by writing, “if it was [fraudulent misconduct] – as various governmental authorities have asserted it was – then the failure of the government to bring to justice those responsible for such colossal fraud bespeaks weaknesses in our prosecutorial system that need to be addressed.”

[1] Rakoff, J.S., 1/9/14, “The Financial Crisis: Why have no high-level executives been prosecuted?” The New York Review of Books (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/jan/09/financial-crisis-why-no-executive-prosecutions/?pagination=false)

[2] Raymond, N., 1/30/14, “U.S. judge takes on SEC again, questions Heinz insider trading pact,” Reuters

[3] Editorial, 7/27/13, “Pursuit of SAC Capital sends needed message to Wall St.,” The Boston Globe

[4] Lattman, P., 7/31/13, “Ex-analyst charged in insider-trading crackdown,” The Boston Globe (from The New York Times)

[5] Rakoff, J.S., 1/9/14, see above

[6] Wikipedia, retrieved 2/5/14, “Jed S. Rakoff,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jed_S._Rakoff

WEAK PENALTIES FOR FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS’ MISBEHAVIOR

ABSTRACT: If you follow the financial news, you regularly hear about financial corporations paying penalties as they reach settlements with regulators for their misbehavior. Although the amounts of some of the recent penalties have been noteworthy, keep in mind that to these large corporations they barely put a dent in their annual profits. Furthermore, in many cases the penalties are tax deductible as a business expense. This means that, in effect, the government and we as taxpayers are subsidizing the penalty by allowing the corporations to reduce their taxes by deducting the amount of the penalty from their income. In other cases, the corporations are allowed to take credit for having paid all or part of the settlement based on other actions they have taken.

In most cases, the corporations are agreeing to the settlements without having to admit wrongdoing. There have been very few criminal charges against the corporations and none against any executive of any of the large financial corporations. Furthermore, the executives have continued to be lavishly rewarded despite behavior that plunged the world into a financial crisis and a recession.

If we are going to prevent another financial collapse and resulting recession, we must prevent serious misbehavior by our large financial corporations. Stronger laws, oversight, and enforcement, with stronger penalties for executives and corporations, including criminal prosecutions, are needed. These would provide the strong incentives necessary to ensure legal, ethical, and prudent behavior by executives and, hence, the corporations they run.

FULL POST: If you follow the financial news, you regularly hear about financial corporations paying penalties as they reach settlements with regulators for their misbehavior. Many of these settlements are for misbehavior that contributed to the 2008 financial collapse where enforcement actions are finally being concluded. Some are for more recent misbehavior. (See posts of 8/14/13, Large Financial Corporations Continue Illegal Activity [https://lippittpolicyandpolitics.org/2013/08/14/large-financial-corporations-continue-illegal-activity/] and 8/29/12, Big Financial Corporation Scandals Continue [https://lippittpolicyandpolitics.org/2012/08/29/big-financial-corporation-scandals-continue/] for more detail on financial corporations’ misbehavior.)

Although the amounts of some of the recent penalties – in the billions of dollars – have been noteworthy, keep in mind that to these large corporations this barely puts a dent in their annual profits. Their stocks have been performing well, despite the penalties. In many cases the penalties are tax deductible as a business expense, which means that the impact on the corporation is typically only two-thirds of the stated amount. As a result, in effect, the government and we as taxpayers are subsidizing the penalty by allowing the corporations to reduce their taxes by deducting the amount of the penalty from their income. In other cases, the corporations are allowed to take credit for having paid all or part of the settlement based on other actions they have taken. For example, in a 2013 settlement with 13 mortgage service providers for illegal foreclosures, over 60% of the announced $8.5 billion settlement could be paid through credits for modifications to existing mortgages.

This has led Senators Elizabeth Warren (MA Democrat) and Tom Coburn (OK Republican) to propose a Truth in Settlements bill in Congress that would require government regulators to disclose whether they are allowing all or part of the settlement amount to be deducted from income or paid with credits. The regulators would generally have to make settlement agreements public and for any that were kept confidential, they would have disclose that fact and their rationale for doing so. [1] Bills have also been filed to prohibit the deduction of penalties as a business expense.

In most cases, the corporations are agreeing to the settlements without having to admit wrongdoing. There have been very few criminal charges against the corporations. Most of the enforcement actions have been civil actions, which seriously limits the consequences, even if the corporation misbehaves again, even in a similar manner.

Also noteworthy, is that no executive of any of the large financial corporations has been charged with criminal activity. (My next post will explore this issue.) Furthermore, the executives have continued to be lavishly rewarded despite behavior that plunged the world into a financial crisis and a recession. A corporate culture of immunity for senior executives from the consequences of their actions appears to persist despite public outrage. [2]

For example, JPMorgan’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, will be paid $20 million for 2013. This is up substantially from the $11.5 million he was paid last year, despite the $20 billion in fines and penalties JPMorgan paid in 2013 (due to a variety of corporate misbehavior) and the very large related legal expenses. Apparently, JPMorgan’s Board of Directors feels Dimon did a great job of handling these matters with the regulators and that pay cuts in 2008 and 2012 had already punished him for having gotten the corporation into trouble in the first place. [3] The corporation’s stock did have a good year. It was up 37%, out pacing both its peers and the overall market. (Note: If JPMorgan’s Directors and shareholders feel the settlement agreements were so positive, maybe the regulators have let Dimon and JPMorgan off too lightly!) In 2008, Dimon received a $1 million salary and no bonus, presumably because of the problems that led to the financial crisis and the need for the government to bail out JPMorgan (among other financial industry corporations). However, by 2011 his compensation was up to $23 million. It was cut to $11.5 million for 2012, which was viewed as a strong rebuke by the corporation’s Board for the $6 billion loss on speculative trading that occurred in 2012.

Final figures for 2013 CEO compensation at two smaller financial corporations, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, were not available yet, but are expected to be above the 2012 levels that were $21 million and $9.75 million, respectively.

[1] Associated Press, 1/9/14, “Mass. Democrat: Settlements need more transparency,” in the Daily Times Chronicle

[2] Stewart, J.B., 2/1/14, “Accounting for Dimon’s big jump in pay,” The New York Times

[3] Silver-Greenberg, J., & Craig, S., 1/24/14, “Despite scandals, JPMorgan awards CEO raise,” The Boston Globe from The New York Times

SHORT TAKES ON CURRENT EVENTS

ABSTRACT:

CONFIRMING PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES: The US Senate voted on 11/21 to change its rules and eliminate the use of the filibuster to block presidential nominees other than Supreme Court Justices, given that Republicans had returned to full-scale obstructionism since the deal to approve 7 nominees in July. Under the new rules, the Senate has confirmed 11 nominees and Senate Democrats are pursuing at least 10 more confirmations before the holiday recess. Roughly 70 nominees remain pending.

FINING DRUG CORPORATIONS FOR COLLUSION: The European Union has fined two giant drug corporations, Johnson & Johnson and Novartis, $22 million for colluding to delay the availability of a cheaper generic drug.

FDA REDUCING ANTIBIOTIC OVERUSE AND DRUG-RESISTANT INFECTIONS: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is taking steps to reduce the unnecessary use of antibiotics in meat production. This overuse of antibiotics used for treating infections in humans is linked to the development of antibiotic-resistant infections in humans. 23,000 people are dying each year from such infections. The FDA is asking drug corporations to voluntarily stop labeling drugs used to treat human infections as acceptable for growth promotion in animals. The FDA is using this voluntary approach and giving the drug corporations 3 years to comply because it believes the complex regulatory process a mandatory rule would require would take many years and might not be successful.

FULL POST:

CONFIRMING PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES

The US Senate voted on 11/21 to change its rules and eliminate the use of the filibuster to block presidential nominees other than Supreme Court Justices. Democrats in the Senate exercised this option, the so-called “nuclear option”, because after a deal in July that allowed the approval of 7 nominees for executive branch positions, Republicans had returned to full-scale obstructionism. With roughly 90 judicial vacancies and some key executive branch openings, the Democrats threatened again to change the filibuster rule and proceeded to do so when the Republicans refused to relent from their obstructionism.

Since then, the Senate has confirmed 11 nominees including the Secretary of Homeland Security, an Assistant Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Air Force, and 2 judges, despite continuing Republican use of delaying tactics. Interestingly, once the Republican blockade of the first two of these was overcome, they were confirmed by 78-16 votes.

Senate Democrats are pursuing at least 10 more confirmations before the holiday recess, including the Chair of the Federal Reserve and the head of the Internal Revenue Service. Roughly 70 nominees remain pending and some of them may have to be re-nominated and start the process all over again in the new year. (1. Alman, A., 12/16/13, “Jeh Johnson confirmed by Senate as Secretary of Homeland Security, The Huffington Post. 2. Reuters, 12/13/13, “U.S. Senate confirmation marathon approves two more Obama nominees,” Reuters) (See my post A Respite from Obstructionism on 7/25/13 at https://lippittpolicyandpolitics.org/2013/07/25/a-respite-from-obstructionism/, as well as those of 7/21/13 and 7/16/13, for more details on the July deal and obstruction of nominees’ confirmations.)

FINING DRUG CORPORATIONS FOR COLLUSION

The European Union has fined two giant drug corporations, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Novartis, $22 million for colluding to delay the availability of a cheaper generic drug. A patent on a J&J pain killer expired in 2005 but J&J paid Novartis to delay for 17 months production of a cheaper generic version of the drug. Both corporations were more profitable as a result. (Daily Briefing, 12/11/13, “EU fines drug firms over delay,” The Boston Globe)

FDA REDUCING ANTIBIOTIC OVERUSE AND DRUG-RESISTANT INFECTIONS

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is taking steps to reduce the unnecessary use of antibiotics in meat production. Many producers of cattle, hogs, and poultry give their animals antibiotics to make them grow faster. This overuse of antibiotics used for treating infections in humans is linked to the development of antibiotic-resistant infections in humans, which are much more difficult and expensive to treat, and can be fatal: 23,000 people are dying each year from such infections. The FDA is asking drug corporations to voluntarily stop labeling drugs used to treat human infections as acceptable for growth promotion in animals. This would make such use illegal without a prescription for use in a sick animal. The FDA is using this voluntary approach and giving the drug corporations 3 years to comply because it believes the complex regulatory process a mandatory rule would require would take many years and might not be successful. (Jalonick, M.C., 12/12/13, “FDA working to phase out some antibiotics in meat,” The Boston Globe from the Associated Press)

NOTE: There are so many issues and events that I think those of us trying to be well informed citizens and voters should know about that I can’t write full posts on all of them. And I’m sure you don’t have time to read full posts about them. Therefore, I’ll use this format to complement the full posts: Short Takes on current events. Please let me know if you find these valuable by commenting on them. I will provide references or links to more information for the topics, so you can pursue them in more depth if you have the interest and time.

CHARITY ISN’T THE ANSWER

ABSTRACT: Some people advocate for reducing government spending on social welfare programs by arguing that private charity should and could address social needs. However, when people’s needs are essential and time sensitive, charity is insufficient and undependable. For example, charities won’t be able to fill the $5 billion hole left by the recent cuts to the $78 billion federal Food Stamps program. This amount is equal to the total amount of annual contributions to all food banks in the country.

Charity or philanthropy can also serve as a smoke screen for activities that do far more harm than the benefits of the charitable giving. An example is the recent $20 million gift by the billionaire corporate executive, David Koch, to provide child care for 126 children at MIT. He spent easily ten times this amount on political activism in the last federal elections, supporting politicians who have been leaders in cutting the federal budget. Such cuts have meant that 57,000 poor children have been denied Head Start child care services, and, in addition, in Massachusetts alone, there are over 30,000 low income children on the waiting list for largely federally-funded child care subsidies. As Joan Vennochi wrote in her column in the Boston Globe about Koch’s gift, “The generosity of individuals is a blessing, but it’s no substitute for national policy.”

There are many examples of philanthropy, similar to this Koch case, where the givers, both individuals and corporations, have much greater negative impacts on society than the positive effects of their charity. In the case of McDonald’s, history indicates that from the start the goal of its philanthropy has been positive public relations for the corporation, not helping those in need. Its aggressive marketing of unhealthy food to children does far more harm than the good its very modest philanthropy does.

FULL POST: Some people advocate for reducing government spending on social welfare programs by arguing that private charity should and could address social needs. While charity or philanthropy plays an important role in our communities and country, when people’s needs are essential and time sensitive, charity is not dependable enough to be relied on. Charity can meet some people’s needs some of the time but it doesn’t – and can’t – meet all people’s needs, even their critical needs, all the time. The public sector must serve as the resource of last resort and ensure that critical needs are met in a timely fashion.

