You'd think that a Romney might figure out that Newt and Fannie (jokes write themseleves) would bring on a Bain hit. That it didn't seem to dawn on him (them) kind of points up their view on capitalism. There was a time, a long time ago (before I had a furry face), that business thought corporate raiders were akin to pond scum though a bit lower in elevation. The words "bankruptcy, out-sourcing, lay-offs are a big easily documented piece of Bain type "business." It is plain amateur hour to go after someones business when your own has big capital letter STOP signs all over it.
You know I think they're both sad pieces of work, but for such a shapeshifter of political conveniences as Romney to not get this is stunning in its incompetence. Keep in mind that this is the guy that the Media portrayed as the inevitible smart candidate - now they've got their Newt toy, so we'll see what they come up with.
The GOP is the Party Of Business, think about it. I don't know exactly what that says about "business" in the US, it doesn't seem kind.
Showing posts with label Corporations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corporations. Show all posts
Monday, December 12, 2011
Friday, April 03, 2009
WSJ Gigs CEO Comps, What?
It seems that CEOs and corporate compensation boards didn't get the memo, you know, the one that says something to the effect that ordinary Americans are a bit ticked by the Masters Of The Universe scale compensation of CEOs. If the government isn't bailing out a company or buying the damn thing it can't really tell a company how much to pay its CEO, but there is a little issue of a great big chunk of a fixed amount of money going to one individual. There is an idea that huge compensation is required to keep the kind of talent needed to run a corporation, comparing these folks to athletic superstars. The Wall Street Journal has a report, For Some CEOs, the Perks Keep Flowing, that I wouldn't refer to as complimentary to the process.
Dana makes pretty good products, they have a reputation within the auto community that is good. In relative terms some of their stuff is pretty expensive, but you could buy a lot of that for $2.3M and that buying would involve incomes for making it. Note that this is not salary, this is a perk - an add on to their income in value.
Dana isn't alone in the practice of "gross up" and isn't particularly egregious considering the median of 76 companies surveyed is $16,400 but you can consider this:
When you're paying the taxes on the things you probably ought to be able to present the stockholders with good reasons for them - or not.
Ummm, Ok...?
Go ahead and figure that one out.
I really don't have any real objection to people making money, even a lot of money but there is an issue of how much goes into one place and how much gets spread around the company. There is also an issue as to what the actual value of any given CEO amounts to. It would seem that if the CEO took some level of personal responsibility for the performance of the company, in other words risk, there would be a justification for this kind of compensation.
I'm pretty sure this is a matter of an artificial market price.
The Toledo, Ohio, auto supplier, which emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in January 2008, spent $2.3 million last year on chartered planes to fly its chairman and chief executive, John M. Devine, and its vice chairman and former CEO, Gary L. Convis, to and from their California homes, according to its latest proxy statement.
Dana makes pretty good products, they have a reputation within the auto community that is good. In relative terms some of their stuff is pretty expensive, but you could buy a lot of that for $2.3M and that buying would involve incomes for making it. Note that this is not salary, this is a perk - an add on to their income in value.
Dana sold its six corporate aircraft to cut costs before and after entering Chapter 11 in March 2006. Company spokesman Chuck Hartlage said directors agreed to pay for Messrs. Devine and Convis's commutes to lure the seasoned auto executives out of retirement.
He said the executives' total direct compensation last year, not including benefits, which is valued by the Journal at $8.5 million for Mr. Devine and $6.2 million for Mr. Convis, is "very much in line with similarly situated peers."
Dana also reimbursed the pair for more than $43,000 in taxes associated with the travel expenses, highlighting another controversial benefit: tax "gross-ups" on perks.
Dana isn't alone in the practice of "gross up" and isn't particularly egregious considering the median of 76 companies surveyed is $16,400 but you can consider this:
Oil-field services provider BJ Services Co. spent the most on gross-ups, reimbursing CEO J.W. Stewart $718,800 for the taxes on his bonus and certain equity awards. A BJ Services spokesman was unavailable for comment.
When you're paying the taxes on the things you probably ought to be able to present the stockholders with good reasons for them - or not.
Ferro Corp., a Cleveland maker of industrial coatings, reimbursed CEO James F. Kirsch for a $100,000 initiation fee at the Pepper Pike Country Club. The board had suggested he join "to enhance networking opportunities with other Cleveland area CEOs," according to Ferro's proxy statement.
Ummm, Ok...?
One company trimmed perks after an unusual shareholder revolt. InfoGroup Inc., an Omaha, Neb., database concern, sold its corporate yacht for $1.5 million in October 2008 after a shareholder suit alleged abusive personal spending by founder Vinod Gupta, according to Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
Mr. Gupta resigned as CEO last August and agreed to repay $9 million. But he received a $10 million severance package and remains on the company's board, according to the filings. Mr. Gupta couldn't be immediately reached.
Go ahead and figure that one out.
I really don't have any real objection to people making money, even a lot of money but there is an issue of how much goes into one place and how much gets spread around the company. There is also an issue as to what the actual value of any given CEO amounts to. It would seem that if the CEO took some level of personal responsibility for the performance of the company, in other words risk, there would be a justification for this kind of compensation.
I'm pretty sure this is a matter of an artificial market price.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Do NOT Test Meat
The US Court of Appeals for the DC District ruled Friday that the Department of Agriculture can stop meat packers from testing their cattle for mad cow disease. Yes this is exactly right, the USDA is preventing Creekstone Farms Premium Beef a Kansas meatpacker from testing all its cattle. The why is even more interesting.
Big packers don't like the idea of the little packer being able to advertise that they test all beef versus the big ones doing ordinary partial testing and making a "guarantee" that their beef is safe. They would be "forced" to do the expensive testing also... So, hmmm. Who is it that the government actually protects here? The citizens of the US? Small business? Bet you can guess....
