Benzie Dems Speak

5 interviews about the importance of broadband access to everyone

2009-03-19T20:39:00.003-04:00

This post applies just as much to Benzie County.
Internet for Everyone

Time to Revisit Neil Young's Expanded Website

2009-02-19T20:37:00.004-05:00

You won't regret seeing this greatly expanded, most creative and dead on expressive statement on the continuing wars Obama is now grappling with.

Living with War

William Greider predicted 2008 in 1997 book "One World Ready or Not":

2008-11-09T09:14:00.007-05:00

from p334
As capital owners and financial markets accumulate greater girth and a dominating influence, their search for higher returns becomes increasingly purified in purpose - detached from social concerns and abstracted from the practical realities of commerce. In this atmosphere, investors develop rising expectations of what their invested savings ought to earn and the rising prices in financial markets gradually diverge from the underlying economic reality. Since returns on capital are rising faster than the productive output that must pay them, the process imposes greater and greater burdens on commerce and societies - debt obligations that cannot possibly be fulfilled by the future and, sooner or later, must be liquidated, written off or forgiven.
***
A market crash ... is the abrupt deflation of prices and of misplaced hopes.
***
The rich nations of the world are acting like ancient usurers, lending money to the desperate poor on terms that cannot possibly be met and, thus, steadily acquiring more and more control over the lives and assets of the poor.
***
The social question - how does a society sustain equable relations among its own people - has been brushed aside by the economic sphere. Social cohesion and consent, even the minimal standards of human decency, are irrelevant to free markets.

Obama favors Network Neutrality!

2008-11-05T17:36:00.001-05:00

Obama ``strongly supports'' the principle of network neutrality, according to a policy statement posted on his Web site. He has said letting Internet providers, including cable companies such as Comcast Corp., charge fees that give some Web sites or applications priority over others ``would threaten innovation, the open tradition and architecture of the Internet, and competition.''

See previous posts on this blog about the importance of Network Neutrality

World Electoral College created by the Economist

2008-10-31T08:59:00.002-04:00

Click here to see how the world is voting

World Electoral College

Harry and Louise are back, for real

2008-08-31T22:50:00.004-04:00

Watch the video ad, and the actors'explanation

Harry and Louise 2008

A good mix of Foreign Policy News

2008-04-17T16:54:00.003-04:00

This site gives a different mix than the usual, see how you like it.
Sometimes blogland gets a little repetitive.

Just Foreign Policy

The True Cost of the War..

2008-04-12T16:03:00.012-04:00

The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict
by Joseph Stiglitz
with Linda J. Bilmes, WW Norton, March 2008

Testimony to Congress

For a synopsis, read the testimony by Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winning economist, and Linda J. Bilmes, a full-time faculty member at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, who teaches budgeting, applied budgeting, and public finance.
Their in depth analysis should be required reading for all senators, congressmen and women, candidates, and voters. The costs go far beyond the financial, which are staggering in themselves. A sobering anaysis of how to move forward to prevent future folly is a valuable part of their work.
To quote:
"The focus of my remarks today, however, is on the large costs that go beyond these budgetary costs. We classify these into two categories, micro-economic costs (to individuals, especially to the troops that have served us so well and their families, and to firms) and macro-economic costs (to our overall economy, today and into the future)."

Amory Lovins on Charlie Rose - Energy Solutions for Today and Tomorrow

2008-04-01T08:27:00.003-04:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PcVOD14nOE&feature=player_embedded

Single-payer medical insurance explained

2008-03-30T18:10:00.006-04:00

National Health Program

This organization's website gives a thorough, clearly explained solution for a fair National Health Care Insurance Plan. I hope you will look it over, and I welcome comments.

Physicians for a National Health Program
29 E Madison Suite 602, Chicago, IL 60602

Barack Obama speaking before the war in 2002

2007-03-02T09:30:00.000-05:00

He got it right......because he is smart, well read, has common sense, and thinks to the future before acting.....

Imagine

2006-10-26T16:18:00.000-04:00

A powerful transposition of John Lennon's lovely song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrkRTzXfga4

The danger of monopolies looms large

2006-10-16T09:56:00.001-04:00

Consumer Advocates Criticize AT& T Deal

freepress.net

Remember when Ma Bell was broken up, and all the innovations that have occurred since?
Well it's back to the stranglehold of non-competitiveness, that will set not only competitiveness back, but free speech as well.
AT&T is moving so fast it's frightening. Power needs strong competition.

Need a few reasons why? The following comments are from:
freepress.net
Please visit this site to follow their links that back up these statements.

"Internet Freedom:Not only are Americans being offered fewer Internet choices at higher costs than other countries, the companies that control access to the network also seek to control the content that is delivered to customers

Privileged Access: As companies jockey for position over the most lucrative broadband markets, the communities at the edges have been left on the wrong side of the digital divide. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 60 percent of households with incomes over $150,000 annually have broadband access, compared to just 10 percent of households with incomes below $25,000.

Limited Service: These corporations have done a lousy job rolling out their services to rural areas and low-income urban communities they’ve deemed unprofitable. As a result, America has fallen from third to 16th place in penetration of high-speed internet services per capita.