Charity is insufficient and lacks the consistency necessary to meet critical needs on a regular and timely basis. For example, access to sufficient and nutritious food is essential to well-being for adults and especially for children. However, charities won’t be able to fill the $5 billion hole left by the November 1 cuts to the $78 billion federal Food Stamps program. This reduction in food assistance from the federal government is equal to the total amount of annual contributions to all food banks in the country, according to a study by the Washington-based anti-hunger advocate Bread for the World. [1] Therefore, charitable donations for food would need to double instantaneously to fill this gap. Furthermore, Congress is likely to cut federal funding for food assistance even further in the next budget. (See my post Starving America on 11/11/13 for more detail at https://lippittpolicyandpolitics.org/2013/11/11/starving-america/.)

Clearly, there is no way that private charity can make up for the recent lost funding let alone for future cuts. Therefore, these cuts mean that nutrition will suffer and hunger will increase. For some young children, this may well have long lasting effects on their developing brains.

Charity or philanthropy can also serve as a smoke screen for activities that do far more harm than the benefits of the charitable giving. An example is the recent $20 million gift by the billionaire corporate executive, David Koch, to provide child care for 126 children at MIT. [2] Child care is essential for working parents and quality early education and care is critical for young children due to the foundational brain development that occurs in the first five years of life.

Koch is a generous philanthropist, but he is better known for his political activism. He spent easily ten times this $20 million on his political activism in the last federal elections. The politicians he supports have been leaders in cutting the federal budget. The cuts in March, 2013, known as the sequester, meant that 57,000 poor children nationwide have been denied Head Start child care services. In addition, in Massachusetts alone, there are over 30,000 low income children on the waiting list for child care subsidies, which are largely federally funded. This number has grown significantly due to cuts in federal funding. So, while Koch’s philanthropy got him a very positive story on the front page of the Boston Globe, its impact is far, far outweighed by the negative effects on national child care policies of his political activism.

There are two lessons to be learned from this example. First, charity is not and will not be sufficient to ensure affordable, quality early care and education for every child of working parents. Substantially increased spending by state and federal governments is needed to meet this critically important need. As Joan Vennochi wrote in her column in the Boston Globe about Koch’s gift, “The generosity of individuals is a blessing, but it’s no substitute for national policy.” [3]

The second lesson to be learned from this example is that it is often important to look at the context of charity and the overall impact of the giver. There are many examples of philanthropy, similar to this Koch case, where the givers, both individuals and corporations (or other organizations), have much greater negative impacts on society than the positive effects of their charity. Walmart and McDonald’s are two classic examples from the corporate world. In some cases, the charitable activities are a relatively blatant attempt at public relations; an effort to get favorable stories in the media and divert attention from the negative effects of other activities. (See my post Lack of Good Jobs is Our Most Urgent Problem on 10/29/13 for more information on how low pay and part-time jobs at Walmart, McDonald’s, and other large corporations are costing taxpayers billions of dollars in public assistance for their employees. https://lippittpolicyandpolitics.org/2013/10/29/lack-of-good-jobs-is-our-most-urgent-problem/)

In the case of McDonald’s, history indicates that from the start the goal of its philanthropy has been positive public relations for the corporation, not helping those in need. Its philanthropy is less that 0.5% of its profits and it spends 25 times as much on advertising. Its aggressive marketing of unhealthy food to children does far more harm than the good its very modest philanthropy does. It also spends far more lobbying for favorable public policies than it spends on philanthropy. [4]

This is the first of a couple of posts on charity or philanthropy (terms I use interchangeably). There are a number of other issues about charity that I plan to discuss, including:

Decisions about charitable or philanthropic spending are made by private individuals or organizations. They may not reflect public priorities and often lack public input and accountability.
Charity can exacerbate inequality. Richer communities generally have greater capacity to raise money than poorer communities, so communities where the need is the greatest, both rural and urban, often have less capacity for charitable activity.
Philanthropic activity can affect public policies and programs. It may undermine the democratic decision-making process and community involvement.

[1] Wallbank, D., & Bjerga, A., “Wal-Mart to widows will feel U.S. Food Stamp cuts,” Bloomberg

[2] Johnson, C.Y., 10/4/13, “Scientists at MIT get prized gift of day care,” The Boston Globe, front page

[3] Vennochi, J., 10/10/13, The two David Kochs,” The Boston Globe

[4] Simon, M., 10/29/13, “Clowning around with charity,” Corporate Accountability International and Small Planet Fund (http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/2013/10/29/clowning-around-with-charity-how-mcdonalds-exploits-philanthropy-and-targets-children/)

LACK OF GOOD JOBS IS OUR MOST URGENT PROBLEM

ABSTRACT: The most urgent problem facing the US right now is a lack of jobs, especially jobs that pay middle class wages and provide benefits. Unemployment is high and long-term. The jobs being created during our 4 year old economic recovery are disproportionately low-wage, low skill jobs.

Fast food workers are emblematic of the low wage, low skill jobs being created. The typical fast food worker makes $8.69 per hour. As a result, over half of fast food workers rely on public, taxpayer funded benefits to make ends meet. The cost to taxpayers is estimated to be $7 billion per year. Meanwhile, the fast food corporations make billions of dollars in profits and pay tens of millions of dollars to their senior executives. Workers at Walmart, the largest employer in the US, are in a similar situation. These very profitable corporations can afford to raise their workers’ wages to $15 an hour – a wage they could live on without public assistance. In the meantime, taxpayers are subsidizing these corporations.

It used to be that unions and government provided workers with a voice and the power to balance that of the large employers. Today, that voice and power are largely gone. Therefore, wages, benefits, and job security have been eroding. Starting in the late 1970s, the historic link between growth in the economy and productivity on the one hand, and growth in workers’ wages on the other hand, was severed. We undid or failed to adopt rules for our economy that ensure the gains of economic and productivity growth are widely and fairly distributed.

The failure of our policy makers in Washington to focus on creating jobs, let alone good jobs, and on spurring economic growth is the clear and tragic result of the ascendancy of politics over rational policy making.

FULL POST: The most urgent problem facing the US right now is a lack of jobs, especially jobs that pay middle class wages and provide benefits. Unemployment is high and long-term – since 2010 roughly 40% of those unemployed and actively looking for work have been unemployed for more than 6 months. This is triple the rate of long-term unemployment in the period from 2000 – 2007. [1]

The official unemployment rate is 7.2% based on those who are actively looking for a job. It would be significantly higher, well over 10%, if those who have given up looking were included. And higher still if the under-employed were included – those working part-time who would like to be working full-time and those who are working at jobs for which they are over-qualified.

The jobs being created during our 4 year old economic recovery are disproportionately low-wage, low skill jobs. (See post of 9/27/13 for more detail.) High unemployment and low wage jobs are key factors in our slow economic recovery (consumers’ lack purchasing power), in the government’s budget deficit (reduced tax revenues), and in growing inequality (95% of the economic gains during the recovery have gone to the richest 1%). As a result, income and wealth inequality have increased to levels not seen since the 1920s.

Fast food workers are emblematic of the low wage, low skill jobs being created. The typical fast food worker makes $8.69 per hour. Two-thirds of them are adults, most of them bring home at least half of the family’s income, and a quarter of them have children. Only 13% get health insurance through their employers.

As a result, over half of fast food workers rely on public, taxpayer funded benefits to make ends meet. The cost to taxpayers is estimated to be $7 billion per year; much of it is for health care, but also food assistance and other economic supports. [2] You can watch a 2 minute video about this, which includes a recording of the McDonald’s help line telling a 10-year employee with 2 children to access food stamps and Medicaid, at
http://lowpayisnotok.org/mcvideo/?utm_campaign=LowPay&utm_medium=email&utm_source=mcvideo-r.

Meanwhile, the fast food corporations make billions of dollars in profits and pay tens of millions of dollars to their senior executives. For example, McDonald’s has 700,000 employees. They are estimated to get $1.2 billion a year in taxpayer funded benefits. McDonald’s is very profitable, making $5.5 billion a year and paying its CEO $13.8 million. It has just purchased a $35 million luxury jet for its executives, which costs at least $2,400 an hour to operate.

Workers at Walmart, the largest employer in the US, are in a similar situation. They make an average of $8.80 an hour. When General Motors was the largest employer in the 1950s, it paid its workers about $50 to $60 an hour (adjusted for inflation). As with the fast food workers, we taxpayers are supporting Walmart workers with multiple types of public assistance. [3]

These big, profitable corporations operate with a business model that uses low paid and part-time workers, typically without benefits, who are, therefore, unable to afford the necessities of life. This leaves taxpayers to pick up the tab for the public benefits they need. These very profitable corporations can afford to raise their workers’ wages to $15 an hour (see post of 9/8/13 for more detail) – a wage they could live on without public assistance. In the meantime, taxpayers are subsidizing these corporations.

Nationally, the typical workers’ wages, adjusted for inflation, have barely increased over the last 30 years. (See post of 9/2/13 for more detail.) The typical male worker in 1978 was making around $48,000 (adjusted for inflation), while the average person in the top 1% earned $390,000. By 2010, the typical male workers’ pay had gone down, while the person in the 1% had their pay more than double. Today, the richest 400 Americans have more wealth than the bottom half of the country, 150 million people, combined.

It used to be that unions and government provided workers with a voice and the power to balance that of the large employers. Today, that voice and power are largely gone. Therefore, wages, benefits, and job security have been eroding. Workers are not even receiving the benefits of their increased productivity. As a result, we are losing the middle class, equal opportunity, and upward mobility. This is undermining our economy and our democracy.

In the first 4 years of the current recovery, the richest 1% of Americans took home 95% of the income gains. In stark contrast, between 1946 and 1978, as the economy doubled in size, everyone’s income doubled as well.

Starting in the late 1970s, the historic link between growth in the economy and productivity on the one hand, and growth in workers’ wages on the other hand, was severed. Income gains started going to the richest Americans and people in the middle, the typical worker, saw their wages stagnate. Part of the problem is that we didn’t adapt to globalization and technological change. We didn’t change public policies. We didn’t change the rules of our economy to continue to provide opportunity, upward mobility, and ensure that economic and productivity growth were broadly shared. We could have done so, but we didn’t. [4]

Among other things, we let the minimum wage fall behind inflation. If it had kept up with inflation, the national minimum wage would be $10.40 today instead of $7.25. If productivity improvement was included, it would be at least $15 an hour. We deregulated the financial system, both domestically and internationally, favoring investors and corporations over workers. And we didn’t include labor standards in trade treaties. Meanwhile, we cut tax rates on high incomes and wealth substantially.

If we had a democracy that was working for the people, the average citizen and worker would have the voice and power to see that their interests and the greater good were served. Instead, we undid or failed to adopt rules for our economy that ensure the gains of economic and productivity growth are widely and fairly distributed – without sacrificing efficiency or innovation. The failure of our policy makers in Washington to focus on creating jobs, let alone good jobs, and on spurring economic growth is the clear and tragic result of the ascendancy of politics over rational policy making. This failure may put their political careers at risk because every poll shows that the public is much more concerned about jobs and the economy than any other issue, including the deficit.

[1] Woolhouse, M., 10/22/13, “Long search finally ends,” The Boston Globe

[2] Johnston, K., 10/16/13, “Public aid crucial to fastfood workers,” The Boston Globe

[3] Moyers, B. with Reich, R., 9/20/13, “Inequality for all,” http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-inequality-for-all/

[4] Moyers, B. with Reich, R., 9/20/13, see above

CORPORATIONS’ TAX AVOIDANCE

ABSTRACT: Large corporations are dodging taxes by using offshore tax havens. They use them to avoid paying about $90 billion a year in US income taxes. Of the 100 largest US corporations with publicly traded stock, 82 maintain subsidiaries in offshore tax havens and they are holding $1.2 trillion in them, on which they have avoided paying US income tax. If all 82 of these corporations reported their $1.2 trillion stashed offshore as US income and paid the 35% rate, the federal government would receive $420 billion, which would cut the deficit by more than half.

For the 2010 tax year, profitable US corporations that filed a US income tax return paid an average of only 13% of their worldwide profits in income tax, despite the stated US corporate income tax rate of 35%.

The loss of this revenue for the federal government hurts all of us. It means that we, as individual taxpayers, and small businesses either have to pay more taxes to make up the difference or that our federal government (and state governments too) have less to spend on things we count on government to do.