The Court ruled that it is within the scope of the Government's authority to limit testing. USA Today
Big packers don't like the idea of the little packer being able to advertise that they test all beef versus the big ones doing ordinary partial testing and making a "guarantee" that their beef is safe. They would be "forced" to do the expensive testing also... So, hmmm. Who is it that the government actually protects here? The citizens of the US? Small business? Bet you can guess....
The Court ruled that it is within the scope of the Government's authority to limit testing. USA Today
Thursday, November 22, 2007
How To Profit From War, Parsons Corp
Maybe you remember a slight difficulty in Iraq with a Police Academy, one that had crumbling walls and sewage running from the ceilings and walls? The name of the US contractor who had charge of that $72 million project was Parsons Corporation. The NYT reported 11/06/07 that the 'problems' had yet to be rectified. Parsons seems entirely overwrought with remorse:
Folks, I'm a contractor, nowhere in Parson's universe, and I know that you almost have to try to make this big a mess. This is a training academy not a 5 star hotel or mansion, it is not that difficult. There are ways screw it up this bad and they generally involve cheating.
All Federal Candidates:
2000 $75,250 (38% to Democrats, 60% to Republicans)
2002 $130,500 (43% to Democrats, 57% to Republicans)
2004 $270,500 (50% to Democrats, 50% to Republicans)
2006 $417,050 (49% to Democrats, 50% to Republicans)
2008 $209,000 (61% to Democrats, 39% to Republicans) to date
Numbers courtesy Open Secrets
Now it seems that not too long after the BushCo started to make it clear that they'd like to outsource government it became important to influence thinking as much as possible. Now '04 was a Presidential cycle, but it sure seemed awfully important, not to mention that the war started in '03. The '06 cycle didn't involve any Presidential campaigns ( in '04 $0 went to Democratic Presidential) but there sure was profit to be made from death and destruction and governmental largess with the kind of oversight that Stuart Bowen found so "useful."
There's a $45 billion reconstruction project turkey to cut up in Iraq, in '04 Parsons had contracts worth up to $800 million. By 6/06 the Army Corp had cancelled a $99.1 million contract for a prison that was 1 year behind schedule, weeks after a $300 million contract to build clinics and hospitals was canceled for non-performance.
So, it's worth pretty big bucks to candidates to get work worth a lot of money but the doing of it seems not quite as worthwhile. We need some more of this, let's be sure to elect the same mindset to Congress and President, Parsons would be appreciative...
A company spokeswoman, Erin Kuhlman, said that Parsons, which is based in Pasadena, Calif., had strictly abided by the terms of the contract it had received from the United States Army Corps of Engineers to do the work at the academy.It seems that in July of '06 the Army wasn't happy with sewage running out the ceilings. Parsons put them in contact with the Iraqi subcontractor. In July and August of '06 the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, an independent agency led by Stuart W. Bowen Jr. took a look and was distinctly unhappy, finding “indications of potential fraud” and oversight by the Army Corp and Parsons to have virtually nonexistent.
“Parsons completed its work at the Baghdad Police College in the spring of 2006,” Ms. Kuhlman said, adding that the Army Corps accepted the work as completed at about the same time.
Folks, I'm a contractor, nowhere in Parson's universe, and I know that you almost have to try to make this big a mess. This is a training academy not a 5 star hotel or mansion, it is not that difficult. There are ways screw it up this bad and they generally involve cheating.
On Sept. 28, 2006, as the inspector general’s report was released, Earnest O. Robbins II, a senior vice president at Parsons, testified before the House Government Reform Committee that the company would fix the problems at no extra charge. “We are repairing it at no cost to the government,” Mr. Robbins said in response to questions by Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland.On the Sunday previous to this 11/6/07 news report :
the American officer affiliated with the new project to repair the problems described an elaborate and costly effort to tear out and replace the plumbing on entire floors. The problems were so severe, the officer said, that the military had also been obliged to build new latrines outside and demolish some structures entirely and start over.Now if you've started to wonder if war is good for business and if they think it is there are some clues available as to their thinking, little deals like FEC filings, say Parsons starting in 2000 when there was no war to profit from
“These buildings are all Parsons-built,” said the officer. “The piping is bad. It really is. To be honest with you, it’s raw sewage, raw fecal matter coming out of the walls.”
All Federal Candidates:
2000 $75,250 (38% to Democrats, 60% to Republicans)
2002 $130,500 (43% to Democrats, 57% to Republicans)
2004 $270,500 (50% to Democrats, 50% to Republicans)
2006 $417,050 (49% to Democrats, 50% to Republicans)
2008 $209,000 (61% to Democrats, 39% to Republicans) to date
Numbers courtesy Open Secrets
Now it seems that not too long after the BushCo started to make it clear that they'd like to outsource government it became important to influence thinking as much as possible. Now '04 was a Presidential cycle, but it sure seemed awfully important, not to mention that the war started in '03. The '06 cycle didn't involve any Presidential campaigns ( in '04 $0 went to Democratic Presidential) but there sure was profit to be made from death and destruction and governmental largess with the kind of oversight that Stuart Bowen found so "useful."
There's a $45 billion reconstruction project turkey to cut up in Iraq, in '04 Parsons had contracts worth up to $800 million. By 6/06 the Army Corp had cancelled a $99.1 million contract for a prison that was 1 year behind schedule, weeks after a $300 million contract to build clinics and hospitals was canceled for non-performance.
So, it's worth pretty big bucks to candidates to get work worth a lot of money but the doing of it seems not quite as worthwhile. We need some more of this, let's be sure to elect the same mindset to Congress and President, Parsons would be appreciative...
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Even More Blackwater?
