The Real I.R.S. Scandal

OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS

NYTimesLogo

By SHEILA KRUMHOLZ and ROBERT WEINBERGER
[Note we reproduce this NYT’s piece here for reasons of compelling public service.—Eds]

WASHINGTON

Hieronymus
ROOM FOR DEBATE

The I.R.S. is in the hot seat for scrutinizing conservative groups applying for tax exemption. But do all 501(c)(4)’s need a second look?

NEWS that employees at the Internal Revenue Service targeted groups with “Tea Party” or “patriot” in their name for special scrutiny has raised pious alarms among some lawmakers and editorial writers.

Yes, the I.R.S. may have been worse than clumsy in considering an avalanche of applications for nonprofit status under the tax code, and that deserves scrutiny whether or not the agency’s employees were spurred by partisan motives. After all, some of these “tea party” groups are most likely not innocent nonprofit organizations devoted to the cultural significance of hot beverages — or to other, more civic, virtues. Rather, they and others are groups that may be illegally spending a majority of their resources on political activity while manipulating the tax code to hide their donors and evade taxes (the unwritten rule being that no more than 49 percent of a group’s resources can be used for political purposes).

The near vertical ascent in political spending by these “dark money” groups was prompted by the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in the Citizens United case, among others, freeing them to be more active in this realm.

And it’s a bipartisan scandal, though it’s hard to tell that judging by the names some groups have adopted — as the I.R.S. should know. Can you tell which of these lean left and which ones right? Patriot Majority USA, Crossroads GPS, American Future Fund and the Citizens for Strength and Security Fund. (Nos. 1 and 4 are liberal, 2 and 3 are conservative.)

The majority of the organizations that appear to be most politically active — from groups that run their own ads, like American Action Network and Americans for Prosperity, to the mysterious Center to Protect Patient Rights, which distributes money to other political groups — already have exempt status. There’s little evidence that the I.R.S. is looking into these groups.

The latest news will make that job more difficult. It’s unfortunate and unacceptable that these groups may have received more scrutiny and suspicion than they deserved — the I.R.S. reportedly even asked what books their leaders were reading.

But even more regrettable is the long-term damage to the credibility of the I.R.S. as an impartial arbiter of whether organizations merit tax-exempt status. This will be difficult to undo, particularly because of the secrecy required for the agency to effectively examine organizations without generating doubts about them, as well as to prevent other organizations from coming up with strategies to evade scrutiny in the future.

Indeed, the latest revelations are not the first to cause pushback by Congressional conservatives. In 2011, tax authorities considered applying the gift tax to large contributions to 501(c)(4) groups, and they sent letters to a handful of big donors informing them they may be taxed. The agency received a swift and forceful response from the Republican senators Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, John Kyl of Arizona and others demanding to know whether the I.R.S. was acting on the basis of partisanship.

The agency folded like wet cardboard: the deputy commissioner took the extraordinary step of ending the audits in progress. (That official, who has been the acting head of the agency, was fired yesterday by the president.)

Now Republicans like Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania are saying the search criteria used by the I.R.S. are “akin to an enemies list,” like the one kept by President Richard M. Nixon.

Mr. Toomey, it should be noted, has personal experience with these groups: in his last race, in 2010, he benefited from the outside spending of conservative 501(c)(4) groups like the Republican Jewish Coalition and Crossroads GPS, founded by Karl Rove. In fact, such groups spent $17.6 million on his behalf, while liberal counterparts spent $12.8 million helping his Democratic opponent, Joe Sestak.

With the surge of dark money into politics, we need to ensure that the I.R.S. is capable of rigorously enforcing the law in a nonpartisan, but also more effective, way. While we focus on the rickety raft of minor Tea Party groups targeted by the I.R.S., there is an entire fleet of big spenders that are operating with apparent impunity.

Congress has already announced hearings and investigations, and the service’s leadership will be grilled, as it should be. But it would be a travesty if the misdeeds here undermined the important work that must now be done to foster greater transparency, and to bolster confidence that the I.R.S. is in fact scrutinizing politically active groups across the board, regardless of their ideological bent.

Citizens need to rest assured that the integrity of our political system is intact. But achieving that assurance will take more than a tempest in a teapot.

Sheila Krumholz is the executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, where Robert Weinberger is the chairman of the board.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on May 16, 2013, on page A27 of the New York edition with the headline: The Real I.R.S. Scandal.

Select Comment

    • sherry
    • Virginia
    NYT Pick

    As someone who survived the ’70s as a member of the Socialist Workers Party, I cannot describe how amused I am by these stories. We knew our private lives had to be beyond reproach (we could be arrested for almost anything) and feared every government agency, except the IRS. It never occurred to us to fear the IRS because we didn’t hide our politics behind a non-profit status and wouldn’t have had any money to hide anyway.




Guatemala’s Mayan Community Wins One For a Change

Efrain Rios Montt Sent to Jail

Reagan-Mont comp.preview

by John Grant 

I saw the masked men
throwing truth into a well.
When I began to weep for it
I found it everywhere.

