Archive for May 2009
Weekly Immigration Wire: Child of Immigrants Nominated to Supreme Court
Filed under: 
by Nezua, TMC MediaWire Blogger
On Tuesday, President Obama announced Sonia Sotomayor as his pick to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter. Sotomayor could be the first Latina appointed to the Supreme Court. Predictably, attacks and slurs from the Right are already flying. Regardless, Sotomayor would be an excellent choice for the Supreme Court, signaling to Latino/as that the White House is aware of our need for more representation in government.
Reporting on Sotomayor’s nomination, the Washington Independent’s Daphne Eviatar notes that, while the choice doesn’t push the envelope in terms of liberalness, it does indicate that Obama was “willing to stand up to unfounded criticism of Sotomayor as a far-left liberal.” Interestingly enough, President George H. W. Bush originally nominated Sotomayor for the district court, and her life reads like Many GOP-adored tales of hard work leading to success.
Which leads one to wonder why are they attacking Sotomayor’s nomination with such vitriol, by painting her as a “radical, judicial activist/scary Latina feminist/underqualified diversity pick“? As Michelle Chen reports for RaceWire, Sotomayor has a reputation for “principled independence suffused with real-world experience” and the GOP’s squawking is a typical barrage of “hypocrisy, shrill animosity and racist code words.”
Sotomayor describes herself as a “Newyorican,” which is someone who has been born in New York City from parents hailing from Puerto Rico. While her nomination sparked controversy as to whether or not one can technically “immigrate” from Puerto Rico, there is no denying the country’s colonial history. Many see Sotomayor’s nomination as a success story for immigrants. She certainly does.
New America Media’s Roberto Lovato writes that despite the GOP’s desire to overlook Sotomayor’s uplifting and quintessentially “American” story, the Republican party would do well to use this opportunity very carefully. Sotomayor’s nomination provides an opportunity to draw a line between the GOP that bled Latino/a votes due to their immigration stance and what they hope to become. According to Lovato, Sotomayor—and we—should view the confirmation hearings as “nothing less than a trial to determine whether the GOP is ready to make restitution for its role in a number of judicial and political wrongdoings perpetrated in the Bush era.”
But it doesn’t seem that the Republican party is very concerned with the Latino/Hispanic vote, let alone common decency, judging by the desperate moves of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, an immigrant himself. In an attempt to clean up the state deficit, Schwarzenegger would “eliminate four programs that provide money and food to more than 100,000 legal immigrants,” many “elderly and disabled.” This action will hurt many people who are a vital part of our social fabric.
Daphne Eviatar, writing for the Center for Independent Media, reports on the perversely-named “Secure Communities” initiative, in which ICE officals are quoted defending a program that aims to deport those ticketed for so much as a red light. Under this soon to be expanded program, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plans to deport “tens of thousands” of immigrants in 2010. Under the Secure Communities initiative, even a legal immigrant could be deported if accused and not able to hire or enlist legal representation.
Secure Communities “represents a new comprehensive approach to remove all criminal aliens held in the United States prisons and jails.” Even the phrase “criminal aliens” conjures up visions of hooded creatures with sinister intent…and maybe dangling antennae. Little is required to sweep an immigrant into the detention system and classify them as “criminal.” It can be nothing more than an overstayed visa, or being profiled at a 7-11 by ICE officials looking to make quota. It’s all part of a thriving detention industry: DHS projects a budget for new detention centers, including the needed number of arrests (400,000 are planned for next year) to fund and staff said centers. As a result, arrests are made for any infraction, imagined or real, the beds are filled, the lawyers can’t be afforded and aren’t provided, workers and family members are deported, the budgets justified, the checks cut, and the detention center industry looms larger every day.
In Deportation While U Wait, RaceWire’s Michelle Chen reports that ICE has found a way to further expedite the process. “At one downtown Los Angeles courthouse,” Chen writes, “Officials have found an efficient way to cut through the red tape: kicking people out of the country without waiting for a decision from the judge.” If there is a previous deportation order in their records, ICE rules on their own and deports the man or woman. But we should be careful to rush to judgment as often, “what looks on paper like a justifiable deportation often masks the nuances of individual hardships and structural problems that limit immigrants’ ability to press their legal cases.”
In the Colorado Independent, Erin Rosa reports that the Obama Administration is moving forward with plans to end the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which funds local jails and state prisons to house undocumented immigrants. Rosa notes that Colorado “netted $3.1 million from the program last year, and $3.3 million in 2007.” The White House defends the move by saying the resources can “better be used to enhance federal enforcement efforts.”
There are many people waiting to see those “enhanced” efforts in the shape of legislation. There is hope these efforts will improve the quality of peoples’ lives, not DHS’s budget. Many people who harbor those hopes demonstrated in Postville, Iowa in memory of the ICE raid that shattered the community a year ago. Lynda Waddington writes of this year’s difference in attitude for the Iowa Independent. In 2008, emotions were raw and more anger was expressed, but this year, there was “a specific focus and call for comprehensive immigration reform.”
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration. Visit Immigration.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on immigration, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy and health issues, check out Economy.NewsLadder.net and Healthcare.NewsLadder.net. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.
Weekly Pulse: Sotomayor an enigma on abortion?
Yesterday, Sonia Sotomayor became the first Latina and the third woman ever nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. She is currently a federal judge on New York’s 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. Born to Puerto Rican immigrant parents and raised by her mother in the housing projects of the South Bronx, Sotomayor went on to attend college at Princeton and law school at Yale. George H.W. Bush appointed her to the U.S. District Court in 1991 and Bill Clinton “promoted” her to the 2nd Circuit in 1998.