Lousy Choice: But even those who can afford to pay for connectivity are increasingly subject to limited choices. According to a recent Free Press report late last year, the number of Americans who have only one or no choice of broadband provider is near 50 percent.

High Costs: Meanwhile, the cost of broadband in other countries has dropped dramatically as speeds have increased. On a per megabit basis, U.S. consumers pay five to 25 times more than broadband users in France and Japan. Nations such as South Korea, Finland, and even Canada have much faster internet connections at a lower relative cost than what is available here."

Levin and Stabenow are not yet committed on Net Neutrality

2006-09-27T10:41:00.000-04:00

I know I am hammering on this subject, but the freedom of the internet highway is at stake.
Please go to this site, and send Levin a Stabenow a message on how important this is to Michigan:
Michigan families, Michigan jobs, Michigan freedom of information, Michigan education.

Ask them these questions ( from the site below)

1. Do you support Network Neutrality — the principle that guarantees that all Web sites and services are treated equally on the Internet?
2. Can we count on you to take a stand against giant phone and cable companies and oppose Senator Ted Stevens' telecommunications bill (H.R. 5252) unless stronger Net Neutrality protections are added?
3. Will you make a pledge today to personally guarantee that Net Neutrality is a part of any future telecommunications legislation?

For a simple way to express yourself, and learn more go to:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/state.php?state=MI

Another chance to learn how important Net Neutrality is, and how you can make a difference

2006-08-04T18:47:00.000-04:00

The site with the latest info is
SavetheInternet

Check out the video from NOW on PBS on this site. You will need RealPlayer to view it.
There are many othe serious and funny videos as well (and most play on their own.)

If you use the internet, and want it to continue to be a free, open venue for all .....please inform yourself, and write your congressperson.

Google, eBay, the Gun Lobby and the Christian Coalition, in other words.....everyone who wants to have an equal playing field like we have now, is supporting this too.

What wealth inequality produces, and where we stand

2006-07-16T13:44:00.000-04:00

The book:
Rodney Tiffen and Ross Gittins, How Australia Compares. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

A political scientist and and an economics editor from Australia have written a factbook that should be at the top of our country's agenda.They rate 18 peer countries (stable, developed democracies) on over 200 different measures of well being.
These countries are Australia, the United States, Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Ireland, and New Zealand.

I point out those that Sam Pizzigati, author of "Greed and Good", discusses in his newsletter available at
TOO MUCH

"No other nation has the wherewithal the United States has to do good for its people. Yet, on measure after measure of basic decency, we lag the rest of the developed world. We lag badly."

Of the 18 most significant developed nations in the world:
The United States rank last in overcoming child poverty.
The United States rank last in leisure time in the developed world.
Our probability of surviving to age 60 is 18th, worst in the developed world.
We rank last in the developed world in infant mortality, as well as in maternal mortality
We rank last in the level of unemployment benefits.
We rank last in spending for job training,
Teacher salaries are next to last.
We rank first in homicides, incarceration rates, and INEQUALITY.

"No nation has a greater gap between top and bottom than we do. In no developed nation has wealth and income concentrated as intensely as ours."

Other measures show that the "United States has become less good, less caring, less compassionate, less healthy as we have become more unequal."

I hope you also take the time to read "Greed and Good." It is thick book, but I couldn't put it down. We must strengthen our middle class, and we must put this at the top of our agenda when we consider for example: taxes, healthcare, corporate regulations....

Net neutrality....do you want AT&T dictating access policies to the net?

2006-06-23T11:37:00.000-04:00

Net Neutrality is being debated right now in the Senate.
Large telecom companies, and cable are flexing their muscles, and saying that their investment in infrastructure gives them the right to determine who can use their "pipes", for how much, and at what speed you will receive it.

In fact...."Ed Whitacre, CEO of recently merged SBC and AT&T: "There's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!"

They claim unregulated service is the only way for true innovation to occur.....and they want to overturn current practices.
Several excellent sites are useful in sorting this out.

I recommend
About US Politics
where you will find the following quote:

"According to proponents of network neutrality, what is at stake is the freedom to access whatever online information (content) strikes your fancy, using whatever device you wish. Rather than focusing on their responsibility to maximize network performance, telecos and cable companies want to control access to content, either by charging additional service fees or by prioritizing some content over other content.

The threat is not hypothetical: technology exists that facilitates packet discrimination and companies have used it. For example:"

followed by alarming examples.

And take a good look at another in depth site:
FreePress There is a June 23 live blog of the session on Today's News...andt the site in general has great in depth info.

To see how deceptive the other side is view this video:
InternetFutureSlickbutWrong
and read the argument link. Without the background above, this argument could fool an incurious mind.

We need more women in power, listen up check out Sweden post, it can be done

2006-05-11T20:19:00.000-04:00

"For four decades, working women have poured into the paid labor force. Yet American society has done precious little to restructure the workplace or family life. The result? Working mothers are burdened and exhausted, families are fractured and children are often neglected. The dirty little secret, we repeatedly tell each other, is that it is both profitable and convenient to our government, business and many men, for women to wear themselves out trying to do the unpaid work of caring for children, caring for the elderly and caring about the social networks of our communities.