Closing this offshore tax haven loophole would be a step toward tax fairness. There are bills in Congress to do so. I urge you to contact your Senators and Representative to urge them to support closing the offshore tax haven loophole.

FULL POST: Large corporations are dodging taxes by using offshore tax havens. They use them to avoid paying about $90 billion a year in US income taxes. This costs the US government more than was saved ($85 billion a year) by the ill-conceived, across-the-board budget cuts in March (known as the sequester) and far more than the proposed cut in food stamps (known as SNAP) would save ($4 billion a year). (See posts of 9/16 and 9/19 for some of the effects of the sequester.)

Of the 100 largest US corporations with publicly traded stock, 82 maintain subsidiaries in offshore tax havens and they are holding $1.2 trillion in them, on which they have avoided paying US income tax. Fifteen corporations hold two-thirds of this cash in 1,900 subsidiaries. [1] Many of these subsidiaries are officially housed in the Cayman Islands where the corporations maintain a legal address but no other physical presence. Ironically, roughly half of this offshore money is invested in US securities or through US accounts. [2]

In part because of the use of these offshore tax havens and accounting tricks that shift income to them, for the 2010 tax year, profitable US corporations that filed a US income tax return paid an average of only 13% of their worldwide profits in income tax. Even when state, local, and foreign income taxes are included, they paid only around 17% of profits, despite the stated US corporate income tax rate of 35%. [3] (See post of 11/5/11 for more information on corporate income taxes.)

A few specific examples help to put this in perspective.

Pfizer, the world’s largest drug maker, has 40% of its sales in the US but reported no taxable income in the US over the last 5 years. It has $73 billion sitting untaxed in 172 subsidiaries in offshore tax havens.
Microsoft has an untaxed $61 billion in 5 offshore tax havens.
Citigroup, which US taxpayers bailed out during the 2008 financial collapse, has $43 billion sitting untaxed in 20 offshore subsidiaries. [4]
Apple Computer made $30 billion in supposedly offshore profits over the past 4 years on which it paid no taxes to any national government, largely by exploiting technicalities in US and Irish tax laws. [5]
The Bank of America, also bailed out by US taxpayers during the 2008 financial collapse, has $17 billion sitting untaxed in 316 offshore subsidiaries.
Oracle has an untaxed $21 billion in 5 offshore subsidiaries.
Google has $33 billion sitting untaxed in 25 offshore subsidiaries. [6]

If these 7 corporations reported this $278 billion as US income and paid the 35% tax rate on it, the federal government would receive $97 billion. This would be more than enough to reverse the sequester’s cuts and continue food stamp benefits. If all 82 of the largest corporations with offshore tax haven subsidiaries reported their $1.2 trillion stashed offshore as US income and paid the 35% rate, the federal government would receive $420 billion, which would cut the deficit by more than half.

The loss of this revenue for the federal government hurts all of us, including small and local businesses. It means that we, as individual taxpayers, and small businesses either have to pay more taxes to make up the difference or that our federal government (and state governments too) have less to spend on education and job training, transportation and other infrastructure, safety and security, and all the other things we count on government to do.

Closing this offshore tax haven loophole would be a step toward tax fairness. There are bills in Congress to do so: in the US Senate, the Cut Unjustified Tax (CUT) Loopholes Act (bill # S.268) and in the US House, the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act (bill # H.R. 1554). I urge you to contact your Senators and Representative to urge them to support closing the offshore tax haven loophole.

(You can find out who your Congress people are and get their contact information at: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm for your Senators and http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ for your Representative.)

[1] US PIRG, 7/31/13, “Offshore shell games,” (http://www.uspirg.org/reports/usp/offshore-shell-games)

[2] Clark, K., 10/4/13, “Crackdown on offshore tax havens,” Daily Times Chronicle

[3] US General Accounting Office, May 2013, “Corporate income tax: Effective tax rates can differ significantly from the statutory rate,” (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-520)

[4] MASSPIRG, 4/4/13, “Picking up the tab,” (http://masspirg.org/reports/map/picking-tab-2013)

[5] The Balance Sheet, 5/21/13, “Apple slips through $30 billion tax-code hole,” The American Prospect

[6] US PIRG, 7/31/13, see above

UPDATES ON POSTS ON LOW PAY FOR FAST-FOOD WORKERS, PESTICIDES AND BEES, & DETROIT

PAY FOR WORKERS IN THE FAST-FOOD INDUSTRY (A follow-up to my 9/2/13 post)

As the portion of the jobs in our economy that are in the retail sector grows, it is important to the well-being of individuals and families, as well as the health of the economy, that these jobs provide better pay. But could the fast-food industry, for example, afford to pay higher wages?

Franchisees in the fast-food industry, in other words your local outlets, have profit margins of only 4% to 6% – 4 to 6 cents on every dollar they take in. Their parent companies, the 5 big, publicly-traded fast-food companies, have profit margins of 16% – 16 cents on every dollar they take in. That is 73% higher than the average big US company’s profit margin. In other words, they are VERY profitable. Last year, McDonald’s reported a profit of $5.5 billion on sales of $27.6 billion – a 20% profit margin. And its CEO got $13.8 million. McDonald’s, and the others, could cut the fees they charge their franchisees so the franchisees could increase pay for their workers. (Choi, C., & Fahey, J., 9/2/13, “Fast-food workers face a big problem: Who’ll fund raises?” The Boston Globe (from the Associated Press))

PESTICIDES AND BEES (A follow-up to my 8/10/13 post)

The good news is that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released new rules and requirements for labels for pesticides containing neonicotinoids, which are linked to mass killing of bees. These labels feature a special warning and prohibit use of these products where bees are present. (Boyd, V., 8/21/13, “EPA issues new label rules for neonicotinoids to protect bees,” The Grower) (Aren’t bees present everywhere?)

However, there are three pieces of bad news. First, a recent study found that some home garden plants sold at Home Depot, Lowe’s and other garden centers have been pre-treated with the neonicotinoids. (Friends of the Earth, 8/14/13) Second, one of Florida’s biggest citrus growers, Ben Hill Griffin, Inc., has been fined only $1,500 after illegally spraying pesticides multiple times that killed millions of bees. (Salisbury, S., 8/28/13, “Ben Hill Griffin Inc. accused of killing honeybees, faces fine,” Palm Beach Post) Third, the chemical corporations Syngenta and Bayer have submitted legal challenges to the European Union’s 2 year suspension of the use of several neonicotinoid pesticides, which is scheduled to begin in December. (Boyd, V., 8/28/13, “Syngenta, Bayer challenge EU’s ban on neonicotinoids,” The Grower)

MORE ON DETROIT’S BANKRUPTCY (A follow-up to my 9/1/13 post)

The factors contributing to Detroit’s bankruptcy include suburban sprawl, the lack of regional planning or coordination, Michigan’s declining economy, and the state’s reneging on revenue sharing (to the tune of $700 million). In addition, people have moved out of the city – since 2000 the city’s population has declined by about 200,000 to 687,000 – eroding the tax base. Residents in blighted neighborhoods have sold homes for $5,000 that were once worth $100,000; others have simply abandoned their houses.

Since 2007, Detroit’s median income has fallen from $30,000 to $25,000; less than half of the national figure. 40% of those remaining in Detroit are in poverty. Almost 20% of Detroit households have no access to a car.

As public services have been cut over many years, living conditions have declined, including increased crime in part due to a police force reduced by roughly 35% (4,000 officers to 2,600). The murder rate is the 2^nd highest of any city in the country (Flint, MI is 1^st).

The 9,700 city employees are taking unpaid furloughs and wage cuts, some as much as 20%. And the 21,000 retirees know their pensions are at risk. Meanwhile, Detroit’s bankruptcy process is expected to cost the city $100 million in legal fees and costs.

While the downtown is thriving with business activity and gentrification (and a new sports arena on its way), the neighborhoods, as little as a half mile away, are eviscerated. The neighborhoods are 80% black and the homes of thousands of current and retired city employees.

The city’s receiver proposes privatizing trash, electricity, and water and sewer services. Although that will save the city money, it is unclear how many of the residents would be able to afford the fees private providers would charge, and lower quality services are likely, one way or the other. The state has taken over running 15 low performing schools, but the initial results have not been promising. (Felton, R., 9/2013, “Is there Detroit after bankruptcy?” In These Times)

LARGE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS CONTINUE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY

ABSTRACT: The large US financial corporations, whose illegal and unethical activities caused the 2008 financial crash and recession, continue to engage in a wide variety of illegal activity. Clearly, the fines and penalties they’ve paid to-date, although hundreds of millions of dollars, haven’t been sufficient to deter them. Or they are so large and so impossible to manage that they are just out of control. The only way to reduce the risk to our financial system and economy, and to stop these illegal activities, is to break them up and institute much tighter regulation.

Their past behavior includes fraudulent creation of mortgages and the fraudulent packaging and selling of risky mortgage-backed securities, fraudulent foreclosures on home owners, manipulation of interest rates in multiple settings, money laundering for criminals and countries under international sanctions, and out-of-control speculative trading. Despite this, it doesn’t look like any senior managers will be charged with criminal activity.

More recently uncovered activities include speculation in and manipulation of commodities markets that costs consumers billions, fraudulent debt collection practices, and the selling of inappropriate securities to, among others, elderly investors seeking secure investments.

These are highlights of what we know about, and, therefore, are the tip of an iceberg of unknown size. The executives who profit (through pay, bonuses, and stock options) from these criminal and unethical activities currently have no reason to stop committing or allowing them.

The variety of illegal activities, the involvement of literally all the large financial corporations, and the scale of the impact on our economy and us individually is breathtaking. We need better laws and regulation overseeing these large financial institutions. See my posts of 8/6 and 8/4 for steps that are needed to move in that direction, including petitions of support you can sign.

FULL POST: The large US financial corporations, whose illegal and unethical activities caused the 2008 financial crash and recession, continue to engage in a wide variety of illegal activity. Clearly, the fines and penalties they’ve paid to-date, although hundreds of millions of dollars, haven’t been sufficient to deter them. Or they are so large and so impossible to manage that they are just out of control. In either case, they present a significant risk for another financial collapse, another possible bailout, and another recession. The only way to reduce the risk to our financial system and economy, and to stop these illegal activities, is to break them up and institute much tighter regulation. This is what the 21^st Century Glass Steagall Act, recently proposed in the US Senate (see post of 8/6/13), and the Dodd-Frank Act (if appropriately implemented) would go a long way toward doing.

You probably remember the fraudulent creation of mortgages and the fraudulent packaging and selling of risky mortgage-backed securities as “safe” investments. These activities were key contributors to the 2008 financial system collapse. You may remember that these same handful of corporations engaged in fraudulent foreclosures on home owners, manipulation of interest rates in multiple settings, money laundering for criminals and countries under international sanctions, and out-of-control speculative trading (which cost JPMorgan $6 billion in early 2013). Many of these activities are still under investigation with penalties still to be finalized, but it doesn’t look like any senior managers will be charged with criminal activity. (In the Savings and Loan crash of the late 1980s, which was less than one-tenth the size of the 2008 crash, over 1,000 senior managers were convicted of felonies.) (See posts of 8/29/12 and 7/12/12 for more detail.)

Here are some other examples of illegal or unethical behavior by the large financial corporations that have come to light more recently.

