Click here to view this media Matt Taibbi joined the set of Countdown with Keith Olbermann to discuss the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York. After weighing in on whether Mayor Michael Bloomberg might be playing right into the movement’s hands with the upcoming move to try to clear Zuccoti Park , Taibbi discussed his recent article at Rolling Stone where he had some advice for those out there protesting. My Advice to the Occupy Wall Street Protesters : No matter what, I’ll be supporting Occupy Wall Street. And I think the movement’s basic strategy – to build numbers and stay in the fight, rather than tying itself to any particular set of principles – makes a lot of sense early on. But the time is rapidly approaching when the movement is going to have to offer concrete solutions to the problems posed by Wall Street. To do that, it will need a short but powerful list of demands. There are thousands one could make, but I’d suggest focusing on five: 1. Break up the monopolies. The so-called “Too Big to Fail” financial companies – now sometimes called by the more accurate term “Systemically Dangerous Institutions” – are a direct threat to national security. They are above the law and above market consequence, making them more dangerous and unaccountable than a thousand mafias combined. There are about 20 such firms in America, and they need to be dismantled; a good start would be to repeal the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and mandate the separation of insurance companies, investment banks and commercial banks. 2. Pay for your own bailouts. A tax of 0.1 percent on all trades of stocks and bonds and a 0.01 percent tax on all trades of derivatives would generate enough revenue to pay us back for the bailouts, and still have plenty left over to fight the deficits the banks claim to be so worried about. It would also deter the endless chase for instant profits through computerized insider-trading schemes like High Frequency Trading, and force Wall Street to go back to the job it’s supposed to be doing, i.e., making sober investments in job-creating businesses and watching them grow. 3. No public money for private lobbying. A company that receives a public bailout should not be allowed to use the taxpayer’s own money to lobby against him. You can either suck on the public teat or influence the next presidential race, but you can’t do both. Butt out for once and let the people choose the next president and Congress. 4. Tax hedge-fund gamblers. For starters, we need an immediate repeal of the preposterous and indefensible carried-interest tax break, which allows hedge-fund titans like Stevie Cohen and John Paulson to pay taxes of only 15 percent on their billions in gambling income, while ordinary Americans pay twice that for teaching kids and putting out fires. I defy any politician to stand up and defend that loophole during an election year. 5. Change the way bankers get paid. We need new laws preventing Wall Street executives from getting bonuses upfront for deals that might blow up in all of our faces later. It should be: You make a deal today, you get company stock you can redeem two or three years from now. That forces everyone to be invested in his own company’s long-term health – no more Joe Cassanos pocketing multimillion-dollar bonuses for destroying the AIGs of the world.
Continue reading …Emilio Estevez took a surprising shot at Hollywood during his interview with Laura Ingraham Friday. “I go to so many films and I'm embarrassed by what I see” (video follows with transcript and commentary): EMILIO ESTEVEZ: This film is really a celebration of family and faith and community and healing and our humanity. And it’s, you know, there’s no CGI, there’s no explosions, there’s no vulgarity, there’s no overt sexuality. There’s a ton of humor, and none of it is raunchy. So, this movie is really a reflection of the path that I’m walking on. I go to so many films and I'm embarrassed by what I see. And, you know, Hollywood is responsible for those themes and those messages that they're projecting out there for not only Americans to see, but the rest of the world. It's one of our last great exports, is our popular culture. And it's just that there's so much of it that is negative and anti, and this is a movie that’s not anti anything. This is all inclusive.
