Thursday, October 29, 2009

TaxProf Blog: Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed

TaxProf Blog: Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed

Assessing the Opt-Out - A Lessson from the Abortion Debate

Assessing the Opt-Out - A Lessson from the Abortion Debate

U.S. economy returns to growth, but recovery has a long way to go -- latimes.com

U.S. economy returns to growth, but recovery has a long way to go -- latimes.com

Op-Ed Columnist - More Schools, Not Troops - NYTimes.com

Op-Ed Columnist - More Schools, Not Troops - NYTimes.com

Glenn Greenwald: Lieberman and Bayh Enriching Themselves and Their Spouses with Opposition to Health Reform | Video Cafe

Glenn Greenwald: Lieberman and Bayh Enriching Themselves and Their Spouses with Opposition to Health Reform | Video Cafe

Is Politico becoming too dumb for Drudge? | Media Matters for America

Is Politico becoming too dumb for Drudge? | Media Matters for America

Monday, October 26, 2009

WTF

Crooks and Liars

Guess Who's Going To Administer Any Public Option? Insurance Companies.

Via Raw Story, some news that really isn't such a big deal. Third-party administrators are already a cash cow for the insurance industry, but my guess is that this contract will have a lot of built-in cost controls:

A little-noticed tidbit in Saturday's Washington Post is sure to raise eyebrows among liberal supporters of a gorvernment-run healthcare plan: the plan is likely to be administered by a private insurance company, the very companies that progressive activists are trying to unseat.

The public-option debate is frustrating some Democrats, who have come to believe that a government-run plan is neither as radical as its conservative critics have portrayed, nor as important as its liberal supporters contend. Any public plan is likely to have a relatively narrow scope, as it would be offered only to people who don't have access to coverage through an employer.

The public option would effectively be just another insurance plan offered on the open market. It would likely be administered by a private insurance provider, charging premiums and copayments like any other policy. In an early estimate of the House bill, the Congressional Budget Office forecast that fewer than 12 million people would buy insurance through the government plan.

The problem with insurance companies isn't the third-party administrators - they simply administer claims decisions on the basis of what the client pays for. (Although their administration fees are so often heavily padded, and the feds will have to watch them closely.) This is commonly done with so-called "self-insured" plans.

This is one of the reasons why it won't happen overnight. Someone's going to have to come up with the oversight structure.

Obama Undercuts Dems On Health Care

Monday October 26, 2009 11:15 a.m
Lead Photo

President Barack Obama arrives in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Monday, Oct. 5, 2009, to make remarks on health care reform. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

As health insurance reform legislation inches closer to final passage, Democrats in Congress are struggling to make health care affordable to millions of Americans. But the White House has constantly undercut their efforts by making backroom deals with industry insiders and sabotaging some of their most effective cost-saving tools.

All of the bills currently up for debate in Congress provide some level of financial assistance for those in the lower income brackets who can not afford to purchase health insurance. Members of Congress have been attempting to keep these subsidies as high as possible to drive down costs for consumers. Failure to do so could cost them dearly at the polls in the upcoming 2010 Congressional elections.

But the White House, in an effort to score a political win and pass a health care bill quickly, has consistently made compromises that complicate the mandate before Congressional Democrats, who must provide affordable care to their constituents. Over the summer, the president made a now-infamous deal with the drug companies that would effectively thwart any attempt made by Congress to insert a provision allowing the federal government to use its purchasing power to negotiate better drug prices for seniors on Medicare. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, was relying on savings from such a provision to pay for higher subsidies.

Another controversial but cost-saving provision that Democrats in the House were planning to employ was the government funded public insurance option. The Congressional Budget Office, the group responsible for measuring the cost of proposed health care plans, has said that a public option that pays doctors based on Medicare rates could save $110 billion over 10 years. However, President Obama has been pushing for a weaker version of the public plan called a “trigger” that would only come into effect if private, for-profit insurers failed to control costs. While this approach is more politically feasible in the eyes of the White House, it increases the cost of the bill and therefore reduces the amount of money that can be spent on subsidies, further increasing costs to consumers.

Because the Obama Administration arbitrarily decided on a health care bill cost ceiling of $900 billion over 10 years, any cost-saving measure not included in the final bill indirectly results in higher costs for consumers in the form of lower subsidies.

For example, the bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee does not include any form of the public option and does not allow the government to directly negotiate drug prices. Therefore, it provides the lowest subsidies of any bill. Politico provides a great breakdown of the real-world numbers.