– Claudia Lars (El Salvador)

Those of us who have struggled for peace and justice over the past decades don’t have much to celebrate these days. But the news from Guatemala that a female judge — Yasmin Barrios — was able to successfully manage a trial in that benighted nation and convict former President Efrain Rios Montt of genocide is something to rejoice about. It suggests it’s no longer business as usual in Latin America — especially vis-à-vis the United States.

The big stick of North American imperialism from Teddy Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan appears to be dwindling in size. The sentencing of a Guatemalan president to 80 years in prison [1] for employing scorched earth tactics against native Mayan Indians is an amazing milestone — and an incredible story to boot.

Following a 1954 US-directed coup that overthrew democratically elected President Jacobo Arbenz for his efforts at agrarian reform, the tiny Central American nation descended into a condition that can only be characterized, for the native Mayan people, as a state of Hell-on-Earth. The fact that President Rios Montt undertook his systematic slaughter of many thousands of Mayan peasants with the endorsement of Ronald Reagan only makes the conviction that much sweeter..

In the photograph (see above), at left, Ronald Reagan, “the Great Communicator,” meets with Rios Montt, who is holding a document titled “This government has the commitment to change.” At the time, Reagan said Rios Montt was “a man of great personal integrity and commitment” who wanted to “promote social justice.” At right, is a line of bodies from one of the Guatemalan army’s massacres of people who, no doubt, were deemed “communists” and, therefore, inhuman and justifiably slaughtered like vermin.

Army General Efrain Rios Montt became president of Guatemala thanks to a coup in March 1982. He was, then, deposed by another coup in August 1983. This was a time when Mr. Reagan was hypnotizing the American people with his aw-shucks, soothing Hollywood narcotic speech tones.

Previous to the supportive Reagan administration, the Carter administration had cut off military aid to the Guatemalan military. But, then, our representatives in Washington cut a deal with Israel [2] to arm the Guatemalan army and, thanks to lots of experience with Palestinians, to teach them how to monitor and keep track of the Mayans utilizing computerized records and other hi-tech tricks. Rios Montt reportedly once told ABC News that his success was due to the fact that “our soldiers were trained by Israelis.”

What arguably prepared the ground for the Rios Montt trial was the 1998 murder of Bishop Juan Gerardi, bludgeoned to death by a cinder block in his garage in Guatemala City. Gerardi directed the Guatemalan arch-diocese’s human rights agency, known by the acronym ODHA. Two days before his murder on April 26, ODHA had released a document titled Nunca Mas or Never Again, a four-volume document that detailed the horrors of the 70s and 80s.

Francisco Goldman [3] followed the case for years and wrote an incredible account called The Art of Political Murder: Who Killed the Bishop? It is a labyrinthine and bizarre tale complicated with death threats, charges of homosexual priests and a German shepherd named Baloo. After three years, three military men were convicted and sentenced to thirty years each for the murder. During the trial, one of those men, Colonel Byron Disrael Lima Estrada, said he was “just the point of the spear. Once they’ve created a judicial precedent, then they’re going to go after the others.”

“For half a century the military’s clandestine world had seemed impregnable,” Goldman writes. “The Gerardi case had opened a path into the darkness.” The bishop had been murdered because his work for the poor of Guatemala had directly threatened the “clandestine underbelly of official power — and their criminal rackets.”

Murdered Bishop Juan Gerardi, left, ODHA's Nunca Mas report, and Bishop Mario Rios MontMurdered Bishop Juan Gerardi, left, ODHA’s Nunca Mas report, and Bishop Mario Rios Mont

The Gerardi story literally intersects with the Rios Montt story. With the death of Bishop Gerardi, the archdiocese appointed the brother of Efrain Rios Montt — Catholic Bishop Mario Rios Mont [4] (unlike his brother, he spells his surname with a single “t”) — as director of ODHA, the human rights office. It seems the two brothers were diametrically opposed on the politics of the poor, with Mario assuming some liberation theology views. This may explain why General and President Rios Montt abandoned Catholicism and became a born-again evangelical protestant using apocalyptic language out of The Book of Revelations. At the time, Rios Montt was a personal friend of Pat Robertson [5]. (You may recall it was Robertson who on TV publicly called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.)

In what now seems a weirdly prescient remark, during the Gerardi murder trial Bishop Rios Mont said this, referring to the Guatemalan military’s immense clandestine power: “…as long as this power behind the throne exists, Guatemala will not be free, nor will it have justice or peace. Here, presidents come, and presidents go. Just when we thought we’d recovered an environment that made it possible to live in peace, they answered: Here take your dead man, who tried to discover the truth.”