Continue reading …For Republicans on the warpath against Warren Buffett, President Obama’s willing poster child for raising taxes on wealthy Americans, this week has been a very bad one. First, new polling confirmed that Americans overwhelmingly support President Obama’s jobs plan in general and his proposed gilded-class tax hikes in particular. (On that second point, Republican voters agree.) Then on Thursday, the billionaire called Republicans’ bluff and released his $6.9 million tax return and confirmed he paid a lower percentage to Uncle Sam than his secretary. And as it turns out, a new Congressional Research Service study found Buffett’s not alone, concluding that a quarter of millionaires in the U.S. pay federal taxes at lower effective rates than a significant portion of middle-income taxpayers. In response, frustrated Republican mythmakers could only accuse Warren Buffett of giving too much to charity . As Bloomberg News reported, federal tax data show that the need for the Buffett Rule is very real indeed. After IRS data for 2007 revealed that 959 millionaires paid no taxes at all, the new CRS analysis found: Preferential treatment of investment income and the reduced impact of payroll taxes on high earners lets about 94,500 millionaires pay taxes at a lower rate than 10.4 million “moderate-income taxpayers,” representing about 10 percent of those making less than $100,000 a year, according to the report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service dated Oct. 7. The findings put the U.S. tax system in conflict with the so-called Buffett Rule, which says households making more than $1 million annually shouldn’t pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle class families, says the report, which analyzed 2006 Internal Revenue Service data. And as The Hill reported, the Buffett Rule is aptly named. Responding to demands from Kansas Republican Congressman Tim Huelskamp that he release his tax return (a disclosure Republican presidential candidates thus far have refused to make), Warren Buffett was only happy to comply: Buffett revealed in a letter sent to Huelskamp that his adjusted gross income was $62,855,038 last year and that he paid $15,300 in payroll taxes, as reported by CNN Money. He also claimed, as he had in an op-ed previously this year, that his federal income tax bill last year came to $6,923,494, or about 17 percent of his $39,814,784 taxable income. Finding themselves in a hole, Congressional Republicans continued digging. South Dakota Senator John Thune introduced a bill titled “The Buffett Rule Act of 2011″ (S.1676), which makes it easier for those who voluntarily wanted to pay higher taxes to do so. Meanwhile, Buffett’s House inquisitor Tim Huelskamp declared the billionaire’s response “inadequate” and charged: “What he does disclose may be accurate, but it is incomplete and it fails to explain how he shelters millions of dollars in income from taxation,” the lawmaker said in a statement. “It is unprecedented that we would write an entire law based on one man’s anecdotes without actual proof. By sheltering millions of dollars of income from taxation, probably through charitable giving, Mr. Buffett demonstrates that he doesn’t trust Washington with his own money either.” The Republican accusation that Warren Buffett is giving too much to charity is certain to backfire (even leaving aside that neither the McCains in 2008 nor the Romneys now have provided the information Huelskamp is demanding from Buffett.) For starters, Buffett with Bill Gates is one of the driving forces behind the ” Giving Pledge ” by which a growing group of American billionaires promise to give away half of their fortunes in their lifetimes. Worse still, Republican presidential candidates including Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann have stated that uninsured Americans should turn to charities for their health care. Most damning, Buffett highlights that Republican positions on taxes and charitable giving have it exactly backwards. In 2009, President Obama first proposed raising $318 billion over the next decade by trimming wealthier taxpayers’ deductions for charitable giving to 28% from its current 35%. Predictably, Republicans (joined by some Democrats) forecast an apocalypse for donations to charities. As John Boehner ominously (and wrongly) warned, “It will also deliver a sharp blow to charities at a time when they are hurting during the economic downturn.” But as Bloomberg and The Chronicle of Philanthropy each reported, Obama’s proposal would likely have little to no impact on charitable giving. As Bloomberg noted: Not necessarily, say tax and philanthropy experts. They say altruistic or religious motives outweigh tax-shelter considerations among such donors, and cite previous limitations placed on deductions for high earners that they say haven’t hurt donations. Among those previous limitations, as former OMB director Peter Orszag among others recalled, was the same upper income 28% deduction during Ronald Reagan’s first term. As Orszag told reporters in February 2009, the record shows that “what drives charitable contributions is overall economic growth.” Nevertheless, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor continued to push the talking point during an address Sunday at Manhattan’s upscale West Side