Their speculation in and manipulation of commodities markets costs consumers billions. This includes oil and gasoline (see post of 3/5/12 for more detail), electricity, aluminum, wheat, cotton, coffee, and other commodities. [1] In the last year, US regulators have accused three financial corporations of manipulating electricity prices, including JPMorgan, which recently agreed to a $410 million settlement. [2][3]

In the commodities market for aluminum, Goldman Sachs and others make millions in profits that end up costing consumers many times that. Using special exemptions from the Federal Reserve and relaxed regulations approved by Congress, the large financial corporations have purchased much of the infrastructure used to store and deliver aluminum (and other commodities) as they are traded on commodities exchanges. Three years ago, Goldman Sachs bought one of the largest firms storing and delivering aluminum; almost a quarter of the supply of 1,500 pound aluminum bars bought and sold on commodities exchanges is in its 27 warehouses (1.5 million tons). Goldman, over the last three years, has increased the delivery wait time for customers from an average of six weeks to roughly 70 weeks. This significantly increases the rent and fees paid to Goldman for the storage and delivery of the aluminum in its warehouses. [4][5][6]

JPMorgan and other big financial corporations are under investigation for their debt collection practices. It has recently come to light that their efforts to collect delinquent credit card debt have suffered from faulty or forged documents, improperly reviewed documentation, and failure to notify debtors of legal filings. These are some of the same practices that resulted in the lawsuits and settlements over improper home foreclosures! [7]

Morgan Stanley just settled claims that it sold inappropriate securities to, among others, elderly investors seeking secure investments. [8]

These are highlights of what we know about, and, therefore, are the tip of an iceberg of unknown size. The amounts of the fines and settlements sound large, but they’re just a cost of doing business when compared to the revenue and profits at these mega-financial corporations. (See post of 2/20/12 on the mortgage foreclosure settlement for an example with more detail.) Because shareholders and not corporate executives bear the cost of these settlements, and, furthermore, they are subsidized by us as taxpayers because they are typically considered a business expense (which reduces taxable income), the executives who profit (through pay, bonuses, and stock options) from these criminal and unethical activities have no reason to stop committing or allowing them. And the record shows they are continuing. [9]

[1] Kocieniewski, D., 7/21/13, “Aluminum shuffle is pure gold to the banks,” The Boston Globe (from The New York Times)

[2] Silver-Greenberg, J., & Protess, B., 8/8/13, “JPMorgan Chase faces civil, criminal inquiries,” The Boston Globe (from The New York Times)

[3] Associated Press, 7/31/13, “JPMorgan owes $410 million in energy suit,” The Boston Globe

[4] Kocieniewski, D., 7/21/13, see above

[5] Morgenson, G., 8/1/13, “Goldman Sachs offers to speed up metal delivery,” The Boston Globe (from The New York Times)

[6] Chan, K., 8/6/13, “Goldman Sachs, LME sued over aluminum storage,” The Boston Globe (from the Associated Press)

[7] Silver-Greenberg, J., & Wyatt, E., 7/10/13, “Big lenders face scrutiny on collections,” The Boston Globe (from The New York Times)

[8] Associated Press, 7/31/13, “Morgan Stanley settles EFT claims,” The Boston Globe

[9] Eskow, R.J., 8/7/13, “7 Things About Prosecuting Wall Street You Wanted to Know (But Were Too Depressed to Ask),” The Huffington Post

FINANCIAL SYSTEM REFORM

ABSTRACT: The need for financial system reform was made clear by the 2008 crash. One of the goals of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law was to end speculative trading by large financial corporations that are also banks because it has the potential to jeopardize consumer deposits. However, speculative trading has continued.

Therefore, a tri-partisan group of Senators, led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, has recently proposed new legislation, the 21st Century Glass Steagall Act, that would require the separation of speculative trading and consumer bank deposits. You can sign on as a citizen sponsor of this proposed federal legislation at: http://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/s/glass-steagall?source=20130711emf.

Senator Warren was on CNBC to talk about the importance of this new legislation. You can watch the informative and entertaining video clip (under 3 minutes) at: http://gawker.com/nbc-censors-video-of-elizabeth-warren-taking-cnbc-to-th-837411782.

FULL POST: The need for financial system reform was made clear by the 2008 crash. We are now at the third anniversary of the passage of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. However, implementation has been slow, due to the complexity of the law, efforts by the large financial corporations to block and delay it, and obstructionism by Republicans, particularly in the Senate. For example, a Director for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created by Dodd-Frank, was finally approved by the Senate on July 17. (See post of 7/26/12 for background.)

One of the goals of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law was to end speculative trading by large financial corporations that are also banks. Such trading has the potential to generate large losses that could jeopardize consumer deposits at these banks, requiring a federal government bailout. Dodd-Frank and the so-called Volcker Rule were supposed to end such trading. However, speculative trading has continued. (See posts of 5/31/12 and 5/29/12 for more details.)

You can sign on as a citizen sponsor of this proposed federal legislation at: http://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/s/glass-steagall?source=20130711emf. It will reduce risk-taking by big financial corporations that enjoy federal insurance of depositors’ money, thereby reducing the risk of another government bailout of these huge corporations and enhancing the safety of consumer deposits.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (Democrat, MA), an expert on the financial system, states that we need to learn from the financial crisis of 2008 and, moving forward, to prevent the kinds of high-risk activities that made a few people rich but nearly destroyed our economy. She has joined forces with Senators John McCain (Republican, AZ), Maria Cantwell (Democrat, WA), and Angus King (Independent, ME) to introduce the 21st Century Glass Steagall Act to modernize core banking safety.

This legislation would reinstate some of the protections of the original Glass Steagall Act put in place after the Great Depression but repealed in 1999. For over 50 years before this repeal, the banking system was stable and our middle class grew stronger. Wall Street had spent 66 years and millions of dollars lobbying for repeal, and, eventually, the big financial corporations won.

This new law will rebuild a firewall between the banks where American families have checking and savings accounts, and the investment banks that engage in risky financial speculation. It will make sure Wall Street doesn’t gamble with your money, and will help prevent another financial crisis. The bill will give a five year transition period for financial institutions to split their business practices into distinct entities – shrinking their size and taking an important step toward ending “Too Big to Fail” once and for all, while minimizing the risk of future bailouts.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insures our banks to keep your money safe. That way, when you want to withdraw your money, you know the money will be there. That’s what makes our banking system safe and dependable. But the government should NOT be insuring hedge funds, swaps dealing, and other risky investment banking activities. When the same institutions that take these huge risks are also the ones that control your savings account, the entire banking system is riskier.

This is an important bill that will implement the lessons we learned from the 2008 crisis and make sure we hold Wall St. accountable. Click here to become a citizen sponsor of the new 21st Century Glass Steagall Act. (Paste the following address into your web browser if the link doesn’t work: http://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/s/glass-steagall?source=20130711emf.)

Senator Warren was on CNBC to talk about the importance of this new legislation. The video clip of Warren’s appearance was on You Tube, but CNBC and NBC in effect censored it, claiming copyright infringement. They did so, apparently, because Warren did such a good job of defending the legislation and, in the process, made the CNBC commentators look bad because they were critical of the legislation and tried to attack Warren and her arguments for the legislation. This is a reflection of how our mainstream media, which are all big corporations themselves, report on – or in many cases don’t report on – news that is not favorable to corporate America.

You can read an article about this censorship and watch the informative and entertaining video clip (under 3 minutes) at: http://gawker.com/nbc-censors-video-of-elizabeth-warren-taking-cnbc-to-th-837411782. (Paste the address above into your web browser if the link doesn’t work automatically.)

NOTE: Please let me know by submitting a comment on this post if you would like me to continue sharing links to on-line petitions on issues I have written about. These petitions are an easy way to express your opinion and increase its weight by combining it with that of others. The effectiveness of these petitions varies greatly based on a wide range of factors, but there’s little downside given how quick and easy it is to do. Each petition also will give you a link to the advocacy organization sponsoring it. If it’s an issue you are particularly interested in, you may want to engage directly with the organization. One forewarning: in many cases when you sign a petition the sponsoring organization will put you on their email list. In some cases, there is a check box on the petition that you can uncheck if you don’t want the organization to start sending you information. You can, of course, always unsubscribe via any email you get from such an organization

OVERSIGHT OF FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS – PETITIONS YOU CAN SIGN

INTRO: The need for strong oversight of our large financial corporations was made starkly clear by their collapse in 2008. Nonetheless, necessary changes have not happened. The six huge financial corporations are bigger than ever, despite concern that they were too big to fail back in 2008. News of illegal activity in the financial sector continues to surface regularly and financial corporations are increasingly engaging in activities similar to those that led up to the 2008 crash. [1] (See posts of 8/29/12 and 7/12/12 for background.)

Strong oversight and regulation are needed from the Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission, among others. (See posts of 7/31/12, 5/31/12, and 5/29/12 for background.) The government bailout (trillions of dollars in total) and the economic recession (that we still haven’t recovered from) that followed must not be allowed to happen again.

Here are two steps that should happen to increase oversight and accountability, while reducing risk of a re-occurrence of the 2008 crash. I include (see below) links to petitions you can sign (each in a minute or less) that will register your support for them:

President Obama should NOT to nominate Larry Summers as the next head of the Federal Reserve (the Fed)
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should implement and enforce disclosure of the compensation given to the heads of the big financial corporations

TELL PRESIDENT OBAMA NOT TO APPOINT SUMMERS AS FED CHAIRMAN

Larry Summers is apparently Obama’s leading candidate to replace Ben Bernanke as the chairman of the Federal Reserve in January. Summers is a former Treasury Secretary, Obama economic advisor, and Harvard University President. He is currently a paid consultant to Citigroup, one of the six huge Wall St. financial corporations.

Summers contributed to the financial collapse — he helped lead the charge to deregulate Wall Street in the 1990s, he blocked efforts to regulate derivatives (which were a key cause of the 2008 collapse), and he dismissed concerns about deregulation just before the 2008 crash that tanked the economy. [2]

We need strong leadership at the Fed. We need someone willing to stand up to Wall Street instead of letting them play by their own rules and bailing them out when the going gets tough. Larry Summers is not that man.

Please email President Obama via the Daily Kos website now — tell him not to appoint Larry Summers to lead the Fed. (from Michael Langenmayr, Campaign Director, Daily Kos blog site. Paste the following address into your web browser if the link doesn’t work: http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=505)

TELL THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION TO IMPLEMENT DISCLOSURE OF CEOs’ PAY

Please urge the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) to enforce the law on disclosure of CEO’s salaries. Excessive CEO salaries contributed to the reckless financial culture that nearly ruined our economy.

The Dodd-Frank financial reform law, which Congress passed in 2010, requires publicly traded corporations to disclose how much their executives make and compare it to their average worker’s pay. Three years later, the law still hasn’t been implemented. Why? Because the SEC has not produced the regulations needed to implement the law. Meanwhile, big corporations are putting pressure on the SEC and Congress to quietly kill this requirement.

This is basic public information that we have the right to know, and will help prevent the next financial crisis. Join Daily Kos and USAction by signing this petition to the SEC, urging them to enforce Dodd-Frank’s provision on disclosing CEO salaries. (from Paul Hogarth, Daily Kos blog site. Paste the following address into your web browser if the link doesn’t work: http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=518)

My next post will describe, and give you the opportunity to be a citizen co-sponsor of, Congressional legislation to reduce risk and improve stability at our big bank corporations. It will reduce the risk of a future government bailout while enhancing the safety of your deposits.

NOTE: Please let me know by submitting a comment on this post if you would like me to continue sharing links to on-line petitions on issues I write about. These petitions are an easy way to express your opinion and increase its weight by combining it with that of others. The effectiveness of these petitions varies greatly based on a wide range of factors, but there’s little downside given how quick and easy it is to do. Each petition also will give you a link to the advocacy organization sponsoring it. If it’s an issue you are particularly interested in, you may want to engage directly with the organization. One forewarning: in many cases when you sign a petition the sponsoring organization will put you on their email list. In some cases, there is a check box on the petition that you can uncheck if you don’t want the organization to start sending you information. You can, of course, always unsubscribe via any email you get from such an organization.

[1] Popper, N., 4/18/13, “Wall St. redux: Arcane names hiding big risk,” The New York Times

[2] Editorial, 8/2/13, “Tornado at the Fed? Obama has better choices than Summers,” The Boston Globe

OUR TOXIC ENVIRONMENT AND WHAT YOU CAN DO

ABSTRACT: On a societal level, a disproportionate burden of toxic pollution is borne by Americans of color. At the specific level, every day skin care products contain toxic chemicals. Many contain formaldehyde (a known carcinogen), phthalates (linked to hormonal disruption and birth defects), and/or parabens (which mimic the hormone estrogen and have been linked to breast cancer). Lead (a neurotoxin so damaging to young children that it is banned from house paint and gasoline) is present in lipstick.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does NOT have the authority to test cosmetic ingredients before they are marketed or to order recalls. Regulation is in the hands of the industry itself, which to-date has found only 11 chemicals to be unsafe for use. In contrast, in Europe, 1,400 chemicals have been banned from personal care products. The chemical and cosmetics corporations spend millions of dollars every year on lobbying and other efforts to influence US policy.

Atrazine is a weed killer, widely used in the US but banned in the European Union. As an example of the lengths the chemical industry and its allies in Congress will go to stop any momentum to regulate toxins, they blocked a resolution honoring Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring 50 years ago, which established a clear link between DDT and other pesticide use and the widespread deaths of birds, as well as reproductive, birth, and developmental abnormalities in mammals.