Political Scientist Scott Lemieux writes for TAPPED that, in light of her distinguished resume and inspiring biography, Sotomayor’s confirmation is all but assured:
[...] Obama cited three criteria in choosing Sotomayor: 1) her intellectual capacity (as demonstrated in her sterling academic record, her success as an assistant district attorney, and her distinguished service as a federal judge); 2) her approach to judging based on her opinions, which represent a high level of craftsmanship and attention to detail; and 3) her compelling personal story, rising from poverty in the Bronx to Princeton to being an editor at the Yale Law Journal. This combination of factors will, I think, make her confirmation inevitable.
In the Nation, John Nichols says that the Sotomayor pick “reflects America”. Within hours of the announcement of Souter’s resignation, conventional wisdom had pegged Sotomayor as the odds-on favorite for the nomination. There were a few bumps along the way, though. Brian Beutler of TPM reports on the anatomy of a preemptive whispering capaign starring anonymous law clerks quoted in the New Republic questioning Sotomayor’s intelligence and temperament.
While Sotomayor has a reputation for being a liberal jurist, her record contains few hints about her views on abortion. Attorney and feminist writer Jill Filipovic reviews Sotomayor’s record on abortion for RH Reality Check. Sotomayor has only ruled on one major abortion-related case in her time as a judge, Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, and as Filipovic says, Sotomayor’s conclusion “isn’t going to warm the hearts of reproductive rights activists.”
But, as Filipovic explains, abortion wasn’t the issue at stake in this case. Rather, the question was whether the Bush administration’s Global Gag Rule was violating the constitutional rights of American NGOs. The gag rule threatened to revoke their federal funding for working with foreign NGOs that discussed abortion. For various technical reasons, Sotomayor concluded that the rule was constitutional after all. Filipovic continues:
If anything, CRLP v. Bush highlights precisely why Sotomayor should, in a sane world, be an easy confirmation: She sticks to the rule of law, respects precedent and writes thoughtful and reasoned opinions. She was nominated to the federal district court by George H.W. Bush. Her decisions are left-leaning insofar as she generally seeks to protect Constitutional rights by supporting religious freedom and free speech, and she often sides with the plaintiffs in discrimination cases – hardly “activist” material.
Emily Douglas, also of RH Reality Check, notes that the conservatives aren’t buying the “common ground” abortion rhetoric the White House has been pushing. Even if the White House has the votes to confirm Sotomayor, and everyone knows it, a Supreme Court nomination battle is a golden fundraising opportunity for the right wing, so expect a lot of sound and fury from that quarter. It makes them feel relevant.
In other reproductive health news, Dana Goldstein discusses a recent literature review by the Guttmacher Institute arguing that coitus interruptus is an under-studied and possibly underappreciated form of birth control. The paper got a lot of discussion because the conventional wisdom is that withdrawal is ineffective. The study cites a figure that couples who use withdrawal perfectly have a 4% yearly chance of getting pregnant vs. 2% for couples who use condoms perfectly. However, the study doesn’t compare what percentage of couples who try to use withdrawal actually achieve perfect use compared to couples attempting to use condoms or other methods. Sex educators’ main concern, apart from the fact that withdrawal doesn’t protect against STDs, is that an unusually large number of people attempting it fail to achieve the desired results. If you only count the efficacy for successes, you get a distorted picture. In a follow-up post, Goldstein asks whether doctors might be biased against non-hormonal birth control.
It’s not just big businesses like GM that shoulder the burden of expensive private health insurance. In a special issue of the Washington Monthly, Jonathan Gruber argues that a universal healthcare program could increase American competitiveness by giving people the security they need to start their own businesses without having to worry about whether they can afford health insurance for themselves or their workers.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care. Visit Healthcare.newsladder.net for a complete list of articles on healthcare affordability, healthcare laws, and healthcare controversy. And for the best progressive reporting on the Economy, and Immigration, check out Economy.Newsladder.net andImmigration.Newsladder.net.
This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and created by NewsLadder.
Weekly Audit: Why Accountability Matters
by Zach Carter, Media Consortium MediaWire Blogger
With workers all over the globe trudging through a catastrophic recession, it’s almost a given that governments will be battling the economic slide for a long time. Part of the effort to rebuild must involve new rules and regulations, but meaningful systems for economic accountability will be just as essential. If we do not hold the reckless executives who caused this crisis accountable for their actions, we risk regressing into similar turmoil in the near future.
We all know that times are tough, and almost all of us agree on the cause: A massive Wall Street risk-binge combined with an almost total failure of regulatory oversight. It’s surprising that few meaningful criminal charges have been filed amid what may very well be the worst financial crisis in history. Bernie Madoff will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars, but the subprime mortgage brokers who specialized in predatory loans–and the Wall Street banks that bought them–have yet to face consequences in court.
In The American Prospect, Tim Fernholz details the efforts of some state-level officials to investigate and punish white-collar crime at the nation’s largest financial firms. Much of the problem, Fernholz explains, results from an insane legal landscape at the federal level. Active deregulation of the financial sector, which began in the 1980s, is shielding the irresponsible risk-taking that caused the current crisis from legal penalties.
Despite these obstacles, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and other key officials are going after some of the worst offenders, and have successfully taken action against some of the predatory profiteers, including subprime mortgage lender Fremont Investment & Loan and Wall Street icon Goldman Sachs. Coakley secured an injunction against Fremont to prevent the company from foreclosing on its borrowers, and Goldman agreed to modify $50 million in predatory mortgages.
But while Coakley’s investigations may bring some much-needed relief to troubled homeowners, they’re only part of the solution. If executives that approved their companies’ subprime policies go through this crisis unscathed, it will be difficult to deter similar behavior in the future.