It's as though Americans are trapped in a time warp, certain that women will still do all this caring, even though they can't, because more than half are outside their homes working in the paid workplace. And so, we have the mounting Care Crisis.

But somehow male progressives and liberals continue to view these problems as those of a special interest group and part of identity politics. Yet it is the core dilemma faced by most middle class and working class American families, all along the political spectrum."
read more at
Alternet

Be afraid

2006-05-11T20:07:00.000-04:00

Ethical economics: GDP is not a good indicator

2006-05-04T11:52:00.003-04:00

As Joseph E. Stiglitz points out in his review in Foreign Affairs Nov/Dec 2005 of "The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth" by Benjamin M. Friedman, Harvard economist......one doesn't look at a company's revenues alone to determine how well it is doing. A balance sheet shows liabilities. William Greider's "Soul of Capitalism", speaks eloquently on this topic as does the book Greed and Good mentioned in an earlier post.

I would offer this short easy argument:

Deficits are liabilities.
Uninsured citizens are liabilities.
Under-educated citizens are liabilities,
Inadequate public safety services are liabilities,
Degrading air, water, and the earth's climate are liabilities.
Increased crime is a liablity.
Feel free to add more...(that's what "Comments" is for!)

Ironically building prisons and funding their employees is a significant contributer to GDP
GDP is an indicater of growth in money, not how wisely it is spent for the country.
Corporations have an amoral mandate to make money only, there is no moral compass that guides competition.
This moral compass is us, the American people. And this "us" is represented by our government.
Government makes the rules, and fairness (morality) is the higher purpose of rules, whether in games or in life.
For a more thorough definition of GDP, this New Zealand site has an excellent explanation.

Paul Krugman recommends universal Medicare

2006-05-02T10:57:00.000-04:00

Paul Krugman who writes opinion columns for the New York Times and is a prize-winning economist, has concluded in his May 1, 2006 column Death by Insurance that providing Medicare to all Americans would immediately save significant money, increase the health and welfare of all Americans, remove the anxiety over changing jobs, eliminate the 46 million uninsured, take health care responsibilities out of the competitive equation for business. And as he concludes...
So here we are. Our current health care system is unraveling. Older Americans are already covered by a national health insurance system; extending that system to cover everyone would save money, reduce financial anxiety and save thousands of American lives every year. Why don't we just do it?

Another analysis of the pros and cons of various permutations on health insurance supports his thesis.( an easier to read pdf version can be accessed on the first page)
Strategies to increase Healthcare Access

Neil Young's new "Living with War" album

2006-04-30T15:36:00.000-04:00

If you haven't heard the beautiful sweet voice of Neil Young on his album "Living with War" yet, he is offering it free on the web at
Living with War

Let's work for bringing univeral broadband access to Benzie County

2006-04-28T10:37:00.000-04:00

MichiganTownships.org is offering one day detailed workshops on how other Michigan communities are doing this, and all the information needed to explore options for our own community. If we could do this, just think of the business, education, and networking possibilities we would provide for ourselves, while attracting more jobs and opportunities in Benzie County.

One workshop fairly close to us is:
Tuesday, June 13 The Fetzer Center Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo (269) 387-3232
From I-94: Take Exit 74, which is U.S.-131, and head north. Take exit 36A and turn right onto Stadium Drive. Turn left onto Howard Street and right onto West Michigan Avenue. Stay in the right lane as you go around the traffic circle and merge onto Rankin Avenue (which is on your left as you approach the circle). Turn right onto Business Court and left into the large parking lot. The lot immediately to your right (Lot 72F) is the Fetzer Center parking area. Parking is free for those attending this MTA event. is available in Lot 8, and the meeting will be held on level 2.

For a complete registration form and schedule of the workshop contents look under events at:
Broadband for Benzie

Smithsonian sells our historical film rights to Showtime

2006-04-27T21:01:00.000-04:00

Although 75% of the Smithsonians budget comes from our federal taxes ($644 million this year), the Smithsonian claims its declining revenues are placing collections and buildings at risk, and that they therefore are justified in executing a private contract with private funds to assist their budget.
Why is this a problem?
As part of the agreement, any commercial documentary films that rely substantially on the Smithsonian archives or its various experts must first be offered to Showtime for broadcast.

Showtime is given first right for any documentary film relying substantially on Smithsonian archives or experts. Documentary film makers already pay for rights to film used in their work. Now, if Showtime thinks they can make a buck on an idea, they get first go at it.

As quoted on EconomistsView and NYT.
"Ken Burns, the New Hampshire-based director of such celebrated multipart history documentaries as The Civil War and Jazz, said by cell phone from the National Mall on Wednesday that he could see "hundreds of potential problems" in this arrangement, including the danger that "independent filmmakers could now have their good ideas cherry-picked by Showtime."
But Burns, a movie-lover as well as a prolific moviemaker, does feel insulted: "Can you imagine the hue and cry if print historians like Doris Kearns Goodwin and David McCullough were told they couldn't do research at the Smithsonian unless they cleared their book with a certain publisher?"