Institutional Synagogue. Claiming Obama’s proposal to cap itemized deductions (including charitable donations) at the 35 percent tax bracket, a policy he said would cripple many nonprofits and rob altruists of “the mitzvoth of oblations,” Cantor asked: “Why would you do something that makes it less attractive to give to charities when so many people are in need?” As it turns out, while reducing the charitable deduction would likely not have a significant impact on giving, one policy virtually all Republicans support – eliminating the estate tax – surely would. As the data make clear, America’s churches, non-profits, foundations and charities stand to lose billions if the Republicans succeed. In 2003, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center documented the hemorrhaging that would ensue, concluding “We find that estate tax repeal would reduce charitable bequests by between 22 and 37 percent, or between $3.6 billion and $6 billion per year.” A 2006 analysis of CBO data by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that “had the estate tax not existed in 2000, charitable donations would have been $13 billion to $25 billion lower that year” and that “repealing the estate tax would have reduced charitable bequests by 16 to 28 percent and charitable giving during life by 6 to 11 percent.” And before he became the chief economic adviser for John McCain (who in 2008 called for the repeal of the estate tax despite two years earlier having proclaimed “most great civilized countries have an income tax and an inheritance tax” and “in my judgment both should be part of our system of federal taxation.”), then Congressional Budget Office head Douglas Holtz-Eakin agreed. As CBO director Holtz-Eakin wrote in “The Estate Tax and Charitable Giving”: Furthermore, the estate tax provides an incentive to make charitable contributions during life. The paper finds that increasing the amount exempted from the estate tax from $675,000 to either $2 million or $3.5 million would reduce charitable giving by less than 3 percent. However, repealing the tax would have a larger impact, decreasing donations to charity by 6 percent to 12 percent. Warren Buffett couldn’t agree more. Buffett, who declared “it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning,” voiced his support for the estate tax by remarking it’s time for Washington to stop “giving incredible head starts to certain people who were very selective about the womb from which they emerged.” But for Republicans who falsely claim that at a time of record high income inequality and historically low federal taxes that boosting upper-income rates would cripple America’s small businesses and crush its supposed “job creators” , Warren Buffett remains the billionaire they love to hate. Sadly for the right-wing propagandists, Buffett has his life story, the national data and, most importantly, the American people on his side when he makes his argument. Stop coddling the super-rich . (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)
Continue reading …Ten hours before uniformed police officers had pledged to “clean” Zuccotti Park, Occupy Wall Street’s home since its founding a few weeks ago, the protesters debated, discussed, voted on, blocked, formed consensus, blocked again, and then again formed consensus — about playing drums. This, the night before what many thought would be a defining moment
Continue reading …In a letter to Congress, President Obama said troops will act as advisers in efforts to hunt down rebel leader Joseph Kony President Barack Obama said Friday he is dispatching roughly 100 US troops to central Africa to help battle the Lord’s Resistance Army, which the administration accuses of a campaign of murder, rape and kidnapping children that spans two decades. In a letter to Congress, Obama said the troops will act as advisers in efforts to hunt down rebel leader Joseph Kony but will not engage in combat except in self-defence. Pentagon officials said the bulk of the US contingent will be special operations troops, who will provide security and combat training to African units. The White House said the first troops arrived in Uganda on Wednesday. Ultimately, they will also deploy in South Sudan, the Central African Republic and Congo. Long considered one of Africa’s most brutal rebel groups, the Lord’s Resistance Army began its attacks in Uganda more than 20 years ago but has been pushing westward. The administration and human rights groups say its atrocities have left thousands dead and have put as many as 300,000 Africans to flight. They have charged the group with seizing children to bolster its ranks of soldiers and sometimes forcing them to become sex slaves. Kony is wanted by the International Criminal Court under a 2005 warrant for crimes against humanity in his native Uganda. Obama’s announcement came in low-key fashion — a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, in which he said the deployment “furthers U.S. national security interests and foreign policy and will be a significant contribution toward counter-LRA efforts in central Africa.” The deployment drew support from Sen. James Inhofe, a Republican who has visited the region. “I have witnessed firsthand the devastation caused by the LRA, and this will help end Kony’s heinous acts that have created a human rights crisis