I made ten trips to Central America in the 1980s and ‘90s as a documentary photographer. It was a time when anyone trying to call attention to this kind of violence could get nowhere in North America. I knew of the slaughter in Guatemala, so it’s hard to swallow the idea that the US government did not. The Reagan administration came in denouncing the Carter human rights focus and began to aggressively stir up war in the region. It armed and trained ex-soldiers of the Nicaraguan tyrant Anastasio Somoza’s dreaded guardia in what became known as the Contra War. Reagan’s highly publicized labeling of the Contras as “freedom fighters” aside, it was basically a terrorist war of hit and run attacks on pro-Sandinista villages and enterprises, with the Contras being directed out of neighboring Honduras by US Ambassador John Negroponte.

The US sent advisers to El Salvador, and as the death squad bodies piled up, the Reagan administration certified every six months that improvements were being made.

Having spent time in Central America then and having met so many wonderful people trying to free themselves of the yoke of oppression, the only downside to the conviction of Rios Montt for genocidal murder is that Ronald Reagan can’t be given a similar trial and packed away to some super-max in the desert. Sure, I carry some bitterness from those years. They were extremely frustrating times for anyone with any compassion for the poor in Central America.

I recall trying to explain to my Reagan-loving father what it was like to listen to a Salvadoran woman tell about finding her 23-year-old daughter in a body dump tortured and skinned. I’ll never forget the sadness and horror in her eyes as she willed herself to share her horrific tale so we visiting gringos might pass it North.

When I told my dad of this stuff, he would grimace at his rebellious middle son — not because of the story or the woman’s suffering, but as if he were echoing Ronald Reagan: “There you go again!” The more horrible the story, the more I was dismissed as a dupe of left wing communists. It was impossible to get through the point that we were supporting and condoning monstrous behavior. Suffering that was connected to our policies simply did not register. I recall a workmate who suggested one day at lunch that because of my traveling in Central America I knew less than she did from watching television.

It really began to sink in that the most powerful nation in the world was nursing a deep mythic assumption that Americans and America were exceptional; somehow we were being victimized by these little countries in Central America. The peasants being consumed by incredible violence deserved whatever they got for what they had done to us.

A shrink might point out that we North Americans had done our own versions of scorched earth in bombing campaigns in Vietnam and Laos. We did this because the Vietnamese refused our demands that they capitulate and give up the idea of independence. They would not budge, so we had to bomb them. They were trying to humiliate us in the world’s eyes, and we had to stand up to them.

How long can we delude ourselves with the Myth of Exceptionalism? How many more massacres and bombing atrocities do we have to refuse to see before the scales fall from the eyes of a critical mass of Americans? How much more bullshit do we have to take?

.

The photos, here, show three Mayans who testified to atrocities in the Rios Montt trial. They are, from left to right, Juana Sanchez Toma; Benjamin Jeronimo, president and legal representative of the Association for Justice and Reconciliation that advocated for the trial; and Elena de Paz Santiago, who told of being beaten and gang-raped repeatedly by soldiers. Jeronimo told the blog democraticunderground.com [6] that young Guatemalans “have to know what a dirty war is, a war in which people were taken advantage of, who had no way of defending themselves, and were not guilty of what they were being accused.”

“We showed them we are not communists,” Antonio Caba told The New York Times [1] as he wiped away tears. “We are simply villagers.”

The conviction and sentencing of Efrain Rios Montt to an effective life prison term is an important milestone. Something has been broken and overcome in Guatemala. While the Guatemalan right is certainly not without resources, the poor have clearly gained a degree of power in a very dark system.

Ricardo Falla, a Jesuit priest in Guatemala, wrote a powerful book called Massacres In the Jungle: Ixcan, Guatemala, 1975-1982 documenting all the horrors revealed in the Rios Montt trial. He writes, “Seeds of new life have emerged from the massacres.” He metaphorically refers to the horrors as “fertilizer that makes the earth fruitful, blossoming with something new.” A strong bond has been formed out of horror. “Weeping is accompanied by another sign of life: the feeling of brotherhood, which overrides family, language, and ethnic and religious barriers — their shared bond as people who have lost everything.”

As a nation and a people, we don’t know anything about victimhood, and it’s past time we moved beyond that delusion.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

John Grant is a writer/photographer/filmmaker living just outside Philadelphia’s city limits. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and has published both fiction and non-fiction. Starting in the 1980s, he traveled to Central America and other places as a documentary photographer for publication and for exhibits of his own large prints. He shot and edited an 80-minute documentary film called “Second Time Around” about a seriously wounded Vietnam veteran who chose to live and work in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 35 years after his first tour there. John has been to Iraq twice during the war, once as an observer critical of the war and once as a cameraman on a documentary film.

John Grant
John Grant

A Vietnam War veteran for 25 years, John has been an active member of Veterans For Peace. For 11 years, he was president of the Philadelphia VFP chapter. He has taught documentary photography at Widener and Drexel Universities and for nine years has taught creative writing to inmates in the Philadelphia Prison.