If you thought shooting up a traffic circle and killing an Iraqi official's staff member would cost Blackwater much of anything you probably forgot to factor in BushCo cronyism and theocratic favoritism. Maybe a company that engages in murder and other corruptions ought to be barred from the federal bid process, or maybe the federal bid process ought not include items of a military action nature and national security actions, but under BushCo that is the case.
Blackwater (WSJ) is in the running for a federal contract to provide anti-drug training for the Defense Department. "Companies competing for the work might be called on to develop detection or surveillance technology; train U.S. and foreign forces; or provide logistics, communications and information-technology systems, among other areas." I'm astonished that it seems even remotely possible that Blackwater would get such a job. Well, truthfully, I can't see why the federal government would outsource such a mission to private contractors, there are all sorts of legal issues involved in such activities...oh, I forgot, private companies are more likely than the feds to respect law and order.
At what point does the contempt of BushCo for the division of government and business end? What levels of corruption and mismanagement will it take to drive home the message that there are things the government ought to actually run? One of the brags the Mussolini Fascistic blending of government and business could make was "that at least the trains run on time." In this version the only train running on time is the one carrying bags of taxpayer's money out of town. BushCo and the neocons call it the privatization of government, it is no such thing, if it were private in any sense of the word it would be competing in the open market to deliver services to the public, it is not. Does anybody buy the idea that Blackwater is not a wholly owned subsidiary of BushCo? If this were not so, then Blackwater could exist without the taxpayer largess heaped upon it. I will stop short of using the Nazi fascist model, the Fuhrer cult of personality is missing beyond the deadend 28%, but it is a perverted sort of Italian Fasciti operation.
Take a look at the prime contractors for the Fed and their political entanglements and influence, and see which would survive without Federal tax dollars and which are so intimate with the Feds that they are insulated from the consequences of their incompetence and corruption. The results of Dick Cheney's administration of Halliburton was to leave the company on the verge of bankruptcy - hardly so today - despite cheating on no-bid contracts serving US combat troops. Mercenary Blackwater thrives, contributes redistributed tax dollars right back into BushCo, while it murders and steals. GE thrives on government military contracts and runs mass media. I could go on and on, but why? Congress will do nothing and George II has another year and couple months to continue to rape the Treasury for his favorites and from the looks of it enough people seem to think Hillary is different. ahahahahah
Blackwater (WSJ) is in the running for a federal contract to provide anti-drug training for the Defense Department. "Companies competing for the work might be called on to develop detection or surveillance technology; train U.S. and foreign forces; or provide logistics, communications and information-technology systems, among other areas." I'm astonished that it seems even remotely possible that Blackwater would get such a job. Well, truthfully, I can't see why the federal government would outsource such a mission to private contractors, there are all sorts of legal issues involved in such activities...oh, I forgot, private companies are more likely than the feds to respect law and order.
At what point does the contempt of BushCo for the division of government and business end? What levels of corruption and mismanagement will it take to drive home the message that there are things the government ought to actually run? One of the brags the Mussolini Fascistic blending of government and business could make was "that at least the trains run on time." In this version the only train running on time is the one carrying bags of taxpayer's money out of town. BushCo and the neocons call it the privatization of government, it is no such thing, if it were private in any sense of the word it would be competing in the open market to deliver services to the public, it is not. Does anybody buy the idea that Blackwater is not a wholly owned subsidiary of BushCo? If this were not so, then Blackwater could exist without the taxpayer largess heaped upon it. I will stop short of using the Nazi fascist model, the Fuhrer cult of personality is missing beyond the deadend 28%, but it is a perverted sort of Italian Fasciti operation.
Take a look at the prime contractors for the Fed and their political entanglements and influence, and see which would survive without Federal tax dollars and which are so intimate with the Feds that they are insulated from the consequences of their incompetence and corruption. The results of Dick Cheney's administration of Halliburton was to leave the company on the verge of bankruptcy - hardly so today - despite cheating on no-bid contracts serving US combat troops. Mercenary Blackwater thrives, contributes redistributed tax dollars right back into BushCo, while it murders and steals. GE thrives on government military contracts and runs mass media. I could go on and on, but why? Congress will do nothing and George II has another year and couple months to continue to rape the Treasury for his favorites and from the looks of it enough people seem to think Hillary is different. ahahahahah
Sunday, October 28, 2007
BAE Corrupts, McConnell Earmarks
BAE, a British military contractor, is under investigation by the Justice Department and in trouble in Britain so it would seem only right that Senate Minority Leader McConnell would earmark $25 million for them. It probably helps do the right thing when the company donates $500,000 to the McConnell Center at U. of Louisville and contributes $53,000 to his campaign since his 2002 re-election. Just to connect the dots, BAE is under investigation for bribery in Suadi Arabia, apparently the Arabs just aren't as sophisticated as Republican Senators.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Iraq US Embassy, Junk?
I'll preface this with a disclosure, I am a construction contractor, I do not do large commercial projects, nor do I install plumbing or electrical. I understand bid processes and I understand end products and I understand sub-contractors. They turned on the fire sprinkler system in the new Bhagdad Embassy and...it's junk. Joints burst, McClatchy's story takes us downhill from there. This $592 million dollar project is a disaster, it's on time (or was) and on budget (or was) and nobody is investigating.
State Dept Inspector General Howard Krongard refused to aggressively investigate according to former top investigators including former Asst Inspector General for Investigations John DeDona. Problems with this mess include having the wiring melt down, failure to install a blast proof wall, and allegations of near slavery hiring practices. You might be wondering what US company could possibly make such a mess, well, the builder is First Kuwaiti General Trade and Contracting Co. There is a bit of a story there as well; ah geeze, there's a bit of a story with everything involving Iraq it seems. I'm sure you remember something about emergency no bid contracts, here's another one.
Quite a few US contractors were interested in building this embassy, in fact it was put up for bid three times, with specifications changes each time, and finally issued to First Kuwaiti making a number of contractors unhappy, David Phinney in a Special to CorpWatch, got comments from contractors like:
“It's stunning what First Kuwaiti has been able to get from the State Department..."