Gibney, Burns and other filmmakers, as well as librarians, historians, academics and media producers, have signed a letter to Lawrence M. Small, secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, calling for the Smithsonian to take three immediate actions: 1. reveal the terms of its contract with Showtime (and any other contracts that restrict use of the Smithsonian's collection); 2. annul this contract because it was brokered without an open and competitive process; and 3. conduct hearings on the issue of limiting access to the institution and its staff."
Privitization of Public Archives is not the answer.

15 New Ideas

2006-04-25T09:51:00.003-04:00

E. J. Dionne Jr., columnist at the Washington Post, makes some good points this morning worth exploring.

He quotes Michael Tomasky in the current issue of the American Prospect. The right's message of "radical individualism" should be replaced by Democrats with politics for the "common good". Dionne adds to this the need to include, along with the idea of citizen sacrifice, that people band together if self-interest is dedicated to a common project
For "project ideas he refers us to the recent list of 15 New Ideas put forward by the Center for American Progress.
These follow....download the complete,expanded version at
15 New Ideas

Offering Opportunity for All: Build an opportunity nation where every hard-working person—regardless of background—can realize his or her dreams through education, decent work and fair pay.

• Create a Fair and Simple Tax Code
• Extend Learning Time
• Improve Teacher Quality
• Increase College Opportunity and Completion
• Reduce Debt Burdens by Fighting Abusive Lending
• Strengthen Pensions: Universal 401(k)

Promoting a Just and Secure World: Use America’s awesome strength to bring the world together, not pull it apart.

• Use Integrated Power
• Strengthen the All-Volunteer Army
• Grow the World’s Energy Future
• Invest in Global Equity

Building Strong Communities: Reawaken America’s conscience—our sense of shared and personal responsibility—to build healthy, vibrant communities.

• Provide Universal Health Coverage
• Use Health Care to Strengthen the U.S. Auto Industry
• Provide Comprehensive Worker Adjustment Assistance

Creating Open and Fair Government: Reform government so that it is of, by, and for the people: open, effective, and committed to the common good.

• Bring Government Decisionmaking into the Information Age
• Impose New Rules to Curb Abuses of Congressional Power

Gender equality as a national goal. The Swedish model

2006-04-20T17:59:00.000-04:00

A look at the small numbers of women in congress, on boards, and other influencial bodies in the US is always shocking when seen in a photograph of members. In contrast Sweden instituted a national policy of equality between women and men, beginning in 1980. Since 1995 each county in Sweden has a regional expert on gender equality.
"The main task of these experts is to promote mainstreaming of a gender perspective into all policy fields and support efforts to achieve equality between women and men in their regions."
The general view in Sweden favors gender equality....
"Swedish gender equality policy is fundamentally concerned with the ability of each individual to achieve economic independence through gainful employment. Just as important are measures to enable both women and men to combine jobs with parenthood. It must also be possible for everybody, regardless of gender, to develop and participate in all aspects of community life according to their capabilities."
Family law is directed towards this goal....
"Among important aims of Swedish family law are to put women and men on an equal footing in marriage and to protect the financially weaker party in the event of divorce or death. The objective of certain other statutes, such as the Code of Parenthood, the Parental Leave Act and certain provisions of the National Insurance Act, is to lay the foundations of shared responsibility for the home and children. The Education Act and the Higher Education Act contain provisions on equality between women and men in schools and universities/colleges, respectively."
This is a new overall approach, not piecemeal unconnected efforts.
"The term "gender mainstreaming" is used internationally to describe this new approach, which implies a shift from special isolated measures to achieve gender equality towards broader measures affecting day-to-day political and administrative work"
The overall structure covers...
Power and influence
Education
Gender equality in working life
Occupational structure
Gender equality within the family
Parental benefits and child care
Men and gender equality
Violence against women
Trafficking in women and prostitution
Girls and young women at risk of "honour-related violence"
The remarkable record of voting that follows demonstrates the results of gender mainstreaming and contrasts greatly with our own. Problems still exist, but are recognized and worked on. Compared to the US, the Swedish women participate and influence all aspects of society. Perhaps if we start locally, with village, township and county government, we might contribute to efforts to promote equality on boards, commissions, and other decision making bodies extending to the national level.

"Women in Sweden have had the right to vote since 1921. The electoral turnout has traditionally been high, around 90 per cent. Electoral participation has seen a decline, however, in the last two elections, to roughly 80 per cent. Women tend to vote to a slightly higher degree than men.

The 2002 elections in Sweden resulted in an increase in the proportion of women in Parliament. Of the 349 members of Parliament, 45.3 per cent are women, compared to 43.6 per cent after the 1998 election and around 40 per cent after the 1994 election. The number of women in Parliament has more than tripled since 1971. That is due to a firm conviction among all political parties concerning the need to increase the number of women candidates. The largest political party, the Social Democrats, practiced a systematic alteration between women and men in their lists of constituency candidates in the 1994, 1998 and 2002 elections.