Fremont had to be sold off last year at fire-sale prices to avoid bankruptcy, but Goldman has weathered the economic downturn better than many of its Wall Street brethren. Much of the company’s resiliency, however, stems from its ability to secure billions upon billions of dollars of bailout financing from the U.S. government. Over at AlterNet, Jim Hightower blasts Goldman for its multiple avenues of taxpayer support and emphasizes that only the notorious Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) comes with any strings attached whatsoever. While Congress attached some very modest restrictions on executive compensation to the TARP bailout, the FDIC and the Federal Reserve have provided big banks with trillions in loans and guarantees completely free of restrictions on how these perks are deployed.
Goldman received $10 billion under TARP, which the company hopes to repay soon to shrug off those CEO pay limits. When the government bailed out AIG, $12 billion of the funds were directed Goldman’s way. But perhaps the greatest and lowest-profile outrage comes in the form of the FDIC’s Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program. Hightower notes that the FDIC has guaranteed $28 billion of Goldman’s recently issued corporate debt without imposing any restrictions on the Wall Street giant. In short, if Goldman were to default, the government would pay off its investors. This taxpayer guarantee has allowed Goldman and many of its banking peers to secure capital at exceptionally low rates, helping the firms survive during a time when any financing is hard to come by.
Even if Goldman is able to repay its TARP money, the company remains thoroughly dependent on taxpayer assistance. Once the TARP funds are paid off, Goldman will be free to pay its executives whatever it wants—even when that salary is subsidized by American tax dollars. That’s a pretty perverse definition of accountability.
Of course, botched bailouts are not unique to the financial sector. As John Nichols explains in The Nation, the terms of automaker Chrysler’s bankruptcy proceeding include plans to close down manufacturing plants across the Midwest, a strategy that undermines the entire economic justification for bailout: Sparing investors pain in order to save jobs.
“Tens of billions of taxpayer dollars are being poured into Chrysler and General Motors, ostensibly to ’save’ the U.S. auto industry,” Nichols writes. “Yet, the companies have acknowledged that they plan to use the money to shutter factories, lay-off tens of thousands of factory workers and dramatically downsize dealership networks–at the cost of as many as 100,000 additional jobs.”
Still worse, it appears that both Chrysler executives and officials from the Obama administration mislead Congress on the implications of the bankruptcy. Nichols cites a letter from Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, in which the lawmaker says Congress was told there would be no permanent job losses a result of the Chrysler bankruptcy filing. The very next day, plant closings were announced in Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Ohio.
Even the economic stimulus package rewarded companies with a history of recklessness. In a piece for Salon, ProPublica journalists Michael Grabell and David Epstein reveal how contractors that have paid substantial fines for violating environmental regulations, federal safety rules and laws against racism have been able to score new business with the federal government. The worst offender? A contractor known as CACI International, which has been awarded three contracts worth $1.5 million under the stimulus package, despite ties to abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
CACI helped hire interrogators at Abu Ghraib, but an Army investigation found that the contractor ended up employing people with “little or no interrogator experience.” Abuses committed by CACI employees included dragging a handcuffed prisoner on the ground, placing a prisoner in an “unauthorized stress position,” dressing a prisoner in women’s underwear and lying to investigators about using dogs in interrogations, according to Grabell and Epstein.
If the government relies on criminals to build the recovery, the public is not going to get the results it needs. But the recovery is only part of the solution to the current economic crisis. If we fail to prosecute executives whose active scheming and criminal negligence brought down the global economy, we are inviting more of the same behavior in the future.
Weekly Immigration Wire: Women Central to Immigration Story
by Nezua, TMC MediaWire Blogger
Celebrated stories of early American pioneers, explorers, and immigrants typically center around men of fortitude and bravery. Depictions of modern-day migrants are still very male-centric, and this cultural lens is a default in most cases. But women play a central and overlooked role in today’s immigration story. Even when not directly highlighted, women often bear the weight of keeping families together and helping them grow stronger.
New America Media has just released the results of a poll titled “Women Immigrants: Stewards of the 21st Century.” NAM surveyed 1,002 female immigrants from Latin American, Asian, African, and Arab countries. According to Sandy Close and Richard Rodriguez, “The story that has not been told is the story of the woman immigrant. This poll is an effort to capture her narrative, and what becomes clear in the responses–many to questions that seemed on their face to have nothing to do with family per se–is that the gold thread giving meaning to her life is family stewardship.”
The poll reveals that the typical model of migration, in which the man left to find work and send home money, has changed. Women are assuming head of the household duties, even if in their prior situation they were in less of a leadership role. The women interviewed for the poll named “securing family stability” as the most important motivator for seeking U.S. citizenship.
NAM also features a number of articles that break down the poll’s findings, all available on the Immigration Ladder. Some feature short videos such as the one below, titled Family, Work and Progress — Latina Immigrants Speak. In this video, Latinas talk about why they came to the U.S. The reasons range from political asylum to simply being able to raise and feed their children. These are hard-hitting pieces because we can see and hear people tell their own story in their own words.
A common line spouted by those in favor of a strong enforcement agenda is that immigrants come here to ’steal’ or ‘take’ our jobs. The focus is on an abstract, shadowy fence-hopper from Latin America who encroaches on turf and swipes resources. Ironically, there is never a mention of NAFTA and the effect it has had on the Latin American economy in these particular discussions! Perhaps no families would need to migrate north if unfair economic practices hadn’t taken so many jobs from Mexico, Guatemala, and the rest of Latin America.
Quite different than recycled stock footage of a man sliding over a busted-up border fence, NAM’s poll and videos present the truth in its plain and sorry reality. While it may make for less thrilling copy, it’s important to hear a mother talk about leaving a child behind so that she can forge a better path for them both, or about being alone in a strange place with nobody to help; about spending as much on long-distance phone calls to your children as you would on bringing them across the border.