“It was political..."
Everybody needs to make money, right? Well, somebody sure is, Mohammad I. H. Marafie, chairman and co-owner of FKTC, is a member of one of the most powerful mercantile families in Kuwait.
Here's the real rub, some of the US firms had lower bids, $60-70 million lower and experience in such construction projects. I suppose you'd think there would be a limit to the cronyism in BushCo, though apparently Condi's patience with the schedule is wearing thin, not thin enough to actually do something, see Krongard...
It's not like this monster isn't the largest and most secure Embassy the US has or proposes, it's not like Iraq hasn't swallowed money like quicksand, it's not like everything BushCo does in that country with money doesn't have a political connection, damn, it's not even as though their favorite crony, Halliburton , Cheney's employer, hasn't shown the corruption of no-bid........
And the Republicans have the nerve to talk about and campaign on taxes and spending responsibility? In Japan they'd shut up and commit Hari Kari, here they run for President.
State Dept Inspector General Howard Krongard refused to aggressively investigate according to former top investigators including former Asst Inspector General for Investigations John DeDona. Problems with this mess include having the wiring melt down, failure to install a blast proof wall, and allegations of near slavery hiring practices. You might be wondering what US company could possibly make such a mess, well, the builder is First Kuwaiti General Trade and Contracting Co. There is a bit of a story there as well; ah geeze, there's a bit of a story with everything involving Iraq it seems. I'm sure you remember something about emergency no bid contracts, here's another one.
Quite a few US contractors were interested in building this embassy, in fact it was put up for bid three times, with specifications changes each time, and finally issued to First Kuwaiti making a number of contractors unhappy, David Phinney in a Special to CorpWatch, got comments from contractors like:
“It's stunning what First Kuwaiti has been able to get from the State Department..."
“It was political..."
Several other contractors that competed for the embassy contracts shared similar reactions and believe that a high-level decision at the State Department was made to favor a Kuwait-based firm in appreciation for Kuwait's support of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Everybody needs to make money, right? Well, somebody sure is, Mohammad I. H. Marafie, chairman and co-owner of FKTC, is a member of one of the most powerful mercantile families in Kuwait.
The company boasted of having $35 million in assets less than three years ago. Today, the firm has racked up hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. contracts in Iraq, pushing the company well past the $1 billion mark. With 7,000 employees in Iraq, the company claims to be holding $800 million in construction and supply contracts directly with the Army for military camps, plus more than $300 million under Halliburton 's multibillion dollar contract to perform military logistics for the occupation forces in Iraq.
Here's the real rub, some of the US firms had lower bids, $60-70 million lower and experience in such construction projects. I suppose you'd think there would be a limit to the cronyism in BushCo, though apparently Condi's patience with the schedule is wearing thin, not thin enough to actually do something, see Krongard...
It's not like this monster isn't the largest and most secure Embassy the US has or proposes, it's not like Iraq hasn't swallowed money like quicksand, it's not like everything BushCo does in that country with money doesn't have a political connection, damn, it's not even as though their favorite crony, Halliburton , Cheney's employer, hasn't shown the corruption of no-bid........
And the Republicans have the nerve to talk about and campaign on taxes and spending responsibility? In Japan they'd shut up and commit Hari Kari, here they run for President.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Humboldt Co, CA Said No To Corporate Personhood
In 2006 Humboldt Co passed Measure T, which bans non-local corporations from participating in local elections and further denies that the artificial entity "corporation" has a claim to First Amendment Free Speech. Well, I'd like to know how I missed it until now. My tip off came from AlterNet and Loaded Orygun and I won't mess about with their work.
I have long wondered how exactly it came about that the fictional entity status of corporations designed to allow them to enter into contracts and participate in the legal arena morphed into the concept of personhood. I suppose if I had time (and a real driving curiosity) I could dig into the SCOTUS and find what they claimed, but philosophically I'm a bit conflicted.
Now I run an S Corp, which has about as much relationship to MicroSoft as the stone in your yard does to the moon, but I have to understand what it is that I own. Mostly that's to stay out of Court and to know what my accountant needs for what. What I own is a paper thing that can make contracts, pay bills, own stuff, and sue or be sued - which leaves me (mostly) personally out of that fray and I enjoy certain tax benefits. Now I certainly don't view that S Corp as more than a business convenience. The S Corp exists because the State allows it to through a registration and a fulfillment of certain requirements, it is a creature of the State. It was born of paper and ink and exists only in that realm. It has certain assets and individual/s involved in ownership but it certainly has no blood or thinking processes of its own. How it qualifies for the natural right to freedom of speech is beyond me, it is a wholly artificial construct.
I suppose that the crunch comes when people band together to create a political activism construct and begin to put together an infrastructure. A speech organization with property has to have some mechanism to own it, pay bills, and possibly enter into legal activities, and that is what a corporation is about, allowing a multiply held construct to engage as a singular entity. Having 1o,000 members sign a check would be rather troublesome and a contract with all those signatures might be a bit unwieldy. Most of the "free press" are corporations.
Hmmm. I wonder what you have to say? I'm kind of stuck on this one.
I have long wondered how exactly it came about that the fictional entity status of corporations designed to allow them to enter into contracts and participate in the legal arena morphed into the concept of personhood. I suppose if I had time (and a real driving curiosity) I could dig into the SCOTUS and find what they claimed, but philosophically I'm a bit conflicted.