A family of three making $46,000 a year — about 250 percent of the poverty line — would have to pay $4,349, or 9.5 percent of their income, under the Finance Committee bill to purchase insurance. That’s a fifth more than the House bill, yet the policy purchased would require the beneficiary to cover 30 percent of average coverage costs — twice the 15 percent requirement in the House bill.

The center estimates that the premium costs could absorb 55 percent of the family’s disposable income after paying fixed costs like rent, utilities, car payments, groceries and gasoline. The risk is that many will drop out or lawmakers will weaken the mandate that everyone get insurance.

This kind of plan could spell disaster for members of Congress up for re-election in 2010. What’s more, it would effectively prove one of the Republican Party’s most damaging talking points — that health care reform under the Democrats would amount to a huge tax increase on the middle class.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Every Dollar That Goes Out To These People That Is Not Taxed At The Highest Bracket Is A Theft From The American Worker.

What would half of these totals for one fiscal year buy in infrastructure, education, small business loans, health care reform or paying down the deficit?


Wall Street On Track To Award Record Pay

OCTOBER 14, 2009

Major U.S. banks and securities firms are on pace to pay their employees about $140 billion this year -- a record high that shows compensation is rebounding despite regulatory scrutiny of Wall Street's pay culture.

Workers at 23 top investment banks, hedge funds, asset managers and stock and commodities exchanges can expect to earn even more than they did the peak year of 2007, according to an analysis of securities filings for the first half of 2009 and revenue estimates through year-end by The Wall Street Journal.

Total compensation and benefits at the publicly traded firms analyzed by the Journal are on track to increase 20% from last year's $117 billion -- and to top 2007's $130 billion payout. This year, employees at the companies will earn an estimated $143,400 on average, up almost $2,000 from 2007 levels.

News Hub: Good Times Roll Again on Wall Street

1:24

Some Wall Street employees are expected to see a big payout this year -- bigger than in 2007. Firms will pay employees about $140 billion.

The growth in compensation reflects Wall Street firms' rapid return to precrisis(sic) revenue levels. Even as the economy is sluggish and unemployment approaches 10%, these firms have been boosted by a stronger stock market, thawing credit market, a resurgence in deal making and the continuing effects of various government aid programs.

The rebound also reflects growing confidence by some Wall Street firms that they can again pay top dollar for top talent, especially once they have repaid the taxpayer-funded capital infusions they received at the height of the crisis. So far, regulators and lawmakers have focused on making sure pay practices discourage excessive risk-taking, leaving to companies the question of how much is too much.

The Journal's analysis includes banking giants J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc.; securities firms such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley; asset managers BlackRock Inc. and Franklin Resources Inc.; online brokerage firms Charles Schwab Corp. and Ameritrade Holding Corp.; and exchange operators CME Group Inc. and NYSE Euronext Inc.

These firms' total revenues are projected to hit $437 billion, surpassing 2007's $345 billion, according to the analysis. The rise in total revenue and compensation is in part a function of Bank of America's acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co. and J.P. Morgan's acquisitions of Bear Stearns Cos. and the banking operations of Washington Mutual Inc.

[Rebound]

To reach its 2009 projections, the Journal examined publicly disclosed quarterly compensation figures for each firm so far this year. These include salary, health benefits, retirement plans and stock awards, and also typically include money these firms put away throughout the year to fund later bonus payouts.

The Journal calculated each company's compensation as a percentage of revenue. It then projected how much the company would pay at that rate over the full year, using analysts' quarterly and full-year revenue estimates provided by Thomson Reuters. The methodology was reviewed by compensation experts.

Investment banks such as Goldman and Morgan Stanley typically pay employees about 50% of revenue. The rate is lower at commercial banks, whose tellers and other retail-banking employees earn less than traders.

Some companies contacted about the analysis didn't dispute the methodology, though others said it was too early to speculate. Some say they set aside more money for compensation at the beginning of the year, in order to avoid shortfalls, and then ratchet back later.

Goldman disputed the Journal's projection that the bank was on track to pay a record-high $21.85 billion. Spokesman Lucas van Praag said Goldman paid an average of 46.7% of net revenue from 2000 to 2008, lower than the 49% rate used by the Journal.

Based on Goldman's historical average, it would be on pace to report full-year compensation and benefits of about $20 billion. In 2007, Goldman paid out $20.19 billion, its securities filings show.

wall street bull sculpture and pay
Bloomberg News

The rebound in pay reflects growing confidence by Wall Street firms that they can again pay top dollar for top talent, especially once they have repaid the taxpayer-funded capital infusions they received at the height of the financial crisis. Above, the Wall Street bull sculpture sits on display between Broadway and Exchange Place.