These stories are important. Watching and reading human dramas that demand emotional engagement combat the anti-immigration punditry’s characterization of immigrants. As a result, a question forms that won’t go away: Why are these women alone in their struggle? If they were perceived as U.S. citizens, we would move mountains to come to their aid. It isn’t surprising that some Feminists strongly support immigration, though there is an ongoing debate.
Enforcement tactics are also devastating on a large scale. Writing for the American Forum, Dr. Erik Camayd-Freixas paints a clear picture of how the tactics deployed supposedly in the name of U.S. “security” do nothing to secure either happiness, safety, or a sound economy.
In Wiretap, 15-year-old Lupe Carreno tells about the day ICE took her father from her own home, and what that means to her life today: “When they began to walk down the stairs with my dad, it hit me. This could be the last time I see him for a long time. I looked away. I didn’t want to see them take my dad. When I looked down the stairs and didn’t see them anymore, I cried. My mom and my aunt told me not to cry, but this made me cry even more. The whole event only took 15 minutes.”
Lupe’s family has medical problems, but her father’s insurance is no longer there. The enforcement agenda has transformed a happy, cohesive family unit into a fractured cluster of pain and fear. Lupe lives in uncertainty now and worries her mother may be deported any day.
As in Lupe’s case, there are weaknesses in the system that do not provide for those with medical needs. Such as in the case of Xiu Ping Jiang, a Chinese immigrant who fled to the U.S. after being forcibly sterilized for having a second child. In Immigration Limbo for the Mentally Ill, Wiretap’s Brittany Shoot tells how Jiang was separated from her children by immigration officers, and shortly after, fell into a depression. Being an immigrant, she had no state-funded legal counsel to represent her. “This has caused her case to be drawn out for more than a year while she languishes in a detention center,” Shoot writes. “With a history of attempted suicide, her family members in the States grow increasingly fearful that they will lose their fragile sister inside the system.”
Will telling Xiu Ping Jiang’s story produce more than “[o]ne day of frenzied blogging” following the original reportage? Shoot seems to doubt it.
Returning to New America Media, we have the story What Am I Without My Leg? Eglis, an undocumented immigrant, lost her leg to an uninsured driver and is struggling to live with the consequences. Eglis’ story is a brutal example of the healthcare gap for immigrant women.
Finally, the Colorado Independent reports on a bill sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein D-Calif. that would create “a special ‘blue card’ status for undocumented immigrants who’ve worked a minimum number of hours in the agriculture sector in the past two years.” Some immigration advocates would call this a success. But true progress includes acknowledging in law and public dialogue what such a move truly indicates: That immigrants are not a threat to our nation, but in fact, a crucial and needed part of our way of life. Without them, we fall apart. This is what happens when you remove a mother from a family. This is what happens when you remove a workforce from a factory in Postville, Iowa. And this is what will happen if we continue to punish or forcibly remove immigrants from our nation.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration. Visit Immigration.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on immigration, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy and health issues, check out Economy.NewsLadder.net and Healthcare.NewsLadder.net. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.
Weekly Pulse: Healthcare industry already wavering on savings
That was quick: It took just three days for the titans of the healthcare industry to reveal the emptiness of their pledge to the Obama administration to save $2 trillion in healthcare costs over the next 10 years.
Last week, The New York Times proclaimed that Obama scored a “political coup” just by getting the industry groups and SEIU to the table. Maybe so, but writers featured in last week’s Pulse remained skeptical that the industry would make good on its unenforceable cost-cutting promises. Skepticism was the healthy response.
Three days after the promise, industry groups started accusing Obama of overstating their commitment. Health Czar Nancy Ann DeParle confirmed that the president garbled the stats slightly when he said that the groups had pledged to cut the rate of growth in healthcare costs by 1.5 percentage points per year. However, the outcry over the slipup is revealing. The groups are now scrambling to reassure their members that they never promised to reduce costs by any specific amount in any given year. Of course they didn’t. In order to keep that promise, they’d have to act right away–which they clearly have no intention of doing.
So, it comes as little surprise when Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly reports that Blue Cross/Blue Shield is crafting a PR campaign to trash the whole idea of a public plan, a key element of Obama’s healthcare reform agenda. One of the industry groups that signed off on the aforementioned $2 trillion pledge was America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). Several members of AHIP’s board of directors work for Blue Cross or Blue Shield.
In The American Prospect, Paul Waldman notes that the same coalition of Republicans and big business that opposed President Clinton’s healthcare reforms 15 years ago are gearing up for a rematch. These folks, who might as well be called Americans for the status quo are trying to own the word “reform” under the tutelage of GOP message master Frank Luntz, according to Waldman.
Some people oppose healthcare reform because they fear a tax increase. That’s not a foregone conclusion, but healthcare is so expensive that reform could be a bargain even if we had to raise taxes to pay for it. In AlterNet, Dean Baker asks why his fellow economists are so complacent about the status quo where healthcare is twice as expensive and not quite as beneficial as it is in other developed countries. Baker argues that the extra costs are tantamount to a huge tax on the entire economy:
This is a tax that Americans pay without realizing it. Money that could be going towards pay raises is going to support ever-increasing insurance premiums, for those who are lucky enough to have health coverage through their jobs. It’s a tax that employers have to take into account when they decide whether to build a plant in the United States, or across the border in Canada where the government takes care of health insurance.
And last but not least, while you can’t get blood from a stone, you can get plasma from an overextended American consumer. Credit Solutions of America, a credit counselling service advised clients to sell their blood plasma to make ends meet, Moe Tkacik reports in Talking Points Memo. That’s especially ironic when you consider that medical bills cause over half of personal bankruptcies, according to a 2005 survey by Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard professor who went on to become Obama’s the chief financial industry bailout overseer.