Now I run an S Corp, which has about as much relationship to MicroSoft as the stone in your yard does to the moon, but I have to understand what it is that I own. Mostly that's to stay out of Court and to know what my accountant needs for what. What I own is a paper thing that can make contracts, pay bills, own stuff, and sue or be sued - which leaves me (mostly) personally out of that fray and I enjoy certain tax benefits. Now I certainly don't view that S Corp as more than a business convenience. The S Corp exists because the State allows it to through a registration and a fulfillment of certain requirements, it is a creature of the State. It was born of paper and ink and exists only in that realm. It has certain assets and individual/s involved in ownership but it certainly has no blood or thinking processes of its own. How it qualifies for the natural right to freedom of speech is beyond me, it is a wholly artificial construct.
I suppose that the crunch comes when people band together to create a political activism construct and begin to put together an infrastructure. A speech organization with property has to have some mechanism to own it, pay bills, and possibly enter into legal activities, and that is what a corporation is about, allowing a multiply held construct to engage as a singular entity. Having 1o,000 members sign a check would be rather troublesome and a contract with all those signatures might be a bit unwieldy. Most of the "free press" are corporations.
Hmmm. I wonder what you have to say? I'm kind of stuck on this one.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
You're Under Attack, and Have Been
The citizens of the United States of America are under attack and no, it is not by the maniacs of Al-Qaeda, it comes from within. The sleeper cells are our own citizens and their foreign partners. We stare out across oceans worrying and the attack is already here. You think GeorgeII is the problem, if you look in.
There are four pillars of actual government and three supporting ones, there are in the pillars the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial and then the free and independent press. The support system consists of and electorate, the free expression of religion, and the freedom to associate for the redress of grievances. These, the absolute foundation of American government, are now under sustained and determined attack. The attack is carried on without bombs and bullets, the blood and smoke are elsewhere.
The Executive branch has become a political tool, people forget that the vast majority of bureaucracy is within the Executive and its hiring policies are now politico/religious. The aims of the political heads of the Executive are now the rule enforcer's bible. The nuts and bolts of the running of government are now in political hands. Hatch act be damned. The mechanisms of government are now in the hands of the political faithful and the infrastructure is used as a Party extension. The enduring strength of the Executive was the brake applied by the rules and those in whose care the rules resided - no more.
The Legislative branch is held hostage by the high cost of election, placing the funding in the hands of wealth and elite businesses. Be under no illusion that the situation is of an accidental nature, the reinforcing elements are intimately entwined, both organizationally and economically. The cost of actual legislation is huge, the research and drafting costs are beyond the budget of most legislators, this cost is passed on to those with an interest and those most able to afford expressing that interest are wealth and business elites. The growth of the non-voting electorate and of the non-affiliated vote drive up the cost per vote and make more likely a rule The huge costs of reaching voters is borne increasing by corporate wealth which is the ownership of the method of reaching out, thus the owners of dissemination are the financiers of the politicians. Beyond the actual financing is the spread of the canard that a vote does not count and is somehow for sale, while in absolute terms the vote is still in the hands of the voter, a constant drumbeat of media propaganda leads to the devaluation of grassroots contributions and the depression of the vote.
The Judicial branch is under constant attack from religious zealots, partisan interference, and the Executive and Legislative. Nominations second competency to partisan issues and religious correctness, interpretation of law is seen as legislation from the bench by the right as they engage in exactly the same behavior. Judicial funding is threatened by Legislators, the body responsible for the writing of the law. The Executive, who nominates federal judge ships, refers to the Constitution as a mere "piece of paper."
A free and independent press is virtually non-existent today, the constriction of media ownership and its concentration in non-media corporate hands leads to a situation where the ownership has a vested interest in the corporate viewpoint. News and programing reflects the desires of ownership and the constriction means a narrower range of desires is reflected. Political careers depend upon that media, to express their policies and votes and then their qualities as candidates. Restricted news budgets push journalists into an unhealthy dependency upon government sources and their good will to get news, resulting in the parroting of official positions. Programing can easily become propagandist, violence and ethical disconnects are a steady fare, protagonists frequently violate both actual legal limits and ethical/moral constraints "for the general good." The moral depravity in media so frequently bemoaned by the religious right is sexual in nature rather than the violations of their creed in actual morality, which they approve. The media is attacked as left or right biased, canards, the bias is corporate supporting the pursuit of profit rather than an actual political ideology.
The attack on the electorate is multi-pronged, it comes from the four pillars and the corporate interests. The Executive operates as though it has some kind of "mandate," ignoring that it represents the interests of the entire citizenry, regardless of their vote or party, the Legislative panders for votes and then represents its financing constituency or a narrow base, the judicial refuses to enforce the very real franchise rights of citizens, bowing to political and media pressures. The press leaves the electorate uninformed and propagandized, increasing the advantages of incumbency. Legal fictions and corporate interests are allowed to drive down voter rolls through disenfranchisement, and to spread the propagandist notion that voting is a purchasable commodity of little value to the ordinary citizen. While the media will run public service announcements touting voting, the ordinary runs devalue it. The electorate is misinformed, mislead, and discouraged to the point where it is considered a success to achieve a 53% turnout, resulting in elections won by nearly a quarter of eligible voters.
Free expression of religion is being consistently undermined by Executive writs, legislation, judicial fiats, press slants, and religious pressure. Religion is co-opted by government monies and promises of government interference in public neutrality. Tax exempt religion is used in political activities prohibited to it, and religious activities permissible are harassed on tax basis. There is across the board encouragement of legislation of religious tenets and a lessening of the teaching of the actual core beliefs of the religions.
Free association is discouraged and prevented, dissent is framed as traitorous and union organization is complicated to the point of prevention. Free speech zones are established to keep expression away from officials and media. Low power radio is restricted and prohibited, political organizations are ignored if not in favor or unless they commit a gaffe. Grass roots organizations fight for public notice, corporate favored organizations need only reach out.
This is only a light overview, it should be frightening, if you'd really like to be frightened take any one of these core elements of the US government and research it. If you wonder why government is ineffective at representing the ordinary citizen, think about this, and who it is that benefits.