The most important political work in Parliament is done by its standing committees, and 44 per cent of the seats on these committees are held by women. Women hold a majority in several of these committees.
There are eleven male ministers and eleven female ministers in the Government (January 2004). Ten women (out of a total of 26) are State secretaries, the rank immediately below cabinet minister.
Conditions in the municipalities and county councils are similar to those in Parliament. Well over 40 per cent of municipal councillors are women. Representation on the county councils, whose responsibilities include health and medical services, is even higher.

Although Swedish women are admittedly present at virtually all levels of the decision-making hierarchy, they tend to be allotted fewer influential appointments and to do work which is not always in the public eye. In recent years, both Government and Parliament have therefore focused on the low representation of women in indirectly elected bodies. Active efforts in recent years have raised the number of women in public boards at national level from 16 per cent in 1986 to 47 per cent in 2001.

Despite Swedish women's relatively strong position in directly elected bodies, men still dominate nearly all policy-making bodies. This also goes for senior positions in employer and employee organisations as well as in political and other associations. In senior management positions in the private sector, the percentage of women is even lower. In order to stimulate an even gender distribution in the private sector, a Business Leadership Academy was formed in 1995 at the initiative of the Government and representatives of the private sector, with the aim of developing the role of men and women managers.
In recent years, the Government has focused attention on the representation of women and men on the boards of major private companies. There are very few women on the boards of these companies and serving as corporate CEO's.
In January 2002, the Government appointed a study commission on women in leading positions in the business sector. The commission was entrusted with documenting the participation of women at the top management and board level in the Swedish business sector. It was also asked to summarise the state of knowledge in the field of research on gender and organisations concerning the obstacles and structures that determine developments. According to the Commission's report "Male Dominance in Transition," submitted in March 2003, male dominance in corporate executive suites and boardrooms persists, although there has been some progress since 1994. If employee representatives are excluded, the proportion of men on the boards of companies with private forms of ownership and at least 200 employees was 98 per cent in 1993, but had declined to 92 per cent by 2002.

In the spring of 2003, the Minister for Industry and Trade initiated further efforts to present concrete proposals to speed up the process of recruiting a higher proportion of women to the boards and top managements at private companies. The Government invited private companies to roundtable discussions on these matters and invited them to make suggestions for steps to be taken.

Their suggestions and the Commission report were sent to various organisations for official comment. In late 2003 the resulting comments were published and a seminar brought together business and government representatives. Based on the official comments and the views voiced at this seminar, the Government will decide whether further action is warranted.

Sweden

Reply from Carl Levin

2006-04-13T17:15:00.000-04:00

...see new Comment in March archives
Politics is convoluted.....but interesting

States are moving toward single-payer health insurance

2006-04-12T20:45:00.000-04:00

Our federal government is not able to move directly into universal single-payer health care. To get to universal coverage, the states should lead the way, and they are. Massachusetts has been in the news lately, but true single payer plans are being explored in at least 18 states. Most use a "single-payer" model. These states include: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
"This approach consolidates all payers - Medicare, Medicaid, state programs and private insurers - into a single administrative structure, with the state (or federal) government handling payments....."

States Lead the Way

Thus far in 2006, at least seven states are considering universal health care systems and seven other states have commissioned studies to look at the possibility of such a system."
Tables listing all bills, and their status, and commissioned studies appear in a table at this site:
Universal Coverage Bills

Let's get onboard in Michigan!

Follow-up on necessity of corporate regulation

2006-04-10T22:09:00.000-04:00

Here is an excerpt from an article "explaining" why executive pay was more than 431 to 1 in 2004, up 10 times the ratio of 42-1, 25 years earlier.
Challenges of Aligning Pay and Executive Performance
Harvard Business School
Harvard article

"Q: So there's no automatic alignment between societal value creation and executive holdings of company equity?

A: Correct. There is no perfect alignment between societal value creation and stock or option incentives. Turning managers into owners is an important first step. Owners really do think about their assets differently, and work hard to find new and creative ways to maintain the value of those assets and to raise their value over time. So despite the current scandals, we need to be careful not to turn our backs on a system that has lots of virtues. Having said that, when managers have significant equity stakes, they not only have incentives to raise share value in ways that benefit society; they also have incentives to raise shareholder value in ways that don't benefit society. For example, they are more tempted to take advantage of monopoly power. They may be more tempted to pollute the environment. And they may even be tempted, as already discussed, to fool their own shareholders if the equity component of pay is not designed in the appropriate way.
So equity-based pay is a great place to start. But giving executives ownership stakes doesn't mean that you are finished. Regulators have a role. Tax authorities have a role. Boards have a role. And executives themselves have a role. In fact, all these constituencies have a role to play in providing the appropriate checks and balances, to make sure that the fuel in the rocket motivates value-creating behavior, and not value-destroying behavior."