 

Source URL: http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/1747

Links:
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/world/americas/gen-efrain-rios-montt-of-guatemala-guilty-of-genocide.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
[2] http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/91666/linked-arms
[3] http://inthesetimes.com/article/3498/
[4] http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Brothers-at-odds-Ex-dictator-Guatemalan-bishop-2883581.php
[5] http://www.counterpunch.org/2005/09/17/rev-pat-robertson-and-gen-rios-montt/
[6] http://www.democraticunderground.com/110816444




U.S. Guilty of Genocide in Guatemala Should be Real Headline

Reagan and Rios Montt: two revolting criminals, but the former a much better dissimulator.

Reagan and Rios Montt: two revolting criminals, but the former a much better dissimulator.

by Ajamu Baraka

Now that former Guatemalan president Efrain Rios Montt has been convicted of genocide, it’s time for the “hegemonic puppeteer,” the United States, to be put on trial. “U.S. officials were fully aware of the pogrom against the Ixil people in the mountains of Guatemala at the very moment that the U.S. government was involved in training and arming the Guatemalan military.”

If Efrain Rios Montt, and by extension the Guatemalan military, are guilty of the crime of genocide, the U.S. government and its officials are just as guilty.”

Last week news coverage around the world heralded the conviction of Efrain Rios Montt on the charges of genocide against the Mayan people during his 17 month tenure as Guatemala’s head of government and military strongman. The three-judge panel led by Jazmin Barrios determined that evidence presented to the court established that there was a clear and systematic plan to exterminate the Ixil people as a race and that the plan developed and executed by the Montt government satisfied the definition of genocide. With this conviction, the 86 year-old ex-dictator was sentenced to 80 years in prison.

This is a tremendous victory for the people of Guatemala that is a powerful expression of justice and accountability for human rights abuses that offers hope to the many victims of atrocities around the world. This victory, however, doesn’t end with the sentence of the Guatemalan dictator. Another chapter needs to be opened with a more thorough examination of the relationship between Montt, the Guatemalan military and the United States government which, if examined objectively, establishes a clear chain of moral and legal culpability. A relationship that even with a cursory understanding of the history of the conflict in Guatemala would lead logically to the inescapable conclusion that if Efrain Rios Montt, and by extension the Guatemalan military, are guilty of the crime of genocide, the U.S. government and its officials are just as guilty as Rio Montt and that justice in Guatemala remains unfulfilled until everyone, including those responsible for pulling the strings in Guatemala, are also brought to justice.

President Ronald Reagan called Rios Montt ‘a man of great personal integrity and commitment.’”

The story of Rio Montt and the U.S. government was uncovered in the bloodstained, declassified U.S. government documents that graphically detail how U.S. officials were fully aware of the pogrom against the Ixil people in the mountains of Guatemala at the very moment that the U.S. government was involved in training and arming the Guatemalan military, passing intelligence to its clandestine services, and providing political and diplomatic support to the government. President Ronald Reagan called Rios Montt “a man of great personal integrity and commitment” even as he was receiving reports from his intelligence agencies documenting the scorched- earth policies of the Guatemalan military in its’ campaign against the Ixil.

As horrible as that 17 month period during the Reagan administration was for the indigenous people of Guatemala it was only a brief moment of horror in the macabre drama of U.S.-Guatemala relations. For many in the world there is no doubt that U.S. support, encouragement and guidance made it culpable in the genocidal policies of its’ client State during that 17-month period. The history of U.S. and Guatemalan relations since the U.S. inspired coup of 1954 that overthrew Guatemala’s reformist President Jacobo Arbenz has been a sordid history of criminal collusion against the people of Guatemala.

From the moment the U.S. Ambassador met with the military leaders of the coup to give them their instructions and deliver a list of radical opponents to be eliminated, the country’s future would be marked by systematic brutality. Thousands were arrested in those early days with many tortured and killed and a period of bloodshed ushered in that would define everyday life in the country over the next decades.

There is no doubt that U.S. support, encouragement and guidance made it culpable in the genocidal policies of its’ client State during that 17-month period.”

The cost for the people of Central America as a result of U.S. support for tyrannical regimes across the region has been staggering. Just in the 80s, over a 100,000 people lost their lives in in Guatemala, 70,000 in El Salvador and 20,000 in the U.S. destabilization of Nicaragua. Honduras was turned into a staging base for U.S. intervention throughout the region from Panama to Nicaragua with murder and political “disappearances” the weapon to bludgeon the Honduran population into compliance.

The people of Guatemala have made the first courageous step toward real accountability. Now it is up to the international community to take the next step to bring full justice to the victims. For those of us who lived through the 1980s and opposed the genocidal policies in Guatemala, we celebrate the small sliver of justice that the conviction of Rios Montt represents. But our moment of satisfaction is tempered by the awful memories of what occurred in that country, our knowledge of the role that the U.S. played in those horrors and the possibility that the hegemonic puppeteer might once again escape accountability if we don’t act.

Ajamu Baraka is an internationally recognized human rights defender and veteran of the Black Liberation, anti-war, anti-apartheid and Central American solidarity Movements in the United States. He is currently a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Baraka is currently living in Cali, Colombia. He can be contacted at www.Ajamubaraka.com [8].