There are four pillars of actual government and three supporting ones, there are in the pillars the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial and then the free and independent press. The support system consists of and electorate, the free expression of religion, and the freedom to associate for the redress of grievances. These, the absolute foundation of American government, are now under sustained and determined attack. The attack is carried on without bombs and bullets, the blood and smoke are elsewhere.
The Executive branch has become a political tool, people forget that the vast majority of bureaucracy is within the Executive and its hiring policies are now politico/religious. The aims of the political heads of the Executive are now the rule enforcer's bible. The nuts and bolts of the running of government are now in political hands. Hatch act be damned. The mechanisms of government are now in the hands of the political faithful and the infrastructure is used as a Party extension. The enduring strength of the Executive was the brake applied by the rules and those in whose care the rules resided - no more.
The Legislative branch is held hostage by the high cost of election, placing the funding in the hands of wealth and elite businesses. Be under no illusion that the situation is of an accidental nature, the reinforcing elements are intimately entwined, both organizationally and economically. The cost of actual legislation is huge, the research and drafting costs are beyond the budget of most legislators, this cost is passed on to those with an interest and those most able to afford expressing that interest are wealth and business elites. The growth of the non-voting electorate and of the non-affiliated vote drive up the cost per vote and make more likely a rule The huge costs of reaching voters is borne increasing by corporate wealth which is the ownership of the method of reaching out, thus the owners of dissemination are the financiers of the politicians. Beyond the actual financing is the spread of the canard that a vote does not count and is somehow for sale, while in absolute terms the vote is still in the hands of the voter, a constant drumbeat of media propaganda leads to the devaluation of grassroots contributions and the depression of the vote.
The Judicial branch is under constant attack from religious zealots, partisan interference, and the Executive and Legislative. Nominations second competency to partisan issues and religious correctness, interpretation of law is seen as legislation from the bench by the right as they engage in exactly the same behavior. Judicial funding is threatened by Legislators, the body responsible for the writing of the law. The Executive, who nominates federal judge ships, refers to the Constitution as a mere "piece of paper."
A free and independent press is virtually non-existent today, the constriction of media ownership and its concentration in non-media corporate hands leads to a situation where the ownership has a vested interest in the corporate viewpoint. News and programing reflects the desires of ownership and the constriction means a narrower range of desires is reflected. Political careers depend upon that media, to express their policies and votes and then their qualities as candidates. Restricted news budgets push journalists into an unhealthy dependency upon government sources and their good will to get news, resulting in the parroting of official positions. Programing can easily become propagandist, violence and ethical disconnects are a steady fare, protagonists frequently violate both actual legal limits and ethical/moral constraints "for the general good." The moral depravity in media so frequently bemoaned by the religious right is sexual in nature rather than the violations of their creed in actual morality, which they approve. The media is attacked as left or right biased, canards, the bias is corporate supporting the pursuit of profit rather than an actual political ideology.
The attack on the electorate is multi-pronged, it comes from the four pillars and the corporate interests. The Executive operates as though it has some kind of "mandate," ignoring that it represents the interests of the entire citizenry, regardless of their vote or party, the Legislative panders for votes and then represents its financing constituency or a narrow base, the judicial refuses to enforce the very real franchise rights of citizens, bowing to political and media pressures. The press leaves the electorate uninformed and propagandized, increasing the advantages of incumbency. Legal fictions and corporate interests are allowed to drive down voter rolls through disenfranchisement, and to spread the propagandist notion that voting is a purchasable commodity of little value to the ordinary citizen. While the media will run public service announcements touting voting, the ordinary runs devalue it. The electorate is misinformed, mislead, and discouraged to the point where it is considered a success to achieve a 53% turnout, resulting in elections won by nearly a quarter of eligible voters.
Free expression of religion is being consistently undermined by Executive writs, legislation, judicial fiats, press slants, and religious pressure. Religion is co-opted by government monies and promises of government interference in public neutrality. Tax exempt religion is used in political activities prohibited to it, and religious activities permissible are harassed on tax basis. There is across the board encouragement of legislation of religious tenets and a lessening of the teaching of the actual core beliefs of the religions.
Free association is discouraged and prevented, dissent is framed as traitorous and union organization is complicated to the point of prevention. Free speech zones are established to keep expression away from officials and media. Low power radio is restricted and prohibited, political organizations are ignored if not in favor or unless they commit a gaffe. Grass roots organizations fight for public notice, corporate favored organizations need only reach out.
This is only a light overview, it should be frightening, if you'd really like to be frightened take any one of these core elements of the US government and research it. If you wonder why government is ineffective at representing the ordinary citizen, think about this, and who it is that benefits.
Monday, February 05, 2007
The Patronage Plan
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate has this to say about patronage: 5 a: the power to make appointments to government jobs esp. for political advantage.
Through the centuries patronage has been one of the banes of governmental efficiency, people got jobs they weren't up to or ran the jobs to benefit their benefactor rather than the citizenry. It is a practice that stretches back to time immemorial though some examples are fairly recent and instructive. The Boss Tweed administration of New York stands out on the scale of corruption, though Chicago and St Louis were right in the running. The institution of Civil Service Boards and Administrations was designed to relegate patronage to the dust bin of history, though it left plenty of nooks and crannies for political rewards in Agency heads, Ambassadorships, and other appointments. One of the great achievements of civil service was that the "troops" were competent enough and merit responsible enough to keep egregious failures as chief from doing great harm. Things have changed.
The The NY Times has an article about contractors which you may find frightening in the extent and breath of US governmental contracting outsourcing. The GSA hired a contractor to process claims of ...(wait for it)... government contractor fraud and abuse. The GSA had to do the hiring because allegations of abuse outstripped its ability to process claims, that means - a lot of claims. From 2000 through 2006 the federal spending on contractors went from $207 billion to $400 billion, yes that's billion with a "B." If there are 300 million Americans, that's $1,000 per man, woman, and child in the country for contractors. Do you feel like you've gotten your money's worth?