in Africa,” he said in a statement. “I have been fervently involved in trying to prevent further abductions and murders of Ugandan children, and today’s action offers hope that the end of the LRA is in sight.” But Obama’s letter stressed the limited nature of the deployment. “Our forces will provide information, advice and assistance to select partner nation forces,” it said. “Although the US forces are combat-equipped, they will … not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self-defense.” Most of the troops will deploy to regional capitals to work with government officials and military commanders on countering the rebels and protecting civilians, Pentagon officials said. State Department officials portrayed the deployment as part of a larger strategy to combat the group that dates to the Bush administration but also includes legislation passed by Congress this year. Victoria Nuland, a department spokeswoman, said the US troops will aid in “pursuing the LRA and seeking to bring top commanders to justice.” The broader effort includes encouraging rebel fighters to defect, disarm and return to their homes, she said. The administration briefed human rights activists ahead of the announcement, and their officials were encouraged. “These advisers can make a positive difference on the ground by keeping civilians safe and improving military operations to apprehend the LRA’s top commanders,” said Paul Ronan, director of the group Advocacy at Resolve. Col. Felix Kulayigye, Uganda’s military spokesman, said of the troops: “We are aware that they are coming. We are happy about it. We look forward to working with them and eliminating Kony and his fighters.” US politics United States Uganda guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Alabama house speaker says state will not be ‘sanctuary for illegal aliens’ as appeals court upholds police detention provision Supporters of Alabama’s new immigration law claimed a partial victory on Friday when a federal appeals court upheld a provision that allows police to detain immigrants who are suspected of being in the country illegally. In a temporary ruling, the 11th US circuit court of appeals blocked parts the new law which requires schools to check the immigration status of students and which made it a criminal offence for immigrants not to carry papers to prove their legal status. The court issued the order after the Justice Department challenged what is considered the toughest immigration law in the nation. The opinion also blocked a part of the law that makes it a crime for immigrants to not have proper documentation. But Alabama house speaker Mike Hubbard, who championed the law, the most draconian in the country, said the “most effectual parts” remained in place. “We’ve said from the beginning that Alabama will have a strict immigration law and we will enforce it,” he said. “Alabama will not be a sanctuary state for illegal aliens, and this ruling reinforces that.” The judges also let stand parts of the law that bar state courts from enforcing contracts involving illegal immigrants and make it a felony for an illegal immigrant to do business with the state for basic things like getting a driver’s license. Groups who challenged the law said they were hopeful the judges would eventually block the rest of it. “I think that certainly it’s a better situation today for the people of Alabama today than it was yesterday,” said Omar Jadwat, an attorney for the ACLU, which challenged the law along with the Obama administration. “Obviously we remain concerned about the remainder of the provisions, and we remain confident that we will eventually get the whole scheme blocked.” Alabama Republicans have long sought to clamp down on illegal immigration and passed the law earlier this year after gaining control of the Legislature for the first time since Reconstruction. Governor Robert Bentley signed the measure, saying it was crucial to protect the jobs of legal residents amid the tough economy and high unemployment. The law has already had a deep impact in Alabama since a federal judge upheld much of it in late September. Many frightened Hispanics have been driven away from Alabama, fearing they could be arrested or targeted by police. Construction workers, landscapers and field hands have stopped showing up for work, and large numbers of Hispanic students have been absent from public schools. To cope with the labor shortage, Alabama agriculture commissioner John McMillan at one point suggested farmers should consider hiring inmates in the state’s work-release program. It’s not clear exactly how many Hispanics have fled the state. Earlier this week, many skipped work to protest the law, shuttering or scaling back operations at chicken plants, Mexican restaurants and other businesses. The Justice Department has called the Alabama law a “sweeping new state regime” and urged the appeals court to forbid states from creating a patchwork of immigration policies. The agency also said the law could strain diplomatic relations with Latin American countries, who have warned the law could impact millions of workers, tourists and students in the US The law, it said, turns illegal immigrants into a “unique class who cannot lawfully obtain housing, enforce a contract, or send their children to school without fear that enrollment will be