[9]

Source URL: http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/us-guilty-genocide-guatemala-should-be-real-headline

Links:
[1] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/americas/ronald-reagan-central-american-wars
[2] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/americas/rios-montt-convicted
[3] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/americas/nicaragua-contra-war
[4] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/americas/guatemala-genocide
[5] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/americas/el-salvador-civil-war
[6] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/americas/arbenz-overthrown-guatemala
[7] http://www.blackagendareport.com/sites/www.blackagendareport.com/files/reagan-rios-montt.jpg
[8] http://www.Ajamubaraka.com/
[9] http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blackagendareport.com%2Fcontent%2Fus-guilty-genocide-guatemala-should-be-real-headline&linkname=U.S.%20Guilty%20of%20Genocide%20in%20Guatemala%20Should%20be%20Real%20Headline

______

Ronald Reagan Central American wars [1] | Rios Montt convicted [2] | Nicaragua Contra War [3] | Guatemala genocide [4] | El Salvador civil war [5] | Arbenz overthrown Guatemala [6]




Liberal Apologetics for Obama’s Criminality

Drones and Guantanamo
OBAMA-HOPE-not

by NORMAN POLLACK

As we know, Candidate Obama in ’08 pledged to close Guantanamo; President Obama, now in his Second Term, as we also know, lied so egregiously, on a matter of extreme importance to the every meaning of the rule of law (because puking on Magna Charta and centuries of jurisprudential wisdom and morality by sanctioning and adopting the practice of indefinite detention—and all that follows, from denial of habeas corpus to affording the accused the right of counsel), that anything he says must be viewed with skepticism, if not worse. 

We have lived through some pretty horrible presidencies as measured by the standards of democratic government, liberal as well as conservative, which provides irrefutable proof of bipartisan injustice in American life, but Obama is something special, a summation of the worst of each, primarily because he has operated on such a fundamental level—from abrogation of civil liberties to global paramilitary operations—that so far has slid under the radar screen, largely through the silence of liberals and progressives.  Republican obstructionism is welcome, because it allows him to pursue, through seemingly standing still, the reactionary alternatives to all policy issues (such as health care, social safety net reductions, favorable tax structures for the very wealthy, oil drilling as per usual, etc.) under the pretext that nothing can be done.  Welcome, too, because the resulting paralysis in government ideally prevents genuine social welfare measures and democratization of class, income, and power in America.

There are no late or early, partial or full, affronts to democracy under his leadership, but rather the seamless web of continuity, a unified policy-context of Reaction, which, gaining personal confidence, especially by means of working closely with and gaining the soldierly regard and respect of, the whole national-security establishment (particularly the intelligence and Special Ops communities), Obama is actually growing steadily worse, more aggressive, more arrogant, more hubristic, with no end in sight.  This sustained course, elements of which could be seen from the moment of taking office, as in faking health reform (to the delight of health insurers and Big Pharma), installing weak cabinet agency heads, compliant with and often championing the interests of those ostensibly to be regulated (Geithner and Salazar, Treasury and Interior, to say the obvious) and, of moment here, a combination of DOJ-NSC leadership, Holder and Brennan, useful in neutralizing the law itself in ensuring the militarization, done with impunity, of public policy at large, the armed drone transgressive of all legal restraints the perfect symbol of prevailing despoticpractices.  Whether Guantanamo, covert operations, assassination, wiretaps, surveillance, none stands alone, as the US embarks on a phase of counterrevolution made more urgent, and conducted more deftly—the liberalization of attempted hegemonic retention—than perhaps ever before, because of the changing nature of the world system.

America is no longer the center of the universe, and the more it tries to be such the greater its ultimate isolation and retrogression via the political-ideological-structural process of blowback.  Obama is sitting on a powder keg of America’s own making.  Willful blindness to the social misery and destruction caused others only hastens the decline in international power and stature.  For now, the eyes of the world have focused on Guantanamo and drones as integrated aspects of andintegral to the US framework of policy and power, while Americans persist in viewing them as discrete and of secondary importance (for some, of course, rather, both as being wisely pragmatic and highly satisfying, testifying to the nation’s courage and superiority).  Increasingly, however, not only the victims of US policy, but major nations classified as  “friends and allies,” are having sobering thoughts, on moral grounds and for fear of the precedents now created for rendering the world order a playground of destructive impulses.

Enter Harold Koh, Yale Law and former State Department councillor, whom the New York Times (May  8) reported now criticizes the Obama Administration for the drone-warfare program, which at State he had favored—and even to this day (hardly earning the Times’s encomiums) finds fault not with the program, including assassination, but with the lack of publicity and candor concerning its legal (?) rationale.  Thus spake the modern liberal—substance is irrelevant, just gussy up the appearance.  Here follows my Times Comment (May 9):

Harold Koh in his Oxford speech cannot undo the harm he has previously done by giving his name and reputation in support of the drone program. I should like to see F. Scott Fitzgerald’s statement inscribed on his Yale School office door: There are no second chances. This is particularly true here, an equivocation, straddle, call it what one likes, which merely continues the practice of drones AND indefinite detention, the torture and denial of habeas corpus rights to detainees, that is Guantanamo, both inseparable–a permanent blight on America’s civil-liberties record.