Now Republican philosophy of government (less) and free market (for the rich folk) is supposed to accomplish a few things through certain means. Competition is supposed to reduce cost and improve service - 48% of contracts are competitive. Supervision of contracts has gone down, the number of supervisors has remained static while spending has skyrocketed. With reduced supervision getting contracts has less to do with competence and pricing and more to do with contacts and ability to game the contracting process. You cannot have competition in an arena where actions are hidden, companies are not subject to the FOIA and can bury their actions under layers and layers of subcontractors.
To understand the level of contractor spending, Lockheed Martin gets more money than the Dept of Justice or Energy while spending $53 million on lobbying and $6 million on donations. The top 20 service contractors since 2000 spent $300 million on lobbying and $23 million on political campaigns. Some of these businesses get 90-95% of their income from government contracting, they are no longer businesses but pseudo agencies.
I may be just a small time construction contractor from NE OR, but I can see a lot of money and a lot of opportunities for corruption. Not just in contract failures but throughout the entire system, through the agencies, their political appointees, and their elected "masters" in the White House. It bears remembering that Cheney's actions as CEO of Halliburton took it from one of the most profitable companies in its industry to one facing bankruptcy. BushCo indeed.
Through the centuries patronage has been one of the banes of governmental efficiency, people got jobs they weren't up to or ran the jobs to benefit their benefactor rather than the citizenry. It is a practice that stretches back to time immemorial though some examples are fairly recent and instructive. The Boss Tweed administration of New York stands out on the scale of corruption, though Chicago and St Louis were right in the running. The institution of Civil Service Boards and Administrations was designed to relegate patronage to the dust bin of history, though it left plenty of nooks and crannies for political rewards in Agency heads, Ambassadorships, and other appointments. One of the great achievements of civil service was that the "troops" were competent enough and merit responsible enough to keep egregious failures as chief from doing great harm. Things have changed.
The The NY Times has an article about contractors which you may find frightening in the extent and breath of US governmental contracting outsourcing. The GSA hired a contractor to process claims of ...(wait for it)... government contractor fraud and abuse. The GSA had to do the hiring because allegations of abuse outstripped its ability to process claims, that means - a lot of claims. From 2000 through 2006 the federal spending on contractors went from $207 billion to $400 billion, yes that's billion with a "B." If there are 300 million Americans, that's $1,000 per man, woman, and child in the country for contractors. Do you feel like you've gotten your money's worth?
Now Republican philosophy of government (less) and free market (for the rich folk) is supposed to accomplish a few things through certain means. Competition is supposed to reduce cost and improve service - 48% of contracts are competitive. Supervision of contracts has gone down, the number of supervisors has remained static while spending has skyrocketed. With reduced supervision getting contracts has less to do with competence and pricing and more to do with contacts and ability to game the contracting process. You cannot have competition in an arena where actions are hidden, companies are not subject to the FOIA and can bury their actions under layers and layers of subcontractors.
To understand the level of contractor spending, Lockheed Martin gets more money than the Dept of Justice or Energy while spending $53 million on lobbying and $6 million on donations. The top 20 service contractors since 2000 spent $300 million on lobbying and $23 million on political campaigns. Some of these businesses get 90-95% of their income from government contracting, they are no longer businesses but pseudo agencies.
I may be just a small time construction contractor from NE OR, but I can see a lot of money and a lot of opportunities for corruption. Not just in contract failures but throughout the entire system, through the agencies, their political appointees, and their elected "masters" in the White House. It bears remembering that Cheney's actions as CEO of Halliburton took it from one of the most profitable companies in its industry to one facing bankruptcy. BushCo indeed.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
A Biased Media
My last post provoked some thinking and much of what's been going on for the last few years just sort of piled on for the ride. I do think there is medial bias and I think it goes deeper than is commonly acknowleged. I'm also not sure the topic is broken up into realistic segments.
I think there are different types of media bias that occur for different reasons. The foremost bias right now seems to be political Party bias. In this one we see some of the big issues, corporatization of media, constriction of ownership, governmental interference, governmental favors. Corporate media has problems with the other corporate owned elements and additionally with corporate advertisers. Constricted ownership means a restriction of voices and neglect of local or regional perspective. Government threats are obvious enough, but favors granted are less so, Fox is an excellent example of a favor owed.
There are deeper biases, these are sociological and economic. The background of reporters and editors matters. The ability to clearly see issues in their various facets is to a great extent driven by experience. This is not to say that it is necessary to be, for example, gay to report on a story that has implications for the gay community, but it is important to have a solid background on that community, to know what the implications are actually are. This backgrounding is important, I have read in major stories some of the most profoundly ignorant statements made regarding firearms, the authors and editors had no evident knowledge of a firearm beyond, "it goes bang." The obvious problem is that factually inaccurate information is bruited as "news." The factual inaccuracies are bad enough, but there is additionally the lack of understanding of gun owners, the people - a varied lot - not a simple demographic or statistic. There is a blindness to vast segments of society, these are people who live very different lives than the reporters and editors and there is a divorcement in experience and perspective which leads to important pieces of the news picture being missed or ignored.
When a news story regarding the vandalism of some logging trucks runs, a reporter with little understanding of small business can easily neglect the aspect of the story involving the total ruin of a logger's business which devalues the actual crime committed, it becomes on par with sitting down in a road. A lifetime's work destroyed and hard working honest employees out of work is a real consequence that needs public awareness. This little article can scarcely touch on these aspects, but hopefully spark some thinking and critical news watching.
I doubt that it is possible to avoid all such instances of bias or ignorance, but it certainly is possible to attempt to minimize them. This requires an acknowlegement of ignorance and a willingness to do something about it, I'm afraid there's an arrogance that precludes it.