Options for what you can do at home and politically are included in the full post below.

FULL POST: Before sharing some specific examples of toxic chemicals in our everyday lives and some things you can do about them, here’s an important societal perspective. A disproportionate burden of toxic pollution is borne by Americans of color. The environmental justice movement has documented the disproportionate presence of pollution sources in and near communities with high percentages of people of color. Prominent examples are in Louisiana and Detroit. The stretch along the Mississippi River from Baton Rouge to New Orleans is dotted with oil refineries that belch a variety of toxins into the air of the surrounding, largely minority, communities. This area is known as “Cancer Alley.” Detroit’s zip code 48217 is 85% African American and is know as Michigan’s most polluted area. It is adjacent to a steel plant, a coal-fired power plant, a salt mine, and a huge oil refinery. The refinery alone emits close to 4 tons of toxins per year. Virtually every household in the area has at least one member who suffers from asthma, leukemia, cancer, or sarcoidosis (a disease in which inflammation occurs in the lymph nodes, lungs, liver, eyes, skin, or other tissues). After some homes in the area tested positive for up to 20 toxic gases, the refinery offered to buy the homes in an effort to reduce its liability. [1]

At the specific level, every day skin care products, including cosmetics, contain toxic chemicals. Many of these products, from suntan oil to makeup to hair spray to perfumes and colognes, contain formaldehyde (a known carcinogen), phthalates (linked to hormonal disruption and birth defects), and/or parabens (which mimic the hormone estrogen and have been linked to breast cancer). Lead (a neurotoxin so damaging to young children that it is banned from house paint and gasoline) is present in lipstick at concentrations 30 times higher than what the FDA allows in candy bars. Our skin is our largest organ and readily absorbs these products’ ingredients. Some of the chemicals absorbed accumulate over time because our bodies do not eliminate them or break them down. [2]

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), created by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, does NOT have the authority to test cosmetic ingredients before they are marketed or to order recalls – as it does for drugs and medical devices. Regulation is in the hands of the industry itself, which to-date has found only 11 chemicals to be unsafe for use in its products, including for use by women of child bearing age. In contrast, in Europe, 1,400 chemicals have been banned from personal care products because they are carcinogenic, mutagenic*, or toxic to reproduction.

The chemical and cosmetics corporations spend millions of dollars every year on lobbying and other efforts to influence US policy. In 2012, they blocked federal legislation that would have required complete ingredient labels on fragrances and hair sprays, as well as banned the use in cosmetics of carcinogens and chemicals linked to reproductive disorders. In addition, these corporations attempted to pass legislation that would block state regulation, such as that in California. If you would like more information and to take action, you can go to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics at http://safecosmetics.org.

Home cleaning products are another example of every day items that contain toxic chemicals. For information on how to keep your home clean and shiny without using products with toxic chemicals go to http://www.bostonhealthcoach.com/oilrecordings.html and select the teleclass entitled “Chemical-Free Home.”

Atrazine is a weed killer, widely used in the US but banned in the European Union. In the human body, it mimics hormones and has what are referred to as endocrine system disrupting effects. It has been shown to disrupt the reproduction and immune systems in a wide range of animals, including mammals. It is present in water everywhere, including in rain water. It can actually turn male frogs into functioning females. [3]

As an example of the lengths the chemical industry and its allies in Congress will go to stop any momentum to regulate toxins, they blocked a resolution honoring Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring, on its 50^th anniversary and what would have been her 100^th birthday. They attacked her as having made “junk-science claims about DDT” and accuse her and her supporters of being responsible for the deaths of “millions of people … particularly children” because supposedly the lack of use of DDT led to deaths from malaria and other diseases. The facts are that the EPA never banned DDT for use against malaria and Carson did not support a universal ban on pesticides but advocated for use of as little as possible. In Silent Spring, Carson established a clear link between DDT and other pesticide use and the widespread deaths of birds, as well as reproductive, birth, and developmental abnormalities in mammals. DDT, other pesticides, and some of the tens of thousands of chemicals in use today will be part of the environment and in our bodies for decades to come because they decompose or are eliminated very slowly. [4]

I urge you to contact your US Representative and Senators (and your state ones too) and to ask them to support the Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act (H.R. 1385) and the Safe Chemicals Act (S. 696). (Find your Representative at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and your Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.)

[1] Brune, M., July / August 2013, “And justice for all,” Sierra Club magazine

[2] Wasik, J.F., May / June 2013, “Beauty tips for the FDA: Did my wife’s cosmetics give her breast cancer?” The Washington Monthly

* Mutagenic chemicals cause changes in the genetic material, usually DNA, of an organism and thus increase the frequency of mutations. As many mutations cause cancer, mutagenic chemicals are therefore also likely to be carcinogens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutagen

[3] Steingraber, S., 4/19/13, “Sandra Steingraber’s war on toxic trespassers,” Bill Moyers public TV show, available at BillMoyers.com. Note: Steingraber has written multiple books including “Having faith: An ecologist’s journey to motherhood” and “Raising Elijah: Protecting our children in an age of environmental crisis.”

[4] Mangano, J.J., & Sherman, J.D., 10/1/12, “Rachel Carson’s brave, groundbreaking ‘Silent Spring’ at 50 years,” The Washington Spectator

BLOCKING REGULATION OF TOXINS

ABSTRACT: Corporations with a financial interest in the use and sale of toxic chemicals are engaged in a major, multi-faceted effort to prevent, weaken, and delay regulation. They work to prevent clear, unbiased, scientific information from being available to our policy makers and the public. They engage in efforts to affect the regulatory process – from the enactment of laws to the implementation of regulations – in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. They work to make the whole process as long and complicated as possible. This gives them many opportunities to block, weaken, and delay the actual regulation of a toxic chemical.

The chemical industry works to limit the effectiveness of any regulations eventually implemented and of the agency enforcing them.

It achieves results by using the standard tactics of 1) Campaign contributions, 2) Lobbying, and 3) The revolving door of personnel moving between the industry and legislative and executive branch staff positions, which result in personal relationships (and potential conflicts of interest) that can benefit the chemical industry.

Given that corporations typically have more resources, a more singular focus, and greater longevity for waging the battle against regulation than those working to regulate a toxic chemical, dragging out the process and making it costly generally works to their advantage.

FULL POST: Corporations with a financial interest in the use and sale of toxic chemicals are engaged in a major, multi-faceted effort to prevent, weaken, and delay regulation, despite threats to public health and safety, as well as to the environment. These corporations work to prevent clear, unbiased, scientific information from being available to our policy makers and the public. They engage in efforts to affect the regulatory process – from the enactment of laws to the implementation of regulations – in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. [1] The regulation of lead [2] (see post of 6/2/13 for more detail) and tobacco are classic examples. (Similar efforts are occurring in other arenas, such as climate change and regulation of the financial industry.)

The efforts of the chemical industry on the legislative front are both proactive and reactive, offensive and defensive, as well as high profile and hidden. Examples, for among many, include:

The fracking^* industry proactively but quietly got legislation passed that exempted fracking from review by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This happened in 2005 under President Bush and Vice President Cheney and is widely referred to as the “Halliburton Loophole” because a major beneficiary is Cheney’s previous employer, Halliburton Co.
The genetically modified organism (GMO) industry quietly attached a provision to an emergency budget bill (passed and signed into law by President Obama) that allows corporations (notably Monsanto) to sell GMO seeds for agriculture even when a federal court has ordered them not to. [3]
A provision in the 2013 Farm Bill, currently in the US House of Representatives, would prohibit states from enacting laws requiring the labeling of food with GMO ingredients or otherwise regulating the production of agricultural goods. [4]

The chemical industry achieves legislative results by using the standard tactics of:

Campaign contributions to Congress people (and state legislators) who have oversight roles,
Lobbying, and
The revolving door of personnel moving between the industry and legislative staff positions, which result in personal relationships (and potential conflicts of interest) that can benefit the chemical industry.

Then, once laws are in place, the chemical industry works to make the process of implementation through rules and regulations as long and complicated as possible. This gives it many additional opportunities (beyond those of the legislative process) to block, weaken, and delay the actual regulation of a toxic chemical.

The chemical industry also works to limit the effectiveness of any regulations eventually implemented and of the agency enforcing them. One way is to lobby to make the regulations as complex as possible with loopholes and details that make them difficult to enforce and open to court challenges. This can include putting the burden of proof on the agency as opposed to the corporation and setting a high standard of proof or harm. For example, the Toxic Substances Control Act gives the EPA just 90 days to find “unreasonable risk” if it wants to regulate a new chemical (see post of 6/2/13 for more detail). Another tactic is to require an extensive and often biased cost-benefit analysis of any new regulation.

The tactics of lobbying and the revolving door of personnel, in this case involving the regulatory agency in the executive branch rather than the legislative branch of government, are used to achieve these results.

A regulatory agency can also have its effectiveness hurt by budget cuts or legislative failure to confirm key agency personnel. And challenging regulations or regulatory decisions in court uses the judicial branch of government as another way to delay and drive up the costs of regulation.

Finally, the chemical industry engages in efforts to control the flow and clarity of information. Corporations with a stake in research on a potentially toxic chemical will create a false and parallel science by paying for biased research and will control, as much as possible, the dissemination of scientific information. They will attack scientists, sometimes directly and personally, including threatening them and suing them, when their research finds toxic effects from the corporation’s chemical. [5] An important goal of these efforts is to create false or exaggerated doubt in the minds of policy makers and the public about the harm that a chemical causes.

Trade associations like the American Chemical Council and public relations experts are used in efforts to manipulate public opinion and influence the media. Supposedly independent groups are created and funded specifically to promote the industry’s position. These allow the corporation with a vested interest to remain behind the scenes and apparently independent of public relations efforts to downplay evidence of dangers, exaggerate uncertainty, allege misconduct by scientists who find toxic effects, and plant inaccurate or biased stories in the media. [6][7]

To avoid having to share information with the public, corporations will claim that it represents “trade secrets” or “proprietary information”. For example, the fracking industry makes such claims when asked to reveal the chemicals it is pumping into the ground to release natural gas. This claim is also used to avoid labeling products with their chemical contents. Eastman Chemical Co. has used this claim to suppress information from a court case on the presence and effects of chemicals in its plastics. [8]

[1] Union of Concerned Scientists, Feb. 2012, “Heads they win, tails we lose: How corporations corrupt science at the public’s expense,” http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/how-corporations-corrupt-science.html

[2] Rosner, D., & Markowitz, G., 5/17/13, “Toxic disinformation,” Bill Moyers’ public TV show, available at billmoyers.com

* Fracking is shorthand for hydraulic fracturing where high pressure water and other fluids, including toxic chemicals, are injected into the ground to release natural gas.

[3] McCauley, L., 5/20/13, “Senator leads call to repeal the ‘Monsanto Protection Act’,” http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013.05/20-2

[4] Sheets, C.A., 5/17/13, “’Monsanto Protection Act 2.0’ would ban GMO-labeling laws at the state level,” International Business Times

[5] Riley, T., 5/18/13, “Blinding us from science,” http://billmoyers.com/2013/05/18/blinding-us-from-science

[6] Rosner, D., & Markowitz, G., 4/29/13, “You and your family are guinea pigs for the chemical corporations,” TomDispatch.com

[7] Union of Concerned Scientists, Feb. 2012, see above

[8] Dubose, L., 6/1/13, “Silencing science: What you may never know about plastic baby bottles,” The Washington Spectator

HOW AND WHY TOXINS ARE IN YOUR BLOOD

ABSTRACT: The dozens of toxic chemicals we all have in our blood are there because they are in the clothes we wear; the toys, furniture, fabrics, paint, and construction materials in our homes; the cleaning and personal care products we use; and the containers for our food and beverages. They are in all these places because our government regulators are failing us and the corporations that produce and use these chemicals engage in extensive efforts to block regulation.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 is the US law that regulates chemicals. Almost all of the 60,000 chemicals in use in 1976 when the law was passed were deemed safe without testing or review. Only a handful of chemicals have had their use restricted. For a new chemical, the EPA must act in just 90 days (!) and find an “unreasonable risk” or the chemical is deemed safe. In addition, the burden of proof lies on the EPA to show “unreasonable risk” rather than on the corporation to show that a chemical is safe.