used as a tool to seek to detain and remove them and their family members.” “Other states and their citizens are poorly served by the Alabama policy, which seeks to drive aliens from Alabama rather than achieve cooperation with the federal government to resolve a national problem,” the attorneys have said in court documents. Immigration has become a hot-button issue in Alabama over the past decade as the Hispanic population has grown by 145 percent to about 185,600 people, most of them of Mexican origin. The Hispanic population represents about 4 percent of the state’s 4.7 million people, but some counties in north Alabama have large Spanish-speaking communities and schools where most of the students are Hispanic. Requiring school officials to check the immigration status of students in public schools helped make the Alabama law stricter than similar measures enacted in Arizona, Utah, Indiana and Georgia. Federal judges in those states have blocked all or parts of those laws. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer earlier this year asked the US Supreme Court to resolve the legal fight over her state’s tough immigration law. The Justice Department called the Alabama law a “sweeping new state regime” in court filings last week and urged the appeals court to forbid states from creating a patchwork of immigration policies. The agency also said the law could strain diplomatic relations with Latin American countries, who have warned the law could impact millions of workers, tourists and students in the US “Other states and their citizens are poorly served by the Alabama policy, which seeks to drive aliens from Alabama rather than achieve cooperation with the federal government to resolve a national problem,” the attorneys have said in court documents. Thomas Perez, head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, said Friday before the ruling that a team of attorneys is in Alabama trying to determine whether the law was leading to civil rights violations. The school requirement was an area of particular worry, and the federal government is trying to determine how many absentees and withdrawals might be linked to the law, Perez said. “We’re hearing a number of reports about increases in bullying that we’re studying,” he said after a meeting with leaders and advocates for the Hispanic community. Alabama US immigration United States guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …As Mother Jones author David Corn explained “The GOP front-runner is doing his best to sidestep the health care reform landmine. This video sure won’t help.” VIDEO: Mitt Heaps Praise on Romneycare “Parent” Ted Kennedy : It’s no secret that Mitt Romney has an albatross around his neck: Romneycare, the Massachusetts health care overhaul he enacted while governor of the Bay State. The plan, which included a mandate compelling state residents to obtain health insurance, was a model in part for President Barack Obama’s health care reform, which is much-despised by conservatives and Republican voters. So far, Romney has deftly navigated this potential land mine of a campaign issue. Defending his health care program, he has argued that it was significantly different from Obama’s measure—while calling for repeal of the Obama initiative. His foes in the GOP presidential primary have jabbed Romney for imposing a mandate on Massachusetts residents. But none of these blows have floored the candidate. That’s partly due to his opponents’ ineptitude. This Ted Kennedy love fest footage from the 2006 bill signing ceremony for the health care law is probably not what Romney wants GOP primary voters to have in mind when they enter a polling place or caucus meeting. When he has discussed his health care law on the presidential campaign trail—in 2007 and this past year—Romney has occasionally noted that it demonstrated his ability to work with the opposition, including the late Sen. Kennedy. But in these settings he doesn’t describe Kennedy as his “collaborator” whose work “behind the scenes” was “absolutely essential” for passage of the health care plan. Nor does he call Kennedy, whom Romney praised for winning crucial federal support for the Massachusetts bill, a “parent” of Romneycare. Read on…
Continue reading …If it's Friday, it must be Call Herman Cain an Oreo Day. While neither the terms Uncle Tom nor Oreo were deployed, for the second Friday in a row MSNBC's Martin Bashir brought theGrio.com columnist Goldie Taylor on his eponymous program to slam GOP presidential candidate for essentially being a self-hating black man. “He said in an interview just over the last week that he could appeal to 30 percent of African-American voters. How is he going to tell that 30 percent of African-American voters that when the civil rights movement came right to his doorstep, he wouldn't open the door?” Taylor complained on the October 7 Martin Bashir , adding later in that segment, “I think it's insulting that Herman Cain had his bedroom slippers on in 1963 and wasn't involved in the civil rights movement even though he was living and working right here in the city of Atlanta.” Today Bashir brought Taylor on air again to attack Cain, this time for his stating that he believes that racism is no longer “rampant” in America. Taylor insisted Cain was attempting to coax racist Republican primary