Examples of regulatory efforts in this direction are found at:
Corporate Policy
"Executive Excess 2005, the latest report on CEO pay by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy reveals that the ratio of CEO:Worker pay among the S&P 500 was still an average 431-to-1 in 2004 (not including certain forms of stealth compensation) - ten times higher than the 42-to-1 ratio that it stood at 25 years ago.
A precedent-setting limit on CEO pay was inserted into Section 331 of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 — a bill pushed through Congress by credit card companies. The otherwise wretched piece of legislation explicitly limits executive pay, for the first time ever in federal law, to a fixed multiple of the pay that goes to average workers. Under the new provision, no company in bankruptcy can award its executives any retention bonus or severance pay that runs over ten times the average bonus or severance awarded to regular employees in the previous year."
Regulatory solutions can be done!
For other regulatory solutions, see site above.

Greed and Good by Sam Pizzigati is THE book on CEO compensation and corporate reform. (Available at the Beulah Public Library) An absorbing, compelling read.

How did corporations gain more power than the citizens who created them?

2006-04-09T18:09:00.000-04:00

This quote written by William Kalle Lasn and excerpted from Culture Jam on
Third World Traveler
explains the history of how we got into this pickle in the first place. If we created this monster, we should be able to regulate it back to its original purpose. Not an easy task, but think of the problems we could solve...corruption, monopolies, buying politicians, all the consequenses of greed that a necessarily amoral corporation whose sole purpose is to provide profits to its shareholders, must employ in an environment where anything goes.

Here is the excerpt: (go to Third World's site for complete history)
"In the early history of America, the corporation played an important but subordinate role. The people -- not the corporations -- were in control..........The turning point was the Civil War. Corporations made huge profits from procurement contracts and took advantage of the disorder and corruption of the times to buy legislatures, judges and even presidents. Corporations became the masters and keepers of business. President Abraham Lincoln foresaw terrible trouble. Shortly before his death, he warned that "corporations have been enthroned . . . . An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people . . . until wealth is aggregated in a few hands . . . and the republic is destroyed.".........Then came a legal event that would not be understood for decades (and remains baffling even today), an event that would change the course of American history. In Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, a dispute over a railbed route, the US Supreme Court deemed that a private corporation was a "natural person" under the US Constitution and therefore entitled to protection under the Bill of Rights. Suddenly, corporations enjoyed all the rights and sovereignty previously enjoyed only by the people, including the right to free speech......This 1886 decision ostensibly gave corporations the same powers as private citizens. But considering their vast financial resources, corporations thereafter actually had far more power than any private citizen. They could defend and exploit their rights and freedoms more vigorously than any individual and therefore they were more free. In a single legal stroke, the whole intent of the American Constitution -- that all citizens have one vote, and exercise an equal voice in public debates -- had been undermined. Sixty years after it was inked, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas concluded of Santa Clara that it "could not be supported by history, logic or reason." One of the great legal blunders of the nineteenth century changed the whole idea of democratic government."

The growing deficit would be in surplus if Bush tax cuts to the wealthy had not been enacted

2006-04-08T10:13:00.000-04:00

Contrary to the administration's theory that those tax cuts for the wealthy fuel the economy, a recent report shows they are the largest contributor to the deficit, and we would be back into surplus if they had not been enacted.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Jan 31,2005
"The new Congressional Budget Office budget projections released today show that the nation faces a fourth consecutive year of substantial budget deficits. Some seek to portray runaway domestic spending or growth in the costs of entitlement programs as the primary cause of the shift in recent years from sizeable surpluses to large deficits. Such a characterization is incorrect. In 2005, the cost of tax cuts enacted over the past four years will be over three times the cost of all domestic program increases enacted over this period.
The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for nearly half or 48 percent of this $539 billion in increased costs. Increases in program spending make up the other 52 percent and have been primarily concentrated in defense, homeland security, and international affairs."

An excellent blog imagining what the Founding Fathers Would Say about the actions of the Bush Administration

2006-04-06T12:19:00.001-04:00

A reader pointed out this excellent essay to be found at Glenn Greenwald's blog
What would the Founders say?
Using quotes from the Founding Fathers, his contributor asks questions such as "We are told we should trust that the President will not abuse the unchecked powers he claims to have." And answers with a quote and link to Thomas Jefferson's
" Bill for a More General Diffusion of Knowledge" (1778)
Well worth reading and remembering.
I was unable to link direct to the essay, just look to the essays in the left column and click on the essay link.

Let's discuss the SBT (single business tax)

2006-04-02T14:58:00.000-04:00

Governor Granholm has vetoed the repeal of the SBT, unless revenues are found to replace it. I agree wholeheartedly.

It is interesting that in 2005, Michigan has been ranked in the top 5 states that are the "friendliest states for small business".
SBSC

Another Bureau of Economic Analyses, Department of Commerce and Tax Foundation calculation shows our total state local tax burden to be less than the national average in 2005.

DeVos, and the Republicans say we have one of the worst tax climates for small business, yet other studies speak of all the other elements of importance to starting a business in a given state.