Koh wants clarification, not abolition, so that illegal practices can be dressed up as legitimate. Rather than outright condemnation of the Obama administration (which necessarily follows from the contempt it demonstrates for the rule of law), he wants to sprinkle flowers on the graves of the victims. Not good enough, by the standards of moral decency and first principles of jurisprudence. A Roberts Court may look on indulgently, but not, I think, the Warren Court and, in particular, Mr. Justice Brennan.

Guantanamo and drones are the forward edge to America’s slide into authoritarianism under Obama (I try to speak in moderation and will avoid the f-word–fascism–for the present), because of the amoral barbarism which has brought them into existence, and because the American people sit passively by, if not in an attitude of complicity and/or condonation, at their very existence and continuation.

Norman Pollack is the author of “The Populist Response to Industrial America” (Harvard) and “The Just Polity” (Illinois), Guggenheim Fellow, and professor of history emeritus, Michigan State University.




Chronicles of Inequality {13 May 2013]

Too Much May 13, 2013
THIS WEEK
American Banker has just released some new annual numbers for bank CEO pay. The magazine has thoughtfully calculated, for each of 149 financial institutions large and small, a figure for “average compensation per employee” and expressed each bank’s CEO pay for 2012 as a multiple of this average.The lowest multiple? Ames National, an Iowa bank with 91 staffers, has a CEO who only makes three times the bank’s per-employee average. The highest? America’s biggest banks have multiples in the 200s.Maybe we need smaller banks. Maybe we need smaller everything. In the media industry, we learned last week, top CEOs enjoyed a 30.2 percent pay hike in 2012. Top-earners in high-tech saw take-homes leap 31 percent. And how well did you do last year? Most likely, not well at all. In the United States, our economy simply no longer works for average families.

So “what then must we do”? The great Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy once asked that question in a moving essay on 19th-century inequality. A top U.S. historian is now asking the same question. This week’s Too Much explores his answer.

About Too Much,
a project of the
Institute for Policy StudiesProgram on Inequality
and the Common Good
Subscribe
to Too Much

Join us on Facebook
or follow us on Twitter

FacebookTwitter

GREED AT A GLANCE
No one may have ever relished the global limelight as lavishly as former First Lady of the Philippines Imelda Marcos. Now the 83-year-old has returned to center stage. A musical on her life has just opened Off Broadway in New York,staged as an interactive disco where spectators “jubilate in Imelda’s rise to power while feeling uneasy about how much fun they’re having.” Marcos actually spent years in Manhattan and even bought a skyscraper in 1981. On one sojourn, theNew Yorker relates, Marcos had the management at Bloomingdale’s empty out the store. She then proceeded to march around the empty aisles, pointing to items she wanted, declaring simply, “Mine. Mine. Mine.” Marcos and dictator husband Ferdinand looted billions from the Philippines over a two-decade span. Their kleptocracy helped make the world safe for plutocracy . . .Miriam AdelsonBillionaire Sheldon Adelson became an instant celebrity last year after his millions in political contributions made him, asTime put it, “the public face of what critics cast as a plutocrat class trying to buy U.S. elections.” But the 79-year-old’s life partner, Dr. Miriam Adelson, has never had much of a public presence — until last week. Dr. Adelson draws a modest $50,000 annual stipend as the director of community involvement for her husband’s Las Vegas Sands gaming empire, and she has told reporters that money sits “down on the list of my priorities.” Not too far down apparently. Back in 2008, Dr. Adelson gained the right to buy tons of Las Vegas Sands stock at a bargain-basement price. In 2012, Vegas media have just reported, she exercised her right to buy the stock — and cleared a $3.88 billion personal profit . . .An unusual sighting in the UK: a corporate top exec who shares. The chief of the retailer Next, Lord Wolfson, last month announced he was handing his latest £2.4 million bonus, about $3.7 million, to his company’s employees. The sharing will up the annual pay of Next’s 19,400 employees by 1 percent. Lord Wolfson isdescribing his generosity as a “gesture of thanks and appreciation.” Deborah Hargreaves, Britain’s top CEO pay watchdog, is calling his move “welcome.” But she points out that Lord Wolfson’s overall pay jumped 13 percent last year — and that nothing prevents him from keeping his bonus the next time around. The High Pay Centre Hargreaves leads advocates ending stock bonus awards for performance, giving workers seats on corporate boards, and breaking up the “cozy club” of chief execs who sit on these boards and “set each others’ pay.”  