Weekly Audit: Debt and Taxes
by Zach Carter, TMC MediaWire Blogger
Earlier this month, President Barack Obama rolled out a new plan to limit the use of offshore tax havens and crack down on corporate abuse of the tax system. These tax havens siphon over $100 billion a year from the government, and have allowed many U.S. banks to duck paying taxes despite receiving massive, taxpayer-funded bailouts. The president’s plan is far from perfect, but comes as a welcome acknowledgment of the unfairness embedded in the current tax code.
Corporate taxes are precisely the type of issue that mainstream media outlets prefer to avoid. Even though the government’s tolerance of corporate tax evasion is a major scandal, it takes time to explain the issue’s intricacies, and it’s easier to resort to pundit-jousting than to provide a detailed report on how companies are cooking the books.
Most discussions of corporate taxes are quickly distorted by focusing on the overall income tax rate for the wealthiest corporations. This rate is 35% in the U.S., which is relatively high when compared to other developed nations with complex economies. But corporate lobbyists have successfully pushed thousands of complex loopholes into the U.S. tax code, making the actual, paid tax rate much lower. In a battle between pundits, a talking head screaming “Thirty-five per cent!” tends to be more persuasive than an academic talking about offshore deferred compensation.
This sheer density of the tax code creates a destructive feedback loop for policymakers. “If the loopholes are very complicated, then the only people who know enough to argue over them will be the lobbyists dedicated to their preservation,” Ezra Klein writes for The American Prospect.
As a result of this information imbalance, lobbyists can convince Congress to gouge ordinary citizens, even when those lobbyists are representing companies dependent on taxpayer largess for their very existence. Financial firms are particularly fond of establishing small sub-corporations in the Caribbean to shield their income from the U.S. Treasury. By registering their headquarters in these tiny nations, companies pay tiny fees to their “home” country and shirk being taxed in the U.S.
Citigroup has received over $45 billion in direct capital injections from taxpayers and billions more in federal insurance, but as Jim Hightower notes, the banking behemoth has a total of 427 sub-corporations scattered around the globe, and they serve no purpose other than avoiding taxes.
It’s not as if these companies have actually moved their employees or their trading houses or their factories to these remote locales. Their existence outside the United States entirely a fiction of paperwork crafted by clever corporate lobbyists. About 400,000 companies are headquartered in the British Virgin Islands, and none actually do any business there.
“All 400,000 companies are located in one gray, two-storey building in the town of Tortola,” Hightower notes.
Similar situations exist in dozens of other tax-haven nations. The Cayman Islands have over 12,000 companies “housed” in a single building. As David Cay Johnston explains in The Nation, the Caymans bar these pseudo-firms from engaging in any business beyond hiding profits.
Corporate tax-dodging has real consequences. “Honest taxpayers have to make up for the revenues lost through this offshore cheating in three ways: we pay more in taxes, we get fewer government services and we incur rising government debt,” Johnston writes.
The practice also helps artificially inflate corporate profits—and fake profit-taking was one of the chief drivers of the current financial crisis. In an illuminating interview with GritTV’s Laura Flanders, former banking regulator William Black explains how top-level executives at major financial institutions used accounting gimmicks to score record bonuses at the expense of the greater economy.
“It was an epidemic of fraud lead by the CEOs, and they were using accounting to commit that fraud,” Black says.
Subprime loans have much higher interest rates than ordinary prime loans. This means subprime loans are actually worth more to banks, provided the borrower can actually pay the loan. An executive with an eye to his own paycheck might urge his company to gobble up massive quantities of subprime loans, according to Black, enabling the bank to book record profits for the few months or years that borrowers could actually keep up with their mortgage payments. Giant profits generate gigantic bonuses for the executives, so even when the company is destroyed by all this subprime binging, the executive walks away rich.
Executives also aligned the pay incentives of employees lower on the corporate food chain with this strategy, ensuring that lenders churned out as many loans as possible, regardless of quality. The result is a devastating chain of fraud starting at the Wall Street CEO and ending at the mortgage broker. In the below video for American News Project, Lagan Sebert outlines the operations subprime mortgage giant Ameriquest and their Wall Street enablers, Citigroup.
Obama deserves some credit for acknowledging that corporate tax-scamming is a problem—Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were happy to sign-off on laws that made it easier for wealthy companies to evade taxes. But Obama’s crackdown doesn’t go nearly far enough. His plan would only bring in about 10% of the revenue the U.S. Treasury Department thinks it is losing through these scams. If Obama is serious about restoring accountability to Wall Street, that commitment does not end with the tax code. It is equally essential for Obama to secure new regulations on CEO pay that tie compensation to meaningful, long-term profits instead of short-term risk-taking, and to hire financial regulatory officials who will not tolerate endemic fraud.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy. Visit StimulusPlan.NewsLadder.net and Economy.NewsLadder.net for complete lists of articles on the economy, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical health and immigration issues, check out Healthcare.NewsLadder.net and Immigration.NewsLadder.net. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.
Weekly Immigration Wire: Enforcement Creates Aura of Criminality
by Nezua, TMC MediaWire Blogger
The Latino/a community has had ample reason to hope that President Obama would take on immigration reform in a humane manner. While Obama is undeniably centrist in his political approach, and has long been fond of language stressing punitive solutions to the immigration issue, he certainly seems to understand that “America is changing and we can’t be threatened by it.” Enforcement policies are becoming a threat, not only to immigrants, but the country at large.
AlterNet picks up on a position paper authored by the Sanctuary’s founding editors (of which I am one) on the Luis Ramirez killing and subsequent court case. The article ties the crime and Shanendoah jury’s decision to a larger pattern of dehumanization aimed at Latinos/as, and analyzes “[h]ow effortlessly a subhuman category of being is constructed and subsequently reviled.”