Another wild card is whether financial firms will bend to public and political pressure to rein in pay. "Compensation played a role in the financial crisis, and yet nothing has changed," says J. Robert Brown, a professor at University of Denver's law school and an expert on corporate governance.

The Obama administration's pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, is expected to issue as soon as this week his findings on compensation packages at seven firms receiving federal aid, including Bank of America and Citigroup.

Among firms facing scrutiny from Mr. Feinberg, Citigroup is on pace to pay about $22 billion, down 32% from last year. Bank of America is on track to pay about $30 billion, up 64%, the Journal analysis shows. But much of that increase reflects Bank of America's purchases of Merrill Lynch and Countrywide Financial Corp. Both banks are on pace to pay less as a percentage of net revenue than they did in 2008.

Michael Karp, cofounder of recruiting firm Options Group, says he doesn't think "2007 is back," adding Wall Street executives have leeway to pay less and don't want placards in front of their offices decrying big pay packages.

Indeed, some companies in the analysis are scaling back on compensation, reflecting recent moves to cut jobs, shed businesses or hunker down until they are more confident in the market rebound's staying power. Mutual-fund giant T. Rowe Price Group Inc. has shrunk its work force by about 10% since the end of 2008 and reduced its annual bonus pool in the quarter ended June 30. Its overall compensation bill is on pace to decline by about 16%.

Many financial firms, however, say they need competitive pay packages, pointing to threats from non-U.S. companies, private-equity firms and hedge funds. Mr. van Praag, the Goldman spokesman, said the firm understands public sentiment over bankers' pay, but added: "The easiest way to destroy the firm would be if we didn't pay our people....Destroying a profitable enterprise would not be in anybody's interest."

Goldman also says employees have long had a stake in its long-term results because many are compensated in part with shares they can't touch for several years. Average compensation per employee is on pace to reach about $743,000 this year, double last year's $364,000 and up 12% from about $622,000 in 2007, according to the Journal analysis.

At some firms where revenue is rebounding at a relatively slow rate, more incoming cash is going toward pay. In the first half of 2009, Morgan Stanley paid out or set aside about 70 cents of every $1 in net revenue for compensation and benefits, up from its historic rate of about 50%.

At the recent rate, Morgan Stanley is on pace to pay about $16 billion for 2009, up 33% from last year, despite a projected 6% decline in revenue. Many analysts expect Morgan's ratio to come down in the year's second half.

The New York firm says its revenue has been hurt by a rise in the prices of its bonds, which makes it more expensive for the firm to buy them back. The company added that compensation levels will likely be pushed higher by a brokerage joint venture it introduced this year with Citigroup.

Write to Aaron Lucchetti at aaron.lucchetti@wsj.com and Stephen Grocer at stephen.grocer@wsj.com


Friday, October 16, 2009

Rightwing Voters: Obama's Success = Destruction of USA

A new focus group study from the Democratic-friendly polling firm of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research shows that right-wing Republicans have jumped the political rails to inhabit a world of their own. The dominant "fact" for this band of conservatives is that President Barack Obama has a secret plan to impose socialism on the United States and repress the citizenry. Consequently, they believe that Obama's success is tantamount to the destruction of the country.

From the study:

The self-identifying conservative Republicans who make up the base of the Republican Party stand a world apart from the rest of America, according to focus groups conducted by DemocracyCorps. These base Republican voters dislike Barack Obama to be sure – which is not very surprising as base Democrats had few positive things to say about George Bush – but these voters identify themselves as part of a 'mocked' minority with a set of shared beliefs and knowledge, and commitment to oppose Obama that sets them apart from the majority in the country. They believe Obama is ruthlessly advancing a ‘secret agenda’ to bankrupt the United States and dramatically expand government control to an extent nothing short of socialism. While these voters are disdainful of a Republican Party they view to have failed in its mission, they overwhelmingly view a successful Obama presidency as the destruction of this country’s founding principles and are committed to seeing the president fail.

In a conference call, pollster Stan Greenberg and consultant/celebrity James Carville pointed out that this study—which was based on interviews with conservative Republicans in suburban Atlanta—did not identify race as a factor in shaping the attitudes of these right wingers. But the focus group participants believe that Obama is representing dark and unseen forces.