voters to support him, that there's little chance Republicans really would if it came down to it, and that Cain is a sell-out who would shed his skin if he could: MARTIN BASHIR: Goldie, it's a great relief, isn't it? Racism no longer exists in America. Do you agree with Mr. Cain? GOLDIE TAYLOR: You've got to wonder which country Herman Cain is living in or which planet, for that matter. BASHIR: Planet Cain! TAYLOR: I think at the end of the day Herman Cain's um, you know, the way that he raises his candidacy is that he placates a base. And the base that he believes he's after is a right-wing ultra-conservative base that does not want to either see racism as a dilemma or see it as an attack on them. BASHIR: Goldie, you're almost saying that he's trying to denude and diminish his own ethnicity in order to win that base, is that what you're saying? TAYLOR: That's exactly what I'm saying . What I'm saying is that if he can shed his ethnicity today, if he could become what I would call the color of water, he would do it. He would do it in an effort to prove that he and people just like him could fit in anywhere and have the same level of success no matter what their race, ethnicity or gender happen to be. That just doesn't happen to be the case. And so, would he shed it? I think he would. In addition to Taylor, Bashir included Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart in on the discussion, who is a liberal African-American and agreed with Taylor that Herman Cain is “indeed trying to placate his base” that “does not want to hear any accusations of racism against it.” But, Capehart insisted, Cain's base is “perfectly fine” with “hurl[ing] charges of racism against Democrats” and liberals. Later in the segment, Bashir cited Cain's anemic fundraising numbers as evidence that the Republican base was at best just “entertained” by Cain, a notion with which Taylor agreed. Bashir, of course, failed to include a black conservative in the discussion to offer a differing point of view.
Continue reading …enlarge Credit: Business Insider Top percent own 42 percent of Wealth in America. Business Insider uses a multitude of charts to explain where the anger from the Occupy Wall Street protesters come from. CHARTS: Here’s What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About… So, what are the protesters so upset about, really? Do they have legitimate gripes? To answer the latter question first, yes, they have very legitimate gripes. And if America cannot figure out a way to address these gripes, the country will likely become increasingly “de-stabilized,” as sociologists might say. And in that scenario, the current protests will likely be only the beginning. The problem in a nutshell is this: Inequality in this country has hit a level that has been seen only once in the nation’s history, and unemployment has reached a level that has been seen only once since the Great Depression. And, at the same time, corporate profits are at a record high… read on Make sure to click through and check out all the graphs and charts. (h/t Atrios )
Continue reading …New York Times columnist Paul Krugman appeared on Charlie Rose’s talk show on PBS Wednesday night to discuss the leftist-anarchist Occupy Wall Street movement against inequality. Krugman’s encomium to the movement (he recently turned down urgings by his lefty fans to speak at Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan) begins around the 6 minute 45 second mark of the segment: Paul Krugman: “What the protests are doing is they’ve changed the conversation already, and they’ve changed it onto, we’re actually talking about the right things. I mean, the story of where we are now as a nation is we had a monstrous failure of the existing system, followed by an monstrous injustice, we had an enormous, you know, a financial industry that ran wild, crippled the economy, which remains rippled to this day, was bailed out, and the players who bear some responsibility faced virtually no consequences, and more important, there’s been very little real reform, some from the Obama administration side, but not as much as we’d like, and the other party’s busy trying to tear it down. And somehow the conversation that we’ve been having about all these issues, is basically not about these issues. We’ve spent almost two years now with the parties arguing who’s got the more convincing fiscal austerity and who can do the most to remove restrictions on business. And now, again, big difference between the parties, don’t ever claim there is an equivalence. But the Democrats have to a large extent followed the Republicans off into this blind alley.” Charlie Rose: “From the White House, across the spectrum of Pennsylvania Avenue.” Krugman: “That’s right. And so, all of a sudden, we’re now talking about, hey, what about Wall Street, what about these people who made such a mess? How are we going to make sure that the general public shares in whatever economic gains we have, that we have rules in effect that prevent the kind of catastrophe that overtook our economy in 2008. That in itself, even if it ends right there, that’s a huge success. But I think the explosion of this movement really suggests that there were an awful lot of people who were just waiting for somebody to say it, and here we are, and it’s a wonderful thing.”
Continue reading …