There are numerous examples, historically and currently, of the difficulty of implementing regulations on chemicals, including lead, asbestos, pesticides, PCBs, formaldehyde, flame retardants, and BPA. Chemical exposure has been associated with a very wide range of health and developmental problems, including learning disabilities, asthma, birth defects, developmental problems in children, cancer, obesity, and problems with the immune and reproductive systems, as well as with the brain and nervous system. The effects of long-term exposure to multiple chemicals and the impacts on fetuses and young children are unknown.

Our bodies are toxic dumps and we are the guinea pigs – without our consent and often without even our knowledge – in the largest, uncontrolled experiment that has ever occurred.

FULL POST: The dozens of toxic chemicals we all have in our blood are there because they are in the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink. (See 5/22/13 post for more detail.) They get there from the clothes we wear; the toys, furniture, fabrics, paint, and construction materials in our homes; the cleaning and personal care products we use; and the containers for our food and beverages. They are in all these places because our government regulators are failing us and the corporations that produce and use these chemicals engage in extensive efforts to block regulation. Many of these chemicals are new, but some have been around for 100 years. [1]

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 is the US law that regulates the introduction of new chemicals and the chemicals existing when it was enacted. Almost all of the 60,000 chemicals in use in 1976 when the law was passed were deemed safe without testing or review. The TSCA is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has tested only 200 of the more than 75,000 synthetic chemicals in use in the US. In the 37 year history of the TSCA, only a handful of chemicals have had their use restricted. This is partly because the Pre-Manufacturing Notice a corporation submits for a new chemical it wants to use has only limited information (e.g., no safety information is required). Then, the EPA must act in just 90 days (!) and find an “unreasonable risk to human health or the environment” or the chemical is deemed safe for use. Even the EPA’s own Office of the Inspector General has criticized the TSCA as weak and ineffective, noting that corporations’ assertions of trade secrets prevent effective testing and that the EPA process is predisposed to protecting industry information rather than providing the public with health and safety information. [2] The Natural Resources Defense Council says that under the TSCA “it is almost impossible for the EPA to take regulatory action against dangerous chemicals, even those that are known to cause cancer or other serious health effects.” One reason is that the burden of proof lies on the EPA to show “unreasonable risk” rather than on the corporation to show that a chemical is safe, as a drug company is required to do. [3]

Lead is a classic example of the difficulty of implementing regulation. The dangers of lead have been known for 100 years. Yet the lead industry engaged in a 60 year campaign to cover-up the effects of lead and to promote its use – in a campaign similar to that waged by the tobacco industry more recently. In wasn’t until 1971 that Congress passed a law to limit the use of lead paint in public housing and 1978 when the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned lead paint for consumer use. During the 1980’s, the EPA issued rules that eventually eliminated the use of lead in gasoline in 1995 (although it is still used in aviation fuel).

Even today, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that children in 4 million US households are exposed to dangerous amounts of lead and that 500,000 children from birth to 5 have elevated levels of lead in their blood. No level of lead is considered safe and child exposure to lead is linked to attention and cognitive deficits, behavior problems, and learning disabilities – all of which risk putting a child on a trajectory for problems in school and later life. [4]

A similar pattern occurred with efforts to regulate asbestos. Chlorinated hydrocarbons, including pesticides such as DDT, were widely used until their detrimental effects became clear. Then they were successfully banned decades ago. However, these chemicals persist in the environment and have accumulated in our bodies. The same is true for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The non-stick coating for cookware, Teflon, is widely present in our blood and is linked to cancer.

Bisphenol A (BPA), which is used in plastics including baby bottles and water bottles, as well as the linings of food cans, has been found widely in our blood. At even very low doses, it has been shown to interact with our endocrine system and its hormones, with links to obesity, neurobehavioral problems, reproductive abnormalities, and breast and prostate cancers. Nonetheless, its regulation is being fought in the courts and elsewhere at this moment.

Currently, formaldehyde is used as a fungicide, germicide, and disinfectant in plywood and many materials used in building homes and furniture. However, as it ages it evaporates and the vapors we inhale accumulate in our bodies; it is known to cause cancer. Similarly, flame retardants are found in almost everyone’s blood and have been linked to thyroid, memory, learning, cognitive, and developmental problems, as well as early onset of puberty.

These are prominent examples of our widespread exposure to a large number of toxic chemicals. This exposure has been associated with a very wide range of health and developmental problems, including learning disabilities, asthma, birth defects, developmental problems in children, cancer, obesity, and problems with the immune and reproductive systems, as well as the brain and nervous system. The effects of long-term exposure to multiple chemicals are unknown.

When the TSCA passed in 1976, the scientific understanding of biochemistry was not nearly as sophisticated as it is today. The ways chemicals affect our health, their potential to accumulate in and have subtle, long-term effects on our bodies and how they function, were unknown. Even today, the effects chemicals have on fetuses and young children are largely unstudied and unknown. [5] In 1976, it was generally believed that the placenta filtered a mother’s blood and prevented dangerous chemicals from reaching the fetus. We now know that this isn’t true.

Our bodies are toxic dumps and we are the guinea pigs – without our consent and often without even our knowledge – in the largest, uncontrolled experiment that has ever occurred. The large corporations that produce and use these chemicals are using every tactic at their disposal and their huge treasuries to fight regulation and stop laws that would require testing of chemicals. My next post on this topic will focus on this battle.

[1] Rosner, D., & Markowitz, G., 4/29/13, “You and your family are guinea pigs for the chemical corporations,” TomDispatch.com

[2] Wikipedia, retrieved 6/1/13, “Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976,” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_Substances_Control_Act_of_1976

[3] Natural Resources Defense Council, retrieved 6/1/12, “More than 80,000 chemicals permitted in the US have never been fully assessed for toxic impacts on human health and the environment,” http://www.nrdc.org/health/toxics.asp?gclid=CPjZ66CLw7cCFYii4Aod6GwAWA

[4] Rosner & Markowitz, 4/19/13, see above

[5] Steingraber, S., 4/19/13, “Sandra Steingraber’s war on toxic trespassers,” Bill Moyers public TV show, available at BillMoyers.com

BIG FINANCIAL CORPORATION SCANDALS CONTINUE

ABSTRACT: Things are rotten in the big financial corporations. News of illegal activity continues to surface regularly. The fines that have been imposed haven’t been a sufficient deterrent to stop this bad behavior. Multiple big banks have paid penalties of over $100 million for 1) money-laundering for countries subject to US economic sanctions, 2) selling inappropriately risky investments to conservative investors including municipalities and non-profits, 3) fraudulently foreclosing on mortgages, 4) interest rate manipulation in multiple scenarios, and 5) discriminating against minority borrowers.

Despite this repeated wrong doing, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Justice Department announced recently that they have ended their investigation of Goldman Sachs for fraud related to selling mortgage-backed securities to customers when it knew the securities were likely to be bad investments. This is the latest indication that there will be no significant accountability for the banks that brought on the collapse of the financial sector and our economy.

These huge financial corporations are not just too big to fail, they are simply too big and complex to control by either internal management or outside regulators. Either these huge financial corporations need to be broken up into smaller and less complex entities, or government regulation of them needs to be dramatically changed and strengthened. We cannot allow them to continue to pocket the gains from their risky business practices when we know that we will bear the costs when things go wrong.

FULL POST: Things are rotten in the big financial corporations. News of illegal activity continues to surface regularly across a broad range of banks and financial activities. Here are some of the latest. The fines that have been imposed (which sound like big amounts but are small compared to the size and profitability of these corporations) haven’t been a sufficient deterrent to stop this bad behavior. (In terms of the size of these financial firms, JP Morgan Chase took a $6 billion loss on internal, speculative securities trades and still had a profit for the quarter.)

Standard Chartered, a big British bank, has agreed to a $340 million penalty with New York State to settle charges of money-laundering for countries subject to US economic sanctions. It admitted to concealing transactions with Iran of over $250 billion over nearly 10 years. The bank made hundreds of millions of dollars in fees on the transactions. It agreed to increased monitoring but received no other sanctions on its business. A former US Treasury official noted his disappointment in the small penalty and the lack of criminal charges. A federal investigation is on-going. Since 2005, the US Treasury has imposed fines of over $2 billion on banks for violating US economic sanctions including ING Bank ($617 million), Lloyds Bank ($350 million), UBS ($100 million), Barclays ($176 million), and JP Morgan Chase ($88 million). HSBC bank has been accused of laundering billions of dollars for drug cartels and terrorists and has yet to settle, but has set aside $700 million for potential penalties. [1][2]
Wells Fargo bank is paying $6.5 million to settle charges that it sold inappropriately risky investments to conservative investors including municipalities and non-profits. A Wells Fargo vice president will pay $25,000 and serve a 6 month ban on working in the securities industry. Wells Fargo and its vice president have neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing, as is typical in these cases. Last month, Wells Fargo paid $175 million to settle charges that it discriminated against minority borrowers. [3]

Despite repeated wrongdoing, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Justice Department announced recently that they have ended their investigation of Goldman Sachs for fraud related to selling mortgage-backed securities to customers when it knew the securities were likely to be bad investments. They will not pursue criminal charges against the corporation or its employees. This occurred despite President Obama’s announcement of a special investigative task force in January, despite a formal notice from the SEC in February that it intended to pursue legal action, and despite the $550 million fine Goldman Sachs paid in 2010 for failing to make appropriate disclosures to investors on a similar security. This is the latest indication that there will be no significant accountability for the banks that brought on the collapse of the financial sector and the economy, especially given that the deadline to file cases is fast approaching. [4] [5]

Whatever the reasons are for these huge financial corporations not being held accountable, it is clear that they are not just too big to fail, but simply too big and complex to control. Internal management seems unable to control traders and stop illegal activity (assuming they intend to). Outside regulators have an extremely difficult time detecting and responding to illegal and harmful behavior, not to mention doing so in a timely manner that might prevent the worst of the consequences.

Dramatic changes are needed. Either these huge financial corporations need to be broken up into smaller and less complex entities, or government regulation of them needs to be dramatically changed and strengthened. Otherwise, the risk that they will do serious damage to our economy again is simply too high. We cannot allow them to continue to pocket the gains from their risky business practices when we know that we will bear the costs when things go wrong.

[1] Rooney, B., 8/14/12, “Standard Chartered pays $340 million to settle Iran charges,” CNN Money

[2] Sanati, C., 8/8/12, “Why London bankers are shrugging of Standard Chartered threat,” CNN Money

[3] O’Toole, J., 8/14/12, “Wells Fargo in $6.5 million SEC settlement over risk disclosure,” CNN Money

[4] Protess, B., & Ahmed, A., 8/9/12, “SEC and Justice Dept. end mortgage investigations in Goldman,” DealBook of The New York Times

[5] Mattingly, P., 8/10/12, “US won’t prosecute Goldman Sachs, employees over CDO deals,” Bloomberg Businessweek

CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING: THE PERFECT STORM

ABSTRACT: The unprecedented spending and the unprecedented secrecy in the current election campaigns are creating the perfect storm and it’s battering our democracy. They are the result of three factors: 1) great concentration of wealth, 2) unlimited campaign contributions, and 3) secrecy through weakly regulated non-profit organizations. Non-profit organizations don’t have to report contributors and are spending tens of millions of dollars on political activity. These non-profit organizations have accounted for two-thirds of the outside spending to-date – close to $100 million. The Internal Revenue Service has, so far, failed to exercise its oversight responsibilities. Corporations, in particular, like the secrecy.

The DISCLOSE Act in Congress would require disclosure of contributors of over $10,000 by all organizations. Senate Republicans have filibustered it (including a watered down version) multiple times. We need to demand that our elected officials require disclosure of campaign contributors. And we need a Constitutional Amendment that will reverse the Citizens United decision and allow limitations on contributions to political campaigns. Otherwise, the voices of we the people are drowned out by the purchased – not free but purchased – speech of wealthy individuals and corporations.