I think there are different types of media bias that occur for different reasons. The foremost bias right now seems to be political Party bias. In this one we see some of the big issues, corporatization of media, constriction of ownership, governmental interference, governmental favors. Corporate media has problems with the other corporate owned elements and additionally with corporate advertisers. Constricted ownership means a restriction of voices and neglect of local or regional perspective. Government threats are obvious enough, but favors granted are less so, Fox is an excellent example of a favor owed.
There are deeper biases, these are sociological and economic. The background of reporters and editors matters. The ability to clearly see issues in their various facets is to a great extent driven by experience. This is not to say that it is necessary to be, for example, gay to report on a story that has implications for the gay community, but it is important to have a solid background on that community, to know what the implications are actually are. This backgrounding is important, I have read in major stories some of the most profoundly ignorant statements made regarding firearms, the authors and editors had no evident knowledge of a firearm beyond, "it goes bang." The obvious problem is that factually inaccurate information is bruited as "news." The factual inaccuracies are bad enough, but there is additionally the lack of understanding of gun owners, the people - a varied lot - not a simple demographic or statistic. There is a blindness to vast segments of society, these are people who live very different lives than the reporters and editors and there is a divorcement in experience and perspective which leads to important pieces of the news picture being missed or ignored.
When a news story regarding the vandalism of some logging trucks runs, a reporter with little understanding of small business can easily neglect the aspect of the story involving the total ruin of a logger's business which devalues the actual crime committed, it becomes on par with sitting down in a road. A lifetime's work destroyed and hard working honest employees out of work is a real consequence that needs public awareness. This little article can scarcely touch on these aspects, but hopefully spark some thinking and critical news watching.
I doubt that it is possible to avoid all such instances of bias or ignorance, but it certainly is possible to attempt to minimize them. This requires an acknowlegement of ignorance and a willingness to do something about it, I'm afraid there's an arrogance that precludes it.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Follow the Money
Seen a major news media story lately...or not seen one? There's a piece of analysis that would help your understanding, figure out what monied interest benefits. Whether the story supports your particular political bent or not stop and think about it.
I've complained about the constriction of media ownership before, and I'll do it again. There are vast amounts of money moving through the corporate owners of the media and their interests do not neccessarily coincide with the American public's interests. Let's back up in time a little and see what I'm talking about.
Enron. Right up until its collapse the corporation was touted as the wave of the "new" economy and an example of the benefits of de-regulation. But hey, there were warning signs all over the place that things were not as they seemed. Rolling blackouts in CA, skyrocketing energy prices, low profile complaints of gouging and manipulation by low profile (low readership) publications. These were ignored or ridiculed if noticed and certainly not ever mentioned after the collapse by major media. Of course little outfits don't have the resources to really investigate Big Business, but there are media companies with those resources, question is, do they have the will? Follow the money where? Enron got big and powerful through "de-regulation," that's the same philosophy that's created the media conglomorations, remember the mantra: lower prices, better service through the "free market." Yes, there are more money trails to be followed, but this is just a Blog, after all.
There are plenty of other examples that could be put up, but I've chosen one that is relatively uncontroversial and "politically neutral." If a story doesn't involve a local crime type issue the chances are it affects somebody's profit margin. Politics affect profit margins, ok that's not a news flash, but there seems to be a willingness to look at news as though it were news, sure there's the " I watch CNN and you watch FOX," type dispute, but even that is essentially meaningless, these medias are all controlled by a small group of very large corporations. The competition for viewers of one political bent over another is still nonsense as far as getting the truth about the world and our government, it is simply illustrative of the ability of a corporation to tailor the news to suit its ends.
One media outlet still exists as fairly open, the internet. Yes, there is a definite shortage of money for investigative reporting but the ability to quickly disseminate very local low budget discoveries gives it some clout - and interest to major media. So the story has to do with internet access, hmmm, where's the money? Do political types benefit? Do large money organizations benefit?
How about the Public's benefit?
I've complained about the constriction of media ownership before, and I'll do it again. There are vast amounts of money moving through the corporate owners of the media and their interests do not neccessarily coincide with the American public's interests. Let's back up in time a little and see what I'm talking about.
Enron. Right up until its collapse the corporation was touted as the wave of the "new" economy and an example of the benefits of de-regulation. But hey, there were warning signs all over the place that things were not as they seemed. Rolling blackouts in CA, skyrocketing energy prices, low profile complaints of gouging and manipulation by low profile (low readership) publications. These were ignored or ridiculed if noticed and certainly not ever mentioned after the collapse by major media. Of course little outfits don't have the resources to really investigate Big Business, but there are media companies with those resources, question is, do they have the will? Follow the money where? Enron got big and powerful through "de-regulation," that's the same philosophy that's created the media conglomorations, remember the mantra: lower prices, better service through the "free market." Yes, there are more money trails to be followed, but this is just a Blog, after all.
There are plenty of other examples that could be put up, but I've chosen one that is relatively uncontroversial and "politically neutral." If a story doesn't involve a local crime type issue the chances are it affects somebody's profit margin. Politics affect profit margins, ok that's not a news flash, but there seems to be a willingness to look at news as though it were news, sure there's the " I watch CNN and you watch FOX," type dispute, but even that is essentially meaningless, these medias are all controlled by a small group of very large corporations. The competition for viewers of one political bent over another is still nonsense as far as getting the truth about the world and our government, it is simply illustrative of the ability of a corporation to tailor the news to suit its ends.
One media outlet still exists as fairly open, the internet. Yes, there is a definite shortage of money for investigative reporting but the ability to quickly disseminate very local low budget discoveries gives it some clout - and interest to major media. So the story has to do with internet access, hmmm, where's the money? Do political types benefit? Do large money organizations benefit?
How about the Public's benefit?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)