Quote of the Week

“The number one minimum wage employer in this country is Walmart. Where the CEO makes more in an hour than most of his employees will make in a year.”
Robyn PennacchiaMost minimum wage workers are adults who work for large corporationsDeath and Taxes, May 10, 2013

PETULANT PLUTOCRAT OF THE WEEK
Ray IraniAngry shareholders at Occidental Petroleum won’t have Ray Irani to kick around anymore. You wonder if Irani cares. Two years ago, shareholders upset about Iran’s princely pay eased the 78-year-old out of Occidental’s CEO slot. Earlier this month, at Occidental’s annual meeting, Irani lost his status as the executive chairman of Occidental’s board of directors as well. No big deal for Irani. He’ll likely exit with $38 million in severance, on top of the $1.2 billion be collected between 1990, the year Occidental annointed Irani CEO, and the end of last year. Irani will need that stash. The property taxes alone on his mansion in Los Angeles run $252,000 a year. Irani, to be sure, won’t be totally fading off into the sunset. He still sitson the Wynn Resorts board of directors. The seat-time brings him $400,000 a year.  

Like Too Much?
Email this issue
to a friend

IMAGES OF EQUALITY
Mondragon headquarters in SpainAusterity budget cuts have taken a ferocious toll in Spain, where jobless rates now top 25 percent. But Spain’s Mondragón network of worker-owned co-ops has managed to fend off Europe’s inequality tsunami. In Mondragón’s 102 enterprises, the highest-paid staff make no more than eight times the lowest, one reason why “new economy” activists worldwide see Mondragón as a model.  

 

Web Gem

Real-Time Billionaires/Forbes magazine, with itsForbes 400, used to hold the unquestioned franchise on billionaire stats. Then Bloomberg started running adaily billionaire tally. NowForbes has countered with its own daily scorecard. This newForbes site updates, every five minutes during the stock-trading day, the level of wealth America’s richest hold in publicly traded assets.

PROGRESS AND PROMISE
Toward a Cap on Egypt’s Modern PharaohsEgyptian trade union activists took to the streets earlier this month to renew their call for a “maximum wage” throughout their nation’s troubled and deeply unequal economy. This week, Egypt’s first maximum wage — of sorts — goes into official effect. The new pay cap limits paychecks for top executives to 35 times the new-hire pay for higher ed graduates. But the cap applies only to Egypt’s public sector. Labor groups wants a maximum wage set at 15 times the minimum wage — and want this maximum applied to executive slots in both the public and private sectors. Publicly owned companies in Egypt currently employ about 835,000 employees, with another 5.8 million Egyptians working in public administration. Egyptian public sector workers average $108 a week.  

Take Action
on Inequality

Say no to the billionaire Koch brother move to buy up eight major U.S. dailies.

 

INEQUALITY BY THE NUMBERS
Tenth-largest fortunes Stat of the Week

The world’s 11 largest pharmaceutical firms last year paid their chief execs a combined $199.2 million, Health Care for America Now researchers have just reported, a total well over double their take-home in 2003. In 2006, the first year of the Bush administration’s Medicare prescription drug law, Big Pharma CEO pay jumped $58.9 million, the decade’s largest one-year increase.

 

 

IN FOCUS
A Promising Path for Pummeling PlutocracyLooking for a quick fix to the deep inequality that so afflicts us? Stop your searching. We need to strategize instead for the long-term. A riveting new work from a leading historian helps us see how.The 79-year-old corporate gadfly Robert Monks, the former top federal regulator over America’s pension system, earlier this year opined that Corporate America operates “for the personal enrichment and glorification of its manager-kings.”

Too harsh a judgment? Hardly. Current standard corporate operating procedures only make sense if we acknowledge that America’s biggest private enterprises have essentially become the private preserve of an elite executive class.

How else to explain today’s most routine corporate behaviors? The endless rush to mergers that create little more than chaos in newly consolidated workplaces. The ongoing corporate refusal to invest significantly in research and development and employee training. The billions of dollars corporations spend to “buy back” company shares of stock on the open market.

All these moves leave corporations less equipped to succeed in the long term. But all these moves generate multiple millions, sometimes even billions, in the here and now for the corporate executives who make them.

Corporations, of course, have always done well by the executives who run them. But a half-century ago the United States had institutions that kept this enrichment within somewhat reasonable bounds. Trade unions acted as a brake on executive greed grabs. A progressive tax system — with rates as high as 91 percent on income over $400,000 — discouraged the greed grabbing in the first place.

But both these institutions — trade unions and progressive taxes — have atrophied over recent decades. Income and wealth, without these institutional checks in place, have concentrated at America’s economic summit. Below that summit, daily life for average Americans has become ever more insecure.

The United States, in effect, has slid into what University of Maryland historian and political economist Gar Alperowitz calls a “systemic crisis.” For the nation’s vast majority, America has simply stopped working. Daily life has turned into an ever-faster treadmill. And no real relief looms anywhere on the near horizon.

In this dreary environment, an understandable disillusionment — with our political leaders — runs deep. So does a decapacitating cynicism. Why bother struggling against an unjust status quo when nothing ever changes?