Karl Agne, a consultant who worked on the study, noted during the call that the participants became rather conspiratorial when discussing the president. Asked where Obama was born, these folks, according to Agne, took a deeply skeptical position: "You'll never know." They insisted that Obama's true past has been hidden and that the sort of information provided by previous presidents about their backgrounds has in the case of Obama been denied to the American public. They also believe that Obama is a front-man. As Agne describes it, they've concluded that "there is no way a community organizer could have risen to this point without powerful interests driving this....He couldn't have possibly done this on his own."

These conservatives repeatedly asserted that Obama has a grand plan to wreck the United States by both ruining the economy and destroying civil liberties. The report notes:

Conservative Republicans do not oppose Obama’s policies simply because they think they are misguided or out of partisan fervor. Rather, they believe his policies are purposely designed to fail. When they look at the totality of his agenda, they see a deliberate effort to drive our country so deep into debt, to make the majority of Americans so dependent on the government, and to strip away so many basic constitutional rights that we are too weak to fight back and have to accept whatever solution he proposes.

But the focus group participants, who expressed angry disappointment with the Republican Party and its leaders for not mounting a more fierce opposition, did note that something of an "underground movement" is building to resist Obama's plot. And they identified Fox News, Glenn Beck, and the so-called Tea Parties as manifestations of this nascent uprising.

So is this a problem for Obama? Probably not. The White House can dismiss this group as a right-wing fringe. The real dilemma is for the Republican Party. How can it speak to (or appease) these voters without appearing extreme and without alienating reasonable Republicans and independents? After all, GOP chairman Michael Steele, Republican congressional leaders, and the party's 2012 presidential contenders will have a tough time remaining in the real world while courting conservatives who reside somewhere else. But if GOP leaders don't join the underground movement hailed by these conservatives, won't that indicate that they, too, are part of the Obama conspiracy?

You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter.

AlterNet

Outrage: House Sneakily Passes Bill Banning Release of Photos Showing Detainee Abuse

By Nick Baumann, MotherJones.com
Posted on October 16, 2009

President Obama has won his fight to ensure that the Defense Department can conceal evidence of its employees' wrongdoing. On Thursday, the House passed a measure allowing the DoD to withhold essentially any photos of detainee abuse that it doesn't want the public to see. The move is a huge defeat for the ACLU, which has been fighting a years-long legal battle to obtain such photos under the Freedom of Information Act. But now an amendment sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), makes all that moot and slashes a huge hole in FOIA. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) was a key figure in stopping Lieberman's photo suppression bill the first time around. In a floor speech Thursday, she explained that this time, the provision was slipped into the Homeland Security spending bill during the conference between House and Senate negotiators -- "apparently under direct orders from the Administration."

I've written before about how poorly President Obama's support for this photo suppression measure reflects on his promise of transparency. It would actually be a mistake to blame the sponsor, Joe Lieberman, for its passage. This would never have happened without the administration's support. And this latest move does not bode well for the prospects of achieving accountability for torture. If this administration can't even bring itself to release years-old photos of detainee abuse, how will it ever bring those responsible for torture to justice?



October 15th, 2009

Once Again, Government Moves to Delay Release of Telecom Lobbying Documents

News Update by Richard Esguerra

This evening, the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice filed yet another emergency motion with the Ninth Circuit, asking for a stay of the deadline to release telecom immunity lobbying documents, less than 24 hours before the documents are due to be released to the public.

Almost simultaneously, a report appeared on Politico.com, claiming that the government will be releasing some documents, while fighting in court to hide the remainder. Despite this report, the government's motion seeks to delay disclosure of all the documents, and no new documents have been released just yet.

For those following this saga, this is deja vu all over again. Last week, when the documents were due to be turned over by Friday, October 9, the government asked the Court of Appeals for a stay, a motion that was denied by the Ninth Circuit in short order. Later that same afternoon, the government asked Federal District Court Judge Jeffrey White for an additional delay, a request that Judge White ultimately denied, giving the government a new deadline of Friday, October 16, by 4 p.m. Pacific time.

This has been a long fight -- since 2007, EFF has been working towards the release of these records after media reports revealed an extensive lobbying campaign seeking immunity for telecoms that participated in the government's unlawful surveillance program. As we've said before, we look forward to receiving the documents and making them public so that they can play a much-needed role in the active congressional debate over repealing telecom immunity.

Open Meetings, Open Records, and Transparency in Government

By Judy Nadler and Miriam Schulman, March, 2006
These materials were prepared for the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics program in Government Ethics by Senior Fellow Judy Nadler and Communications Director Miriam Schulman. The Center provides training in local government ethics for public officials. For more information, contact Judy Nadler.
What is the definition of transparency?

