SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim McMannis who wrote (568178)5/26/2010 2:17:10 PM
From: tejek1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1578550
 
The Old Enemies

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: May 23, 2010

So here’s how it is: They’re as mad as hell, and they’re not going to take this anymore. Am I talking about the Tea Partiers? No, I’m talking about the corporations.

Much reporting on opposition to the Obama administration portrays it as a sort of populist uprising. Yet the antics of the socialism-and-death-panels crowd are only part of the story of anti-Obamaism, and arguably the less important part. If you really want to know what’s going on, watch the corporations.

How can you do that? Follow the money — donations by corporate political action committees.


Look, for example, at the campaign contributions of commercial banks — traditionally Republican-leaning, but only mildly so. So far this year, according to The Washington Post, 63 percent of spending by banks’ corporate PACs has gone to Republicans, up from 53 percent last year. Securities and investment firms, traditionally Democratic-leaning, are now giving more money to Republicans. And oil and gas companies, always Republican-leaning, have gone all out, bestowing 76 percent of their largess on the G.O.P.

These are extraordinary numbers given the normal tendency of corporate money to flow to the party in power. Corporate America, however, really, truly hates the current administration. Wall Street, for example, is in “a state of bitter, seething, hysterical fury” toward the president, writes John Heilemann of New York magazine. What’s going on?

One answer is taxes — not so much on corporations themselves as on the people who run them. The Obama administration plans to raise tax rates on upper brackets back to Clinton-era levels. Furthermore, health reform will in part be paid for with surtaxes on high-income individuals. All this will amount to a significant financial hit to C.E.O.’s, investment bankers and other masters of the universe.

Now, don’t cry for these people: they’ll still be doing extremely well, and by and large they’ll be paying little more as a percentage of their income than they did in the 1990s. Yet the fact that the tax increases they’re facing are reasonable doesn’t stop them from being very, very angry.

Nor are taxes the whole story.


Many Obama supporters have been disappointed by what they see as the administration’s mildness on regulatory issues — its embrace of limited financial reform that doesn’t break up the biggest banks, its support for offshore drilling, and so on. Yet corporate interests are balking at even modest changes from the permissiveness of the Bush era.

From the outside, this rage against regulation seems bizarre. I mean, what did they expect? The financial industry, in particular, ran wild under deregulation, eventually bringing on a crisis that has left 15 million Americans unemployed, and required large-scale taxpayer-financed bailouts to avoid an even worse outcome. Did Wall Street expect to emerge from all that without facing some new restrictions? Apparently it did.


So what President Obama and his party now face isn’t just, or even mainly, an opposition grounded in right-wing populism. For grass-roots anger is being channeled and exploited by corporate interests, which will be the big winners if the G.O.P. does well in November.

If this sounds familiar, it should: it’s the same formula the right has been using for a generation.
Use identity politics to whip up the base; then, when the election is over, give priority to the concerns of your corporate donors. Run as the candidate of “real Americans,” not those soft-on-terror East coast liberals; then, once you’ve won, declare that you have a mandate to privatize Social Security. <b.It comes as no surprise to learn that American Crossroads, a new organization whose goal is to deploy large amounts of corporate cash on behalf of Republican candidates, is the brainchild of none other than Karl Rove.

But won’t the grass-roots rebel at being used? Don’t count on it. Last week Rand Paul, the Tea Party darling who is now the Republican nominee for senator from Kentucky, declared that the president’s criticism of BP over the disastrous oil spill in the gulf is “un-American,” that “sometimes accidents happen.” The mood on the right may be populist, but it’s a kind of populism that’s remarkably sympathetic to big corporations.

So where does that leave the president and his party? Mr. Obama wanted to transcend partisanship. Instead, however, he finds himself very much in the position Franklin Roosevelt described in a famous 1936 speech, struggling with “the old enemies of peace — business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.”

And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Roosevelt turned corporate opposition into a badge of honor: “I welcome their hatred,” he declared. It’s time for President Obama to find his inner F.D.R., and do the same.



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (568178)5/26/2010 2:21:38 PM
From: J_F_Shepard  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1578550
 
"Arizona Mythbusting, Linda Chavez"
Friday, April 30, 2010

Arizona has just passed the toughest anti-illegal immigrant law in the country -- but you have to wonder: Why now? Illegal immigration is down nationally from its high in 2000, with border apprehensions lower than they've been in 35 years. There are fewer illegal aliens in the U.S. today than there were just two years ago, from 2008 to 2009, 1.2 million illegal immigrants left. In Arizona alone, more than 100,000 illegal aliens have left the state over the last two years, and the number of illegal aliens caught trying to cross into Arizona has been down by almost 40 percent over the last three years. So why did politicians rush to enact a poorly drafted, arguably unconstitutional law at this moment?

The horrific murder of an Arizona rancher in March provided popular momentum for the legislation. A few days before his murder, Robert Krentz found large quantities of illegal drugs on his property and reported it to the police -- certainly motive for the vicious cartels that run drugs across the Mexican border to take a hit out on Krentz. Unfortunately, this one murder has led many people to believe that crime in Arizona is rampant and that illegal immigrants are the cause.

The problem with this theory is that actual crime statistics tell a different story. Crime in Arizona has consistently gone down over the last 15 years, even while illegal immigration was increasing. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports show that the violent crime rate statewide in Arizona has been cut by almost 40 percent since 1995, and property crimes have followed the same pattern.

Violent crime rates -- including rape, murder and robbery -- haven't been this low since 1972, and Arizona's violent crime decreased at a faster rate than the national decline over the same period. More importantly, this decline in violent crime occurred during the very period that Arizona experienced a huge influx of illegal immigrants, with the Arizona border becoming the main source of illegal entry from Mexico in every year since 1998. Whatever other problems Arizonans have with illegal immigrants, they can't blame them for a non-existent rise in violent crime.

Still, according to the latest polls, it appears that some two-thirds of Arizonans support the new law. But, as with the misinformation about skyrocketing crime in the state, much of the information being bandied about on what's in the new law also happens to be wrong.

I can't count the times over the last week I've heard reporters and commentators say that the law simply allows police officers who have already stopped someone for a traffic violation or some other crime to require the person to produce proof of legal residence if the officer has "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal immigrant. But the actual wording of the law says something quite different. It gives any state, county or local government official the right to demand documents from persons suspected of being illegal immigrants:

"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."

Apparently, immigrants aren't the only ones we should encourage to learn English; Arizona lawmakers should learn English, too. The syntax and grammar are so convoluted, it's difficult to parse the meaning.

The term "lawful contact," while not defined in the law, has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the broadest terms. In Terry v. Ohio, the court made clear that police officers have wide latitude to approach anyone and question them on suspicion of a crime -- which the Arizona law now defines as "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal immigrant.

The law says race or national origin can't be the sole factor constituting "reasonable suspicion," but it doesn't prohibit race or ethnicity from being (ital) one (ital) factor. As we've seen on affirmative action -- where race is claimed to be only one factor in giving preference to minority applicants -- it is, unfortunately, almost always the deciding factor. And the same thing will happen here.

The law will not likely pass constitutional muster, but the harm to the 1.5 million Hispanics who are legal residents of Arizona will not easily be forgotten. And politicians who decide to jump on this bandwagon are in for a bumpy ride.

Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.