FULL POST: The unprecedented spending in the current election campaigns and the unprecedented secrecy about who’s contributing to the campaigns are creating the perfect storm and it’s battering our democracy. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, “we can have a democracy or we can have great wealth in the hands of a comparatively few, but we cannot have both.” This perfect storm is the result of three factors:

The greatest concentration of wealth in more than a century,
Unlimited campaign contributions (thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that allows unlimited spending by corporations, unions, and other groups), and
Secrecy for many of the contributors, especially corporations, through weakly regulated non-profit organizations. [1]

In addition to the Super PACs, which have to disclose contributors, there arenon-profit trade associations (such as the US Chamber of Commerce) and non-profit “social welfare” organizations [501(c)(4)s] that don’t have to report contributors. Politics is not supposed to be the primary purpose of these organizations. However, the US Chamber of Commerce is spending tens of millions of dollars on political activity, while refusing to disclose its contributors. Republican strategist Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS, for example, is a 501(c)(4) that is raising and spending tens of millions of dollars on political activity in close alliance with his Super PAC, while refusing to disclose its contributors. [2]

So far in the 2012 election, these non-profit organizations have accounted for two-thirds of the outside spending – close to $100 million spent primarily on advertising. Back in 2010, they spent $130 million, outspending Super PACs 3-to-2. The Internal Revenue Service has, so far, failed to exercise its oversight responsibilities for these non-profit entities. It has no clear test for what constitutes excessive political activity and these tax-exempt groups are permitted to raise and spend money before being officially reviewed and approved. The tax exempt status of Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS is still pending more than two years after being created and after having spent tens of millions back in the 2010 elections. [3]

Corporations, in particular, like the secrecy these non-profit groups provide. For example, insurance giant Aetna secretly gave $3 million to a non-profit running ads attacking Obama’s health care plan, while publicly supporting the President. Not a single Fortune 500 company has been reported as contributing to a Super PAC, but they are giving millions to non-profit organizations where their contributions can be kept secret. [4]

At the time of the Citizens United decision, eight of the nine justices made it clear that transparency on contributions for political activity was important and that it was Congress’s responsibility to require appropriate disclosure. The DISCLOSE Act in Congress would require disclosure of contributors of over $10,000 by all organizations, Super PACs, trade associations, unions, and 501(c)(4)s. However, Senate Republicans have filibustered it (including a watered down version) multiple times. Many of the Republicans filibustering the DISCLOSE Act previously supported disclosure, including Senator McCain and Senate Minority Leader McConnell, and 14 Republicans who supported it just a couple of years ago. [5] “[T]he essence of free speech, and democracy, is openness and accountability. … but Republican leaders remain adamantly opposed, and for an obvious reason. Republicans raise far more secret money than the Democrats and have far more to hide.” [6]

We the people are going to have to weather this perfect storm as best we can in this election. And then we will need to demand that our elected officials require disclosure of campaign contributors so we know who is trying to influence our elections. Ultimately, we need a Constitutional Amendment that will reverse the Citizens United decision and allow limitations on contributions to political campaigns. Otherwise, the voices of we the people are drowned out by the purchased – not free but purchased – speech of wealthy individuals and corporations who have amounts of money that far exceed that of everyone else.

[1] Reich, R., 7/13/12, “The selling of American democracy: The perfect Storm,” RobertReich.org

[2] Roberts, C., & Roberts, S.V., 7/18/12, “Shine a light on political donations,” Daily Times Chronicle

[3] McIntire, M., & Confessore, N., 7/7/12, “Corporate money funneled to nonprofits with an agenda,” The New York Times

[4] Moyers, B., & Winship, M., 7/17/12, “Presto! The DISCLOSE Act disappears,” Moyers & Company

[5] Moyers & Winship, 7/17/12, see above

[6] Roberts & Roberts, 7/18/12, see above

WHY WE NEED STRONG REGULATION

ABSTRACT: A fierce battle is occurring over government regulation. Key arguments against regulation are that corporations will regulate themselves and that the discipline of free market capitalism will punish bad corporate behavior and reward good behavior. The series of scandals in our large banks have clearly proven these arguments are wrong. And there are many examples beyond the recent bad behavior in the financial industry.

The market is unable to detect, publicize, and punish bad behavior before very serious damage has been done. Corporations resist efforts to exert control or set standards from outside and our huge corporations have the power to successfully do so. As Robert Sherrill wrote, “thievery is what unregulated capitalism is all about.” “Trust but verify” seems applicable here. We need strong regulators and regulations to verify that large corporations are behaving in a legal and ethical manner. Albert Einstein defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” Deregulation is insanity; we’ve seen the results time and again. Strong regulation of corporations, particularly large corporations, by government is necessary.

FULL POST: A fierce battle is occurring in Congress and the federal government over regulation of the financial industry and over government regulation in general. Key arguments against regulation are that corporations will regulate themselves (with minimal standards from government) and that the discipline of free market capitalism will punish bad corporate behavior and reward good behavior. President George W. Bush asserted that these forces were effective and sufficient as he promoted deregulation.

Over the last couple of years, the series of scandals in our large banks have clearly proven these arguments are wrong. The large banks have not regulated themselves. The mortgage and LIBOR scandals (among others) have shown a pattern of behavior by many banks over many years where they clearly did not regulate themselves, but spun further and further out of control and into illegal and unethical behavior. The recent huge JPMorgan trading loss, currently estimated at $6 billion, shows that they simply cannot control internal behavior despite strong incentives to do so. And there are many examples beyond the recent bad behavior in the financial industry: for example, the Savings and Loan scandal of the late 1980s, Enron and WorldCom’s collapses of 2001 and 2002, and the “dot com” stock bubble of 2000. Our large corporations don’t even seem to be able to exert reasonable control over executive compensation.

The discipline of a competitive market place has also clearly not been effective as a deterrent for bad behavior. The recent scandals have shown as false the assumption that banks would behave honestly to protect their reputations with customers. Moreover, it is clear in all of the examples cited above that the market is unable to detect, publicize, and punish bad behavior before very serious damage has been done. [1]

Finally, corporate capitalism, where the goal is to maximize profits, clearly has strong incentives for promoting self-interest. Conversely, the corporations have strong incentives to resist the public interest, such as worker safety, fair employee compensation, and clean air and water, because they might increase costs and reduce profits. Therefore, corporations resist efforts to exert control or set standards from outside. And our huge corporations have the power to successfully do so, in the market place, in the courts, and in our elections and government.

As Robert Sherrill (the reporter and investigative journalist for The Nation, the Washington Post, and the New York Times Magazine, among others, and the author of numerous books on politics and society [2] ) wrote about the Savings and Loan scandal, “thievery is what unregulated capitalism is all about.” The recent behavior of our large banks seems to have proven this statement again.

“Trust but verify,” a phrase President Reagan popularized when he used it to describe relations with the Soviet Union, seems applicable here. [3] We need strong regulators and regulations to verify that large corporations are behaving in a legal and ethical manner.

Finally, Albert Einstein is quoted as defining insanity as “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” [4] Deregulation of the financial industry in particular, and corporate America in general, is insanity. We’ve seen the results time and again over the last 30 years of deregulation and in the events leading up to the Great Depression. We’re paying a very steep price right now in high unemployment, lost wealth in homes and investments, and over the longer haul in lower wages and reduced benefits for workers.

We need to push back against the large corporations and their special interests in the name of the public interest and the interests of we the people. Strong regulation of corporations, particularly large corporations, by government is necessary.

[1] Surowiecki, J., 7/30/12, “Bankers gone wild,” The New Yorker

[2] Wikipedia, retrieved 7/25/12, “Robert Sherrill,” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rovbert_Sherrill

[3] Wikipedia, retrieved 7/26/12, “Trust, but verify,” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_but_verify

[4] BrainyQuote, retrieved 7/26/12, “Albert Einstein quotes,” http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html

BAD BEHAVIOR AT THE BIG BANKS

Abstract: Two “new” major, multi-bank scandals have gotten attention recently: the manipulation of the LIBOR interest rate index from 2005 – 2009 and the rigging of interest rates on municipal deposits over at least ten years. These far-reaching scandals are but the tip of the iceberg, which includes the endemic fraudulent mortgage practices that led to the 2008 financial collapse and more. JPMorgan Chase, among others, is involved in all of the above. It has also paid a $153 million fine for fraud in securities trading and a $700 million penalty for its misbehavior in municipal finance.

Despite overwhelming evidence of serious, chronic criminal behavior at the big banks, penalties are mere slaps on the wrist, no senior executive has been prosecuted, and the banks continue to do business as if they had done nothing wrong. This behavior and the unhealthy economic and political power of the big banks must be stopped. The only way to do so is to prosecute bankers and send some of them to jail.

Full post: On the heels of the large trading losses at JPMorgan Chase (somewhere between $2 and $9 billion) comes news of two major, multi-bank scandals: the manipulation of the LIBOR interest rate and the rigging of interest rates on municipal deposits.

Barclays Bank, based in London, has paid British and American regulators a fine of $450 million for rigging the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) from 2005 through 2009. This is a big deal because LIBOR is used worldwide to set the variable interest rates on an estimated $500 trillion worth of financial contracts, including mortgages, credit cards, and many commercial and personal loans. The rate rigging helped Barclays’ traders make more money and made their bank look stronger in the midst of the financial crisis. Other banks were clearly involved in the scheme and more penalties are expected. [1]

The second scandal, rigging interest rates on municipal deposits, has, at least so far, received far less attention. Three low level employees at GE Capital (the financial services subsidiary of General Electric) have been convicted in a scheme that involved virtually every major bank and finance company on Wall St. They conspired to skim billions from cities and towns across the country by paying them lower interest rates on their deposits. The cities and towns are generally legally required to get competitive bids from at least three banks. The bidding is managed by a broker. In this scheme, the banks divvied up the business so there was a prearranged winner of the bidding. The broker was bribed to tell the prearranged winner what the other two bids were, so it could come in just over those bids. [2]

This conspiracy had been going on for at least ten years. The municipalities’ deposits were the multi-million proceeds of bonds that were sold to finance major projects and were spent over the multiple years those projects, such as building a school or sewer system, took to complete. Therefore, lowering the interest rate the municipality is paid by just a 100^th of a percent (e.g., 5.00% instead of 5.01%) could cheat a city or town out of tens of thousands of dollars, and save the bank the same amount. Overall, municipalities lost tens of millions of dollars on tens of billions of dollars of municipal deposits. To-date, four banks – UBS, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo – have admitted involvement and have paid $673 million in restitution and fines.

These two new scandals, amazingly, are but the tip of the iceberg in terms of fraud in the financial industry. Fraudulent writing of mortgages, fraudulent packaging and selling of them as supposedly safe AAA-rated securities, and fraudulent mortgage foreclosures (see blog post / newsletter issue #19, 2/20/12) led to the 2008 financial collapse.

JPMorgan Chase, to focus on one of the big banks, is involved in all of the wrongdoing mentioned above. It has also paid a $153 million fine for fraud in the trading of collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and a $700 million penalty for its misbehavior in the funding of a $300 million sewer system in Birmingham and Jefferson County Alabama. In this latter scandal, it bribed Goldman Sachs with $3 million not to compete with it and bribed local officials (some of whom are now in jail) to accept a complex financial deal that means the $300 million sewer system will cost $3 billion. This provided profits to JPMorgan while saddling local households, some of them quite poor, with sewer bills of at least $50 month. [3]

The pattern of repeated misbehavior in the financial system is clear. Our big banks’ executives are more interested in their profits and bonuses than serving their customers or playing by the rules. The fines and penalties they’ve paid are mere slaps on the wrist given their size and profitability. None of these payments have meant even one quarter where a bank reported a loss instead of a profit. Despite the overwhelming evidence of serious, repeated criminal behavior, there has been no prosecution of any senior official – not a one, and the banks continue to do business, including with local, state, and the federal governments, as if they had done nothing wrong. [4] (In the Savings and Loan collapse, which was truly miniscule by comparison, over 1,000 senior officials were convicted of felonies.)

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner and former World Bank economist, believes we must break the unhealthy economic and political power of the financial sector in order to have a more just and prosperous society. He believes the only way to do this is to prosecute bankers and send some of them to jail. [5]

[1] Morgenson, G., 7/7/12, “The British, at least, are getting tough,” The New York Times

[2] Taibbi, M., 7/5/12, “The scam Wall Street learned from the Mafia,” Rolling Stone

[3] Moyers & Company, 6/22/12, “How big banks victimize our democracy,” Public Affairs Television, Inc.

[4] Eskow, R., ???, “Wall Street’s unpunished crimes,” Huffington Post

[5] Common Dreams staff, 7/2/12, “Following Barclays’ scandal, Stiglitz says, ‘Send bankers to jail’,” http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/07/02-4

WHY THE DECLINE IN LABOR UNIONS

Here’s issue #38 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 7/3/12. The previous newsletter described the role of unions. This newsletter outlines the reasons for the decline in private sector union membership.