On the Tax Foundation site which supports dismantling the business taxes on principle, they concede that others do not agree.....this quote is from their site

"Fisher finds support from Robert Tannenwald of the Boston Federal Reserve who argues that taxes are not as important to businesses as public expenditures. Tannenwald compares twenty-two states by measuring the after-tax rate of return to cash flow of a new facility built by a representative firm in each state. This very different approach attempts to compute the marginal effective tax rate (METR) of a hypothetical firm and yields results that make taxes appear trivial.
Tannenwald asserts that “while interjurisdictional rivalry is inducing states to cut taxes, demand is rising for state and local services such as education, health care, and law enforcement.” He concludes that business taxes exert only a small, highly uncertain effect on capital spending. States may be more likely to stimulate their economy by enhancing public services valued by business (Tannenwald 1996)."
Tax Foundation

What is needed for any state to stay fiscally healthy and attract business is an educated work force--Granholm has just signed her initiative for mandatory subjects in highschool, including math, science, the arts, social studies, and language. (It is unbelievable that only civics has been a requirement for graduation). Those high paying manufacturing jobs are not coming back, but many new jobs will be available for the states that educate their workforce and enhance
health care, law enforcement, and the pleasant living environment that are often mentioned as important for attracting business.

The fastest growth in industries nationally from 2004-2014 is projected to be
Home health care services 69.5%
Management, scientific, and technical consulting services 60.5%
Employment services 45.5%
Offices of physicians 37.0%
Colleges, universities, and professional schools, private 34.3%
Bureau of Labor Statistics

These are all non-outsourcing jobs, and require a workforce prepared for the future.

So what do you think would best improve the business climate locally and statewide? And what sorts of jobs do you see growing successfully Up North?

Sent in by a blog reader

2006-03-27T10:01:00.000-05:00

Future American lawyers to be proud of.

Alberto Gonzales spoke before law students at Georgetown Law School today, justifying illegal, unauthorized surveillance of US citizens, but during the course of his speech the students in class did something pretty ballsy and brave. They got up from their seats and turned their backs to him.

To make matters worse for Gonzales, additional students came into the room, wearing black cowls and carrying a simple banner, written on a sheet.

Fortunately for him, it was a brief speech... followed by a panel discussion that basically ripped his argument in half.

And, as one of the people on the panel said,

"When you're a law student, they tell you that if you can't argue the law, argue the facts. They also tell you if you can't argue the facts, argue the law. If you can't argue either, apparently, the solution is to go on a public relations offensive and make it a political issue... to say over and over again "it's lawful", and to think that the American people will somehow come to believe this if we say it often enough.

In light of this, I'm proud of the very civil civil disobedience that was shown here today."

- David Cole, Georgetown University Law Professor

It was a good day for dissent.

Concern over Carl Levin/Lindsey Graham amendment

2006-03-20T09:16:00.000-05:00

The New York Times published an editorial on 3/20/06 about "court-stripping--the attempt by another branch of government to prevent the court from deciding a particular issue.......A critical test of judicial independence will come this month, when the Supreme Court hears arguments in a case that has become a focus of Mr. Bush's imperial vision of the presidency."
An amendment introduced by Levin and Graham had the effect of allowing the Bush administration to further frustrate "unlawful enemy combatants" from due process.
Times article

A legal synopsis of the consequenses can be found at
Jurist article

I am surprised that Carl Levin would have been a part of this, and would be very interested in hearing from others. I assume that this was not the intention of the amendment, since both Levin and Graham seem unlikely participants in such an idea.
I've written Levin to see if there is an explanation of why this is happening.

Here is what is happening.....and indeed Levin's bill is being misinterpreted by the Bush administration, against the objections of its sponsers
Levin News Release

An excellent article on why taxes are good.

2006-03-16T09:44:00.007-05:00

What I Can't Buy With My Tax Break is an article written by Lynn Jondahl, Executive Director, Michigan Prospect for Renewed Citizenship

http://www.michiganprospect.org/the_michigan_prospect/2006/08/about_the_michi.html

There is a curious notion being peddled by political orators these days - that tax cuts are necessary to let people rather than government decide how they spend their (invariably "hard-earned") money. Just trust the people, not government, they say, to spend their own money wisely.

That notion might be relevant if we were talking about, say, vegetables. I could use my own money to buy my own mix of carrots, peas and broccoli or I could send my money off to government in Lansing or Washington to let some (invariably "pointyheaded") bureaucrat decide what vegetable I eat at each meal. The choice here would be obvious. I can decide better than anyone else, including, alas, my wife who likes brussels sprouts, just what vegetables I want to eat for dinner. Even the best intentioned, least-biased people in Washington cannot do better. And if we were ever to have a President prejudiced against one of my favorite vegetables like broccoli, for example, the results could even be worse.

The difficulty is that there are many other important things in life that I cannot buy for myself more efficiently than government can provide them for me. If I feel threatened by Saddam Hussain or some other aggressive dictator, I cannot go out and buy a cruise missile or an aircraft carrier to keep him under check. If the streets in our neighborhood seem unsafe, I might be able to hire my own private security service to protect our house, but we can't afford the services of one whole guard. We rely on our local government to use some of our tax dollars to provide police protection for our neighborhood as a whole. So, if government expenditures are cut in order to cut my taxes the result may actually be making me a lot less safe. Broccoli I can buy at a store, but safety is something I largely buy with my tax payments.