It’s a disturbing lens for examining current immigration-related news, but useful. If a person is deemed criminal by nature of their appearance, name, and culture, then the larger public will feel comfortable treating them in ways they would never condone for themselves. This process unfolds when the nation is made fearful by hack punditry and politicians who continually employ aggressive verbiage and dishonest framing of the realities we face.
Nina Jacinto, writing for WireTap, thinks it crucial that communities of color “continue the conversation about Luis Ramirez, in order to find some kind of justice” in the situation. “[R]acial injustice may continue to exist subversively in many parts of the country,” Jacinto writes, “But in many areas, hate crimes against people of color go beyond language, can become violent, and end in death.”
Using a lens that positions immigrants as the Other and less-than, it’s easy to understand why some staunchly oppose the DREAM act, which grants temporary citizenship to people brought here as children, who have lived in the U.S. at least five years, received high school educations and are of “good moral character,” as Public News Service reports. Supporters of the DREAM act view its opposition as cruel; a punishment leveled on children who have done nothing wrong. But if one had no interest in seeing those children become an educated part of U.S. culture, opposing the DREAM ACT makes perfect sense.
It is hard to make sense, however, of continuing enforcement measures that clearly wreak havoc on a state’s economic well being. Arizona is harming its own economy via an extremely heavy-handed enforcement approach towards communities that keep the state healthy. Doug Ramsey interviewed Alessandra Soler-Meetze, director of ACLU-Arizona for Public News Service. She claims that “[w]e have relied on punitive measures that have targeted not just recent immigrants, but long-time legal residents and even U.S. citizens, simply because of the color of their skin.” This creates an aura of discrimination that bleeds consequences into surrounding communities.
This aura is visible in the comment threads of almost any immigration-related article online. Commenters show nothing but hostility towards mothers who are losing their children and jobs. They demonstrate absolutely no empathy. This atmosphere is cultivated by enforcement measures like those enacted in Arizona. As Leslie Savan writes in AlterNet, Mexicans have been “the prime target of the most rancid typecasting” in the discussion that plays out in the media. And “once the type has been cast, it has jumped easily to Latinos of any origins.”
A year has passed since the devastating Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in Postville, Iowa. New America Media’s A Year Later Iowa Raid Haunts Immigrants covers how some workers were treated during the raids, and what their lives are like in the aftermath. Veronica Cumez, a “soft-spoken 33-year-old mother of three” was hit on the head by a ICE agent during the raid, then yanked from her hiding place. Now, as she awaits the final outcome of her case, she lives wearing an electronic ankle bracelet that reminds her of her status at every turn.
Besides anxiety, loneliness is also a major ingredient of her new life. In the weeks and months after the raid, an entire network of kin from her village in Guatemala, San José Calderas, including three brothers-in-law, were either arrested and deported or abandoned Postville.
In 2006, Barack Obama confessed a limit to his own mental prowess:
It’s hard to imagine that we want to live in a country where we would have police and immigration officials coming into people’s homes and taking away the father of a family, sending him back to Mexico, leaving a mother and child behind.
But this is where we live. And when the talk is constantly about how borders are unsafe, how Mexicans are bringing Swine Flu to our communities, or how immigrants are taking jobs away from U.S. citizens, of course events will play out violently.
In U.S. Women Migrants Protest Abuse in County Jails, Feministing’s Courtney Martin writes of how one woman’s arm was allegedly broken by Maricopa County Sheriff’s guards. And in a letter signed by many women (one who tells of her jaw being broken during an ICE raid) the situation is made starkly clear. “Please help us,” plead the women. “[W]e’re in a tunnel without end, treated like dogs.”
And yet, Democrats hem and haw, afraid to take a firm moral stance on what so many humans in the nation are living through. Less than a week after the annual May Day marches, and at the end of President Obama’s first 100 days, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano “carefully skirted repeated questions” about whether the forthcoming Immigration reform should include “broader opportunities for legalization of the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants living in the United States,” according to the Colorado Independent.
The administration views the immigration issue as “controversial and politically dicey.” It’s too bad that our representative are not comfortable coming out in strong support of human rights as they apply to all these situations.
There is a major problem with continuing a public dialogue stressing dangerous borders, plays tough with phrases like “going to the back of the line” and rounding up and deporting people. These “solutions” ignore one of the most important causes of the problems. There is an imbalance in the economic exhange between the U.S. and nations like Mexico.
Fortunately, there are those who fight such injustice. You will find these people at the very roots of the situation, such as students who start hunger strikes to protest the “violence and terrorism” aimed at the Latino/a community and hope to inspire “those in higher power to say that they can’t close their eyes to the injustices we see day after day.”
And as Yes! Magazine reports, May Day marches filled the streets of over 125 cities this year. Author Colette Cosner reminds us that the “hope of the May Day marches resides not in the media coverage nor the government’s lack of response, but rather in how it connected people in the community in their efforts for further actions.”
Finally, it is often mothers who fight the hardest against the injustices that affect their families. RaceWire’s Julianne Hing reports on Elvira Arellano, who was deported in 2007. Now in Mexico, Arellano is running for a seat in the Mexican Congress. “I am going to seek laws in Congress that protect women, and also that protect undocumented Central Americans who are treated like criminals in Mexico,” Arellano said.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration. Visit Immigration.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on immigration, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy and health issues, check out Economy.NewsLadder.net and Healthcare.NewsLadder.net. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.
Weekly Pulse: Keep Your Friends Close and Your Enemies Closer
This week, the White House teamed up with healthcare industry giants for a two-day PR blitz on health reform. A coalition of industry leaders sent a letter to president Obama over the weekend, pledging to help contain healthcare costs. The signatories include PhRMA (drug makers), Advamed (device manufacturers), the AMA (doctors), the AHA (hospitals), AHIP (health insurance), and SEIU’s Health Care project. The corporate signatories are the very same interest groups that have fought U.S. healthcare reform for generations. AHIP, America’s Health Insurance Plans, helped torpedo the Clinton plan in the 1990s with the infamous “Harry and Louise” TV spots.