Historian Alperovitz has a new book out that aims to rouse us from this suffocating political stupor. In his new What Then Must We Do? Straight Talk about the Next American Revolution, he endeavors to show that societies in “systemic crisis” can change. Revolutions do happen. Indeed, he suggests, “we may now be well into the prehistory of the next American revolution.”

Just what does Alperovitz mean by that? In any social order, he explains, political power reflects the ongoing distribution of wealth. Meaningful change only begins when that existing distribution starts coming under challenge.

Alperovitz sees the challenge needed today as much more any single campaign for a candidate or cause. He has something deeper in mind: an “evolutionary reconstruction” of our society, a decades-long shift that aims to democratize wealth, to build “a community-sustaining economy from the ground up.”

Pie-in-the-sky fantasy? We already, Alperovitz stresses, have the seeds of an alternate, wealth-democratizing economy in place. Well over 100 million Americans belong to credit unions and co-ops. Ten million Americans labor in worker-owned enterprises. Millions more Americans live in municipalities where public institutions generate electric power — or even provide Internet service.

Alperovitz envisions a steady expansion of wealth-democratizing institutions like these that creates new political constituencies for fundamental change. Over time, over decades, the people these institutions touch begin to see from their daily experiences that alternatives to our dominant corporate status quo do exist. They begin to hold “clear ideas” about what can be done.

In times of acute crisis — say another banking failure — people with clear ideas about democratizing wealth won’t let their tax dollars bail out billionaires. They’ll demand public banks. They’ll carve away at private corporate power, bit by bit.

What Then Must We Do? mixes these intoxicating visions of a future yet to be with concrete descriptions of wealth-democratizing efforts already underway all across the nation, from Cleveland and Chattanooga to Portland and Sacramento.

These descriptions can surprise. One example: In Texas, the heart of red-state America, Dallas has opted to build a city-owned convention center hotel. Quips Alperovitz: “Everyday socialism, all the time, American-style.”

The pages Alperovitz has penned here hold a promise that goes beyond the compelling clarity of his prose. National networks are already working to advancehis strategic vision, efforts like the community wealth-building initiative of the Maryland-based Democracy Collaborative and the New Economy Working Group, a center for both local and global thought and action.

Like this article? Sign up
to receive the Too Muchweekly in your email inbox.

America, Alperovitz reminds us, has become the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. The nation’s annual income, if divided equally, would be enough to bring each family of four $200,000. We can, in other words, do far better for average Americans than we do today. Why not try?

New Wisdom
on WealthMike Rose, Leave no unwealthy child behind,Washington Post, May 7, 2013. A closer look at how inequality impacts the achievement of students at all income levels.

Robert Scheer, Obama Did It for the MoneyTruthDig, May 7, 2013. With billionaire Penny Pritzker’s nomination as Commerce secretary, the two Cabinet positions that address the chicanery of the financial community will now likely be occupied by people who’ve engaged in this chicanery.

Duncan Exley, Improving motherhood means reducing inequality, not just povertyNew Statesman, May 8, 2013. The message from the Mother’s Index.

Chrystia Freeland, Money Cuts Both Ways in EducationReuters, May 9, 2013. Being groomed for the winner-take-all economy starting in nursery school turns out to exact a toll on children at the top.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rich Don’t Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class cover

A new review of Too Mucheditor Sam Pizzigati’s latest bookThe Rich Don’t Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class,1900-1970.

NEW AND NOTABLE
Tax Reform: Not Quite the Whole StoryReport to the House Committee on Ways And Means on Present Law and Suggestions for Reform Submitted to the Tax Reform Working Groups, Joint Committee on Taxation, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. May 6, 2013, 560 pp.They’re talking “tax reform” again on Capitol Hill. And this time lawmakers just may be serious. Or so this massive, just-published compendium from the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation would suggest.

You want background for a debate over tax reform? You’ll find plenty to chew over here. Over 400 pages that detail the ins and outs of the current U.S. tax code. About another 50 pages that spotlight tax reform plans advanced by an assortment of official commissions, think tanks, and members of Congress.

Add into the mix 80 more pages full of ideas from the general public that the House Ways and Means Committee invited this past March.

All in all, quite a reference. This volume has everything. Almost everything. Only one element appears missing. Context. This text has no references to what we can learn from America’s own tax past or the tax experience of other nations.

This amazing — and total — absence of context helps explain why America’s wealthy have nothing to fear from “tax reform,” the 2013 edition.

Not one page of this massive text notes that our most affluent once paid taxes at over twice the top rate they do now. Or that the nation’s rich face a tax burden significantly lower than the rich in America’s peer nations face.

We don’t need another “tax reform” debate on Capitol Hill. We need a “tax the rich” debate — and a reference book that helps all Americans understand why.

Like Too Much?
Email this issue
to a friend
ABOUT TOO MUCH
Too Much, an online weekly publication of the Institute for Policy Studies | 1112 16th Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036 | (202) 234-9382 | Editor: Sam Pizzigati. | E-mail: editor@toomuchonline.org | Unsubscribe.