There are lot of other things I need to buy as a taxpayer beyond the traditional fields of national defense and public safety. I can't buy good roads for myself. I can't afford my own weather satellites to warn me of an impending storm or, even more important, to warn the farmer who grows my food in time to enable him to protect a crop or his cattle.

My father died from stomach cancer, and I'm eager for the federal government to provide the level of support for cancer research that is needed to fight that disease. Sure, using my after-tax dollars I can donate $50 to the American Cancer Society, but that will buy no more than $50 of research. When we as a nation decide to tackle this problem, then my $50 is joined with similar dollars from a hundred fifty million other taxpayers. Together we can fund billions of dollars of research against one of the great health scourges. That's not evil government, that's just common sense.

Our health depends in part on the cleanliness of the air we breathe, but I don't know how to buy clean air for myself. I can't do a "citizen's arrest" every time I see a smokestack belching black smoke. In fact, I can't even see all the pollution in the atmosphere. But as a voter and taxpayer I can join with others in the state and nation to support strong standards for clean air and energetic enforcement of those standards. During the last 30 years I have been pleased with how much cleaner our environment has become because we have together spent billions of dollars cleaning it up.

I spend a lot of time in my car, and one of the things that makes such time more tolerable, even pleasurable sometimes is National Public Radio. I can contribute some money each year to my local station, WKAR, but that only adds a few dollars to the cause. If the Congress and the legislature were to cut off all support for public radio, there is no way that I could come up with enough of my own money to replace it. Some people have suggested subscribing to cable, and that might help for television, though the programs still aren't as good as the best on public television. Cable radio would be helpful only if I never drove my car out of the driveway.

I also care about the overall condition of this country. Growing numbers of people living in poverty wastes lives. Like most Americans, I strongly believe in programs that assist unemployed adults with a chance to return to the workplace and that provide their children an opportunity for a good education all the way through college. If we cut student loans to provide a tax cut for me, I may have a few more dollars to spend on myself, but I will live in a harsher, crueler, more divided and less stable society.

Supporting government services isn't always a question of just helping yourself and your immediate family. My wife and I have each had one of our aging parents living with us for a while, and we became personally familiar with the experience many Americans have with elderly family members and the immense benefit from public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid payments made by the state and federal governments. We have no children of our own, but we eagerly pay taxes for the education that will do so much for our neighbors' children and for our many nieces and nephews.

It always is fair and smart to ask whether we have the right balance between private goods that we can buy for ourselves and public goods that only government can provide efficiently. If some political orator wants to describe a tax cut and lay it alongside a list of the government programs and services that would be cut or eliminated to pay for the tax cut, then I'm certainly willing to take a look. But don't try to entice me with a tax cut now and tell me much later how I'll be paying for it in terms of lost services and benefits. And don't tell me it's just a simple issue of letting me decide for myself how I want to spend my own money.

Posted on 09 January 1997 Michigan Prospect

State and Local Playbook from the Democratic Leadership Council

2006-03-13T19:57:00.000-05:00

Take a look at this extremely useful site. Described as:

A "menu" of effective, field-tested New Democrat policy proposals from which you can model initiatives in your own states, cities and communities.
Each topic discusses practical ideas that can translate into local political actions.
I hope readers will look over this site, and propose ways that we might together implement ideas from this "playbook".

State and Local Playbook

Lack of women in leadership and news roles

2006-03-13T10:34:00.000-05:00

The White House Project is dedicated to showing the under-representation of women in leadership and opinion-forming roles. See their website at

White House Project

Besides an opportunity to vote for your choice of 8 promising women for president to be printed in Parade Magazine, there is another page devoted to the lack of women on political talk shows.
As Democrats dedicated to diversity and equality of opportunity, this site points up some obvious problems.
Here in Benzie we should celebrate our women who run for office, and consider the importance of a greater voice for women in our own community. Take a look at this site, and give some feedback on what you think of this issue.

Democrats endorse adding earlier primaries and caucuses

2006-03-12T13:51:00.000-05:00

The New York Times reported today that Democrats endorse the idea of more early primaries to "add more racial, ethnic, regional, and economic diversity to the process of choosing a Democratic nominee." Iowa and New Hampshire have little diversity in their populations. Back-to-back wins in these primaries give a boost to early nominees before large, diverse states add their voices to the process. This plan would allow up to two states to hold caucuses between Iowa and New Hampshire, before the rest of the states choose candidates beginning Feb 5. John Kerry's early wins in 2004 propelled him into the lead, giving him a psychological advantage, before a better cross-section of votes showed their preferences. He may have had the lead anyway, but I agree with the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee, that their plan would better serve Democrats nationwide. Only New Hampshire voted against the idea. Our own Carl Levin endorsed the idea. See another take at
Washington Post article
for more info.
(Not sure how long this link will be available.)

Some MI political blogs that might be worth your time, and spur discussion:

2006-03-11T17:37:00.000-05:00

Michigan Liberal

Politics Michigan

Michigan Supreme Court

What topics would you like to discuss?

2006-03-11T12:34:00.000-05:00