Progressive healthcare writers are divided as to whether Obama’s rapprochement is a good sign. One school of thought is that the interest groups have finally seen the writing on the wall. Arguably, the industry realizes that some kind of healthcare reform is inevitable and they hope to get the best possible deal by cooperating. Another perspective, not necessarily incompatible with the first, is that this kind of “cooperation” will ultimately co-opt Obama’s reform program.
Mike Madden summarizes the main thrust of the industry charm offensive in Salon:
The letter itself offers few details as to how the industries will actually go about saving money. More to the point, there’s nothing forcing these groups to follow through on anything they’ve pledged to do.
Still, if you parse the platitudes, the industry is diverging slightly from Republican anti-reform rhetoric. The GOP has been crusading against comparative effectiveness research (CER) ever since the stimulus bill set aside a billion dollars to fund it. CER is just research to discover which treatments give the best outcomes for the money, but the GOP would have us believe that it’s a stalking horse for rationing. Whereas, the industry coalition’s letter talks about cutting costs by “aligning quality and efficiency incentives” and “adherence to evidence-based best practices”–basically, big words for “studying the evidence” and “trimming the fat”–the core of the CER agenda.
Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly thinks the new conciliatory posture is encouraging evidence that the Republican opposition to reform is in such disarray that the industry is prepared to make nice with the Obama administration:
Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), also secured a seat at the table. As Ezra Klein suggests in the American Prospect, the fact that Stern is in the room is a testament to his skill as a coalition builder. SEIU represents millions of Americans, including many healthcare workers. Stern told Klein that the group had set itself a June 1 deadline to put forward concrete proposals that can be assigned dollar figures. The Finance Committee’s first bill drops in June, so the committee will have to work fast if they want to see their suggestions incorporated.
Josh Holland of AlterNet says we should beware of the healthcare execs’ blandishments. Holland notes that they promise to reduce the growth in costs to “only” 4.7% a year:
In Mother Jones, James Ridgeway agrees that the initiative is a mere publicity stunt, seeing as there’s nothing but the threat of public embarrassment to hold the group to any of its pledges.
Even if we do get healthcare reform this year, what would the end product look like? In the Nation, Trudy Lieberman, director of the health and medicine reporting program at CUNY, takes a hard look at the messages the president has sent so far. She foresees a package that’s congenial to Obama’s corporate allies:
It’s becoming clearer that reform will include some or all of these options: requiring everyone to carry health insurance (an individual mandate à la Massachusetts); subsidizing a portion of the 85 percent of the uninsured who can’t afford to buy a policy; taxing some of the health benefits workers now get from employers to pay for insurance for the uninsured; letting people keep the coverage they have even though it’s likely to cover less as time goes on; shoving more people onto Medicaid; and trying to get insurers to insure sick people. There may or may not be a public insurance option–maybe like Medicare, or maybe not–that would compete with private insurers and theoretically reduce the cost of insurance.
All this conciliation is not cost-free. In the following video, economist Richard Wolff tells The Real News that Obama risks a grassroots backlash if he caters to corporate interests on healthcare. People want better healthcare, not just a choice of bad options. If the result of “reform” is an inferior public plan alongside the private system, employers will have an incentive to push their workers onto the public plan, and we’ll all be worse off.
The president may not support a true national healthcare plan, but don’t count the friends of single payer out yet. Doctors and other advocates for single-payer healthcare crashed a Senate Finance Committee meeting this week to protest their exclusion from a series of roundtable discussions on healthcare policy, as Laura Flanders reports on GRITtv. “Every lobbyist in America is at the table, when are the American people going to be heard?” shouted one activist. A handful of activists were arrested when they refused to come to order.
Weekly Immigration Wire: Fighting H1N1 Hype
by Nezua, TMC MediaWire Blogger
This week’s Wire focuses on the opportunities for change that crisis can introduce. From the H1N1 “Swine” flu’s declining fervor to 2009’s May Day marches for worker rights and immigrant solidarity; from the tragic killing of Luis Ramirez to legislative movement on immigration, these are tumultuous times. But it is precisely such conflict and challenge that provides the best opportunities to make lasting change.
Last week, we highlighted how anti-immigration voices were exploiting the nation’s fear of the H1N1 flu to their own advantage. While still no joke (except in biting satire), the flu is an overhyped event used by Republicans to push an anti-immigration agenda, according to the Colorado Independent’s Daphne Eviater. While not all immigration comes from Mexico, the country and its people are often used as convenient scapegoats.
Mexico is suffering most from both the virus and an intensifying conservative backlash, as New America Media (NAM) revealed in several articles this week. As if the confluence of these forces weren’t enough, an April 27th earthquake struck Mexico, adding to the atmosphere “in an almost surrealistic fashion,” writes NAM’s Kent Paterson. At least truths are beginning to surface as to the flu’s origin:
News reports link the possible start of the health crisis to a huge, runaway U.S. pig farm located in the Veracruz-Puebla borderlands. The farm in question is owned in part by U.S.-based Smithfield Foods, the largest hog and pork producer in the world and a company with a record for environmental violations on this side of the border.
Will the government or agricultural industry look into the complaints against Smithfield farms’ with the fervor of anti-immigrant pundits? Unfortunate events like the H1N1 flu can be opportunities to make positive changes to the systems involved. The agricultural sector and its crowded animal farms are clearly in need of reform.