Private sector union membership has dropped from 34% of the workforce in 1954 to 7% today. (Public sector union membership has grown from 10% to 37%, so that’s a different story for another day.) [1]

The Wagner Act of 1935 (also know as the National Labor Relations Act) created the basis for current labor unions. It was part of President Roosevelt’s New Deal. It gave workers rights and protections in organizing unions and bargaining collectively. [2]

Employers, especially large corporations, have been pushing back ever since. Initial efforts to weaken the Act failed, until the Taft-Hartley Act was passed in 1947. It was vetoed by President Truman but the Republican Congress overrode his veto. Previously, employers were expected to remain neutral during union organizing efforts. Now employers were allowed to actively oppose unionization. Taft-Hartley also gave flexibility to states to regulate unions and prohibited secondary boycotts (where a union encourages customers not to buy the employers products). Requiring all employees of a unionized workplace to become union members was outlawed. It made union organizing much more difficult and is generally seen as the turning point in unionization in the US [3] (although membership continued to increase for 8 more years before beginning its long decline). In the last 30 years, labor laws have been weakened and the ones that remain are often not vigilantly enforced. [4]

Since the early 1980s, large employers have increasingly aggressively opposed unions. One strategy has been to increase competition among workers for jobs, particularly in the manufacturing and industrial sector that was the heart of middle class union jobs. For example:

Trade agreements, developed with corporate input, have few if any worker protections, which means US workers must compete against much cheaper labor in other countries
Differences in state labor laws and practices are used to make workers compete against workers in other states where unions are weaker, the standard of living and pay is lower, and state and local governments provide financial incentives for relocation of jobs
Threats to replace workers if they strike pit current workers against non-union and unemployed workers. Employers were emboldened in the use of this tactic by President Reagan’s firing and replacing of air traffic controllers when they went on strike [5]

Wal-Mart in particular is well known for it aggressive anti-union tactics, both in attacking any efforts to unionize (including eliminating business components where unionization seemed likely) and using part-time workers that are harder to unionize. [6] The widespread, increased use of part-time workers, contractors, and consultants effectively undermines the use of full-time, potentially union workers. The presence and hiring of immigrant workers, often undocumented ones, also weakens unions.

Weakened labor laws and weak enforcement undermines unions. For example, workers who engage in organizing efforts are not infrequently, illegally fired. However, the enforcement process typically takes many months if not years and if the firing is found to be illegal, typically the company is ordered to reinstate the worker with back pay. This provides only a small financial penalty to the employer and means the worker has to subsist for an extended period of time without the job. Under current law, there is a 45 to 90 day waiting period between the request for and occurrence of the secret ballot voting by employees for a union, and employers work to delay this even longer. In that time, the some employers retaliate against, fire, harass, and generally make life miserable for the pro-union employees, while actively campaigning against the union in mandatory meetings with employees, intimidating them into rejecting the union. [7] [8]

Finally, employers lobby and make campaign contributions to encourage public policies that weaken labor laws, unions, and their power. They band together for these activities and for media campaigns against unions through groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, Associated Builders and Contractors, The Center for Union Facts, and the National Right to Work Committee and Foundation. [9]

There are other factors, including unions’ internal problems (e.g., corruption and lack of democracy) and unions suffering from their success. For example, their success in improving pay, benefits, and working conditions left some workers feeling that union membership was not necessary, and through their success in advocacy and standard setting, government policies have addressed many of the issues that unions originally tackled, such as limits on working hours, overtime pay requirements, and health and safety issues. [10] [11]

In the US, since 1947, our politics and policies have given employers more clout in the balance of power between employers and employees. One of the effects has been the decline of private sector union membership from 34% to 7%. It doesn’t have to be this way. In Europe, although there has been some decline in union membership, it has been nowhere near as great as in the US and union membership currently ranges between 20% and 71% (in Sweden). [12] Corporations are more likely to work with their unions than to be aggressively anti-union as they are in theUS.

[1] Bureau of LaborStatistics,US Dept. of Labor, 1/27/12, “Union members – 2011,” http://www.bls.gov

[2] Wikipedia, retrieved 7/1/12, “National Labor Relations Act,” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_Labor_Relations_Act

[3] Clark, B., retrieved 7/1/12, “The decline of unions – Why?” http://www.old-yankee.com/blog/decline-of-unions

[4] Cassidy, J., 6/8/12, “America’s class war,” The New Yorker

[5] About.com Economics, retrieved 7/1/12, “The decline of union power,” economics.about.com/od/laborinamerica/a/union_decline.htm

[6] Wikipedia, retrieved 7/2/12, “Criticism of Walmart,” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Walmart

[7] Wikipedia, retrieved 4/23/12, “Labor unions in the United Sates,” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States

[8] Reich, R., 6/14/11, “Why the Republican war on workers’ rights undermines the American economy,” robertreaich.org

[9] Johnson, D., 9/1/10, “How companies turn people against unions,” Campaign forAmerica’s Future

[10] Macaray, D., 1/10/08, “Three big reasons for the decline of labor unions,” CounterPunch

[11] Hunter, R.P., 8/24/99, “Four reasons for the decrease in union membership,” http://www.mackinac.org

[12] Fischer, C., 9/11/10, “Why has union membership declined?’ Economist’s View

INSIDE JOB: THE 2008 COLLAPSE OF US FINANCIAL FIRMS

Here’s issue #24 of my Policy and Politics Newsletter, written 3/23/12. Last week, I finally watched the movie Inside Job, a documentary on the 2008 collapse of US financial firms that caused our current recession. I highly recommend it. Here are some highlights.

The movie Inside Job documents how the deregulation of the financial industry over the last 30 years has led to three financial crises, each of increasing severity. These three crises were the Savings and Loan (S&L) crisis of the late 1980s, the Internet stock bubble burst of 2000-2001, and the financial collapse of 2008.

The 2008 collapse was the worst of the crises and was largely caused by risky and fraudulent practices in the mortgage industry and by financial firms’ packaging of mortgages into securities that were sold to investors. These practices had fueled a bubble in the housing market – unwarranted price increases and over-building – that then caused a dramatic decline in house prices. This resulted in millions of mortgage defaults and foreclosures, and an economic recession – often called the Great Recession – that is the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The losses in households’ wealth, primarily in housing and investment assets, exceed $14 trillion. Tens of millions of homeowners, who had significant equity in their homes in 2007, now have little or nothing. It is estimated that homeowners who owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth – who are “underwater” – owe $700 billion more than their homes are worth. ^{^[1]}

Inside Job documents that despite warning signs former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretaries Lawrence Summers and Henry Paulson, and SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt (among others) vehemently opposed any regulation of complex financial instruments known as “derivatives” (because they are “derived” from other financial instruments such as mortgages). They blocked efforts of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under the leadership of Brooksley Born to regulate derivatives. By the late 1990s, the unregulated derivatives market involved $50 trillion of securities and was (and is) described by many as legalized gambling.

The movie notes that an orchestrated campaign by Wall St. and its lobbyists for deregulation of the financial industry, along with the incestuous revolving door which had formerWall St. executives in senior positions in government, succeeded in creating widespread support for deregulation. Greenspan, Summers, Paulson, and other senior government officials, as well as many in Congress, supported deregulation. This led to:

The 1999 repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, passed in the aftermath of the Great Recession, which had required the separation of Wall Street investment firms and their risky investments from banks to reduce the risks that banks and their depositors would need a government bailout
Staff cuts at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which oversees our financial markets
Financial firms being allowed to decrease their reserves that protect against bankruptcy to as little as 3% of their assets, increasing the risk of the need for a taxpayer bailout
Academic economists supporting deregulation and downplaying risks
Specific warnings about high levels of risk being ignored
Credit rating agencies (e.g. Standard & Poor’s) covering up the risks of mortgage-related derivatives

The mortgage industry pushed unaffordable, sub-prime mortgages on unwitting customers because it received higher fees for them. Then, financial firms packaged these mortgages into derivatives and sold them as safe investments when the firms knew they were risky – and often made side bets that underlying mortgages would go into default and that the derivatives would decline in value.

The next issue of my newsletter will provide more context and some follow-up on the 2008 financial collapse, including steps to take to reduce the likelihood of another financial crisis. Unfortunately, it is not at all clear that Congress and the regulators will take these steps.

[1] Wikipedia, retrieved 3/21/12, “Late-2000s recession,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_recession

CORPORATIONS: ARE THEY PAYING FAIR TAXES?

Here’s issue #2 of my Policy and Politics newsletter, written 11/5/11. It’s a bit long and dense, but has important information corporate taxation. I’ll be shorter and sweeter in the future!

I’m very concerned about the pervasive and powerful influence corporations have on our every day lives, as well as on our politics and policy in the United Sates. This is a theme I will address fairly regularly. I will attempt to link various facets of this influence together, because I do believe the whole is more than the sum of the parts and that the reinforcing interactions among the various facets often go unnoticed and underestimated.

A study just came out of 280 of America’s most profitable companies (all were profitable in each of the last 3 years, 2008-2010, and all are from the Fortune 500 list). [1] The study finds that:

1. Many large corporations pay taxes at actual rates much lower than the stated rate of 35% despite being quite profitable, with roughly a quarter paying no taxes at all.

The average effective tax rate for all 280 companies in the study over the three year period was 18.5%; roughly half the 35 percent rate they theoretically pay. (Note: An individual with over $35,000 in income and a couple filing jointly with over $70,000 in income are taxed at a 25% rate.)
About a quarter of the companies (71) did pay an average effective tax rate of 32%.
Almost a quarter of them (67) paid an average of no federal income tax over the last three years, despite combined profits of $357 billion.
30 of these companies actually got money back from the government (i.e., had a “negative income tax rate”) over the three year period, despite combined profits of $160 billion. For example, GE paid a rate of negative 45% and Verizon negative 3%.
The top ten defense contractors with profits of $67 billion over 3 years paid at an average rate of roughly 15%.

2. Many large corporations receive subsidies from the federal government.

Total tax subsidies given to all 280 profitable corporations amounted to $223 billion over 3 years.
The financial services industry received the largest share (17%) of all federal tax subsidies over the last three years.
Wells Fargo tops the list of 280U.S.corporations receiving the most in tax subsidies, getting nearly $18 billion in tax breaks from theU.S.treasury in the last three years. Others in the top 20 include AT&T, Verizon, GE, IBM, Exxon Mobil, Boeing, Goldman Sachs, Proctor & Gamble, Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, and American Express.

3. Corporations are paying less in taxes today than they used to, measured in a variety of ways.

The corporate tax rate today is 35%; it was 46% up until 1986. The overall effective corporate tax rate (i.e., what was actually paid) today is 18.5% for these 280 corporations; it was 26.5% in 1988. This is a 24% reduction in the stated tax rate and a 30% reduction in the effective tax rate based on what is actually paid.
In 2010, corporate taxes paid for 6% of the federal government’s expenses, roughly half of the 11% they paid in the late 1990s and a quarter of the 25% they paid in the 1950s.
As a share of the economy (i.e., of gross domestic product or GDP), overall federal corporate tax collections for fiscal years 2009-2011 fell to 1.16% of GDP, their lowest level since World War II. This is roughly half the level of the 1970s through 2008 and a third of the level of the 1960s.

4. Stark inequities exist in taxes paid across industries and among companies in the same industry because of special tax breaks and the complexities of our tax policies.

5. Corporations claim that US firms pay more income tax than their foreign competitors. However, overall, the effective foreign tax rate on the 134 companies with significant foreign profits was 6.1 percentage points higher than their effective U.S. tax rate — almost a third higher. Furthermore, they can “defer” paying U.S. taxes on their foreign profits indefinitely.

Twenty-five years ago, President Ronald Reagan was horrified by a similar epidemic of corporate tax dodging and addressed the problem by eliminating many corporate tax loopholes in 1986. Over time, the results of this effort have been reversed and, ironically, that reversal has been led in large part by politicians who claim to be Reagan’s disciples and to oppose government subsidies that interfere with market incentives.

Over the years, corporations clearly have, through lobbying and campaign contributions, convinced policy makers to reduce their tax burden. Today, they are lobbying for lower tax rates and an exemption for profits of overseas subsidiaries. However, the report (on page 1) notes that “today corporate tax loopholes are so out of control that most Americans can rightfully complain, ‘I pay more federal income taxes than General Electric, Boeing, DuPont, Wells Fargo, Verizon, etc., etc., all put together.’”

The evidence indicates that significant numbers of corporations are not paying their fair share of taxes. Requiring them to pay their fair share would not only make our tax system fairer, but also help to reduce the budget deficit.

[1] Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, 11/3/11, “Corporate Taxpayers and Corporate Tax Dodgers, 2008-2010,” http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/