Many supporters of workers’ rights and humane immigration reform came together on May 1. Yes! Magazine’s Colette Cosner explains why solidarity around immigration reform is stronger this year, and why May Day is so inspiring. Workers are standing united, rather than divided: “Work-place raids are being preceded by union drives,” Cosner writes. “Traditional labor groups are recognizing that these raids hinder their organizing capabilities. So too do the immigrant rights activists now see the unions as an integral part their work-place security. … The united platform is spun from our collective desire to live lives free of fear. This fundamental concept is the backbone of each of the May Day demands.”
Fearmongering from the Right has been crowding sense from the airwaves, and it’s a distraction from issues that matter. Such was the case for Luis Ramirez, a recent hate crime casualty. RaceWire’s Michelle Chen tells his story, which echoes civil rights-era cases in its iconic extremes of race-based violence and subsequent lack of justice:
Harsh words between Luis Ramirez, 25, and a group of four local boys, including the convicted teens Derrick Donchak, 19, and Brandon Piekarsky, 17 … escalated into anti-Mexican epithets and a physical confrontation. Despite efforts by his friends to intervene, Ramirez was soon lying on the sidewalk, his skull cracked open by a kick to the head, and his assailants had bolted off into the night.
This brutal murder ended with simple assault charges for the white teenage assailants. The all-white jury threw out charges of third degree murder, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment and ethnic intimidation. Equally amazing is the eyewitness account that reveals willful police negligence in pursuing the killers. The Mexican American community and growing numbers of human rights and immigration activists are springing into motion to demand accountability.
The Ramirez murder is, like the H1N1 flu, another opportunity to examine what protections are in place to guard human health and life. As Chen notes, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act has passed the house and will soon be before the Senate. It would be a grievous error and abdication of opportunity to not pass this into law, given the ubiquitous waves of hostility aimed at immigrants as well as gays, transgendered people, and others.
RaceWire also covers the Supreme Court’s May 4 ruling that nullifies another injustice: Charging immigrants who use a sequence of numbers in place of an actual Social Security number with willful identity theft. In To catch a thief: SCOTUS on undocumented workers, Michelle Chen discusses the ruling, which sides with Mexican immigrant Flores-Figueroa, who worked at a steel plant in Illinois. Flores-Figueroa was flagged, then arrested, when he tried to arrange his situation more legitimately. While the case has changed law for so many other immigrants, Flores-Figueroa will most likely be deported, once done serving his time.
In other immigration news, Maryland’s state assembly ruled that undocumented high school graduates should pay three times that of citizen high school graduates attending college; Homeland Security signals a new focus on employers, not workers; and Oregon hopes for a new wave of income by urging the U.S. Senate to legalize the state’s nearly 400,000 undocumented and put them on the tax rolls.
Finally, do take a moment to celebrate the spirit and actions of Arizona public defender Isabel Garcia, profiled recently for In These Times. Garcia’s fight against injustice is well-documented. She works tirelessly to change to the surreal and perilous game that is played out in the borderlands human rights struggle. Garcia was the first non-Mexican to receive the National Human Rights Award from the Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos de Mexico, but refused to speak at the acceptance ceremony because her speech about the militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border was censored. Garcia is not concerned with image, but with changing the standards of living on the borderlands. Let’s hope that while President Obama buys time to negotiate a humane solution to the immigration issue, he keeps this in mind.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration. Visit Immigration.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on immigration, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy and health issues, check out Economy.NewsLadder.net and Healthcare.NewsLadder.net. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.
Weekly Pulse: Swine Flu Postgame Show
So far, swine flu hasn’t developed into the deadly global pandemic that many feared. Was it all media hype, as Cervantes argues for AlterNet? Or did all that quarantining and hand-washing actually help? While we’ll never know what might have been, perhaps we should consider the relatively mild swine flu as a cheap lesson–a dry run, if you will.
The swine flu scare underscores the need for strong public health infrastructure, writes Amitabh Pal in the Progressive:
Pal argues that Mexico’s healthcare system is in disarray in part because of international pressure from to decrease the government’s role in healthcare in accordance with the prevailing free-market ideology.
Laura Carlsen of New America Media also worries about the health fallout from globalization, arguing that NAFTA helped swine flue. According to Carlsen, globalization created a perfect storm for the development and spread of an epidemic flu in Mexico–a rapid shift to factory farming, the breakdown of public health infrastructure, and accelerated flow of people and goods across the border.
Americans shouldn’t be smug about our own state of readiness. In the American Prospect, Harold Pollack takes “moderate” senators to to task for pinching pennies on public health:
Just because this particular epidemic didn’t spread, that doesn’t mean that a deadly influenza virus couldn’t emerge in the future. In fact it’s a virtual certainty that such outbreaks will continue to happen, as they have at unpredictable intervals throughout human history.
Vermont senator Bernie Sanders (I) argues that the new Democratic super-majority in the Senate, created by Arlen Specter’s PARTY SWITCH, is a golden opportunity to achieve national healthcare. “Clearly the United States needs to join the rest of the industrialized world with a real national healthcare program that guarantees comprehensive healthcare to every man, woman and child–and we save money as we do that,” Sanders told Ed Schultz. Watch the clip, via Chelsea Green:
Finally, Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones raises questions about the safety of NuvaRing, a novel contraceptive technology from Schering Plough that promises the benefits of hormonal birth control without the hassle of taking a pill. However, more than 100 lawsuits blame Nuva for serious side effects, including deadly blood clots:
It’s been an eventful week in healthcare. We failed to beef up public health earlier this year because some legislators lacked a sense of urgency, but prevention seems a lot more pressing in light of our brush with swine flu. Before Specter’s defection, it seemed like healthcare might never pass the Senate, but now there’s at least a hope of breaking a filibuster if the Democrats can hammer out their internal differences. We’ve got a long way to go on public health and healthcare reform, but we passed some important milestones this week .