Of course, transparency means that something can be seen through. When we talk about transparency in government, we mean that citizens must be able to "see through" its workings, to know exactly what goes on when public officials transact public business. Government that is not transparent is more prone to corruption and undue influence because there is no public oversight of decision making.


What is an open meeting law?

To protect transparency in government, every state in the United States has some variety of law mandating that all government business be conducted in open meetings to which the public has access. These are sometimes referred to as "sunshine laws," open government laws, or, in California, the Brown Act. The Oklahoma Court's decision in Oklahoma Ass'n of Municipal Attorneys v. State (1978) gives a clear statement of why open meetings are important: "If an informed citizenry is to meaningfully participate in government or at least understand why government acts affecting their daily lives are taken, the process of decision making as well as the end results must be conducted in full view of the governed."

In addition, most states have laws ensuring public access to government documents and records. These are often versions of the federal Freedom of Information Act.

What do open meetings have to do with ethics?

Transparency is a way of protecting fairness and ensuring the common good. When citizens know what their government is up to, they have a better chance of ensuring that decisions treat everyone equally and protect the common conditions that are important to everyone's welfare. As the Carter Center puts it:
Democracy depends on a knowledgeable citizenry whose access to a range of information enables them to participate more fully in public life, help determine priorities for public spending, receive equal access to justice, and to hold their public officials accountable. Inadequate public access to information allows corruption to flourish, and back-room deals to determine spending in the interests of the few rather than many.


What ethical dilemmas do open meetings present?

While the principle behind open meetings is straightforward, the application sometimes is not.

Exceptions to Open Meeting Rules:

There are issues, such as real property negotiations and matters pertaining to pending litigation, which can be handled in closed session. Personnel issues are another area, one where privacy concerns may legitimate closed meetings. California's sunshine law, the Brown Act, "provides for closed sessions regarding the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, discipline or dismissal of a public employee."

The rationale for this exception is protecting public employees from undue publicity or embarrassment, but not every embarrassing or sensitive situation should be handled behind closed doors. In fact, the California Attorney General's Office points out that these very characteristics may indicate the need for public scrutiny. Evidence of corruption in the awarding of city contracts may be very embarrassing to the city council, but it must still be dealt with in an open meeting.

What is a meeting?

Public officials may be unclear about or too loose in their interpretation of what constitutes a meeting. If, for example, a majority of council members go out for lunch together and discuss city business, despite the informal setting, they are having a meeting. The important thing for officials to keep in mind is the principle behind the law: the public's right to know how public decisions are made and to participate in making them.

Barriers to Access:

Open meetings should allow everyone access to the political process. This may mean breaking down the barriers that exclude some citizens, such as:

Technological Barriers:

Sometimes called the "digital divide," our society suffers from disparities in access to technology, usually because of income. One obvious example is that low-income individuals are less likely to own computers that would allow them to access government services that are available on line. Building permit forms, council minutes and agendas, utilities applications are all examples of forms that can often be filled out over the Internet. To reduce the effects of the digital divide on access, governments must support such services as public library access to the Internet and the continuing availability of in-person assistance.

Disabilities:

A disability may impede a person's ability to participate in the political process. For example, a person using a wheelchair cannot even enter City Hall if the only access is a long flight of marble stairs. A deaf citizen cannot follow government debate without assisted hearing devices. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires government entities to remove barriers to the full participation of people with disabilities. As always in regard to ethics, however, the law is the floor and not the ceiling. Government officials have a duty to ensure that people with disabilities are welcomed into the public arena.

Officials should also understand that their accessibility to the public should extend beyond meetings. They need to participate in public life, to attend community events, to make themselves available to the community outside of more formal governmental gatherings. They have the responsibility of taking phone calls from constituents, responding to e-mails, and generally listening to concerns and questions coming from their community.

Open Records:

Public records also must be publicly accessible, though here again there may be exceptions, such as classified information. A key issue facing governments is the proper balance between open records and security. For example, safety reports on nuclear or chemical plants may be public records, but should they be widely available? What information must be protected to keep citizens safe, and what records are classified simply because their publication would reflect badly on those in power?

Additionally, a great deal of information about individuals is available in government records, such as voter registration rolls. Databases make this information widely available, raising privacy concerns.

Resources on Open Meetings, Open Records, and Transparency

Articles About Government Ethics on This Web Site

Articles About Ethical Decision Making on This Web Site

Links to Other Sites About Transparency, Open Meetings, and Open Records

Introduction to Government Ethics Homepage


Michael Moore schools Maria Bartiromo on capitalism


Michael Moore had a few things to say about the Dow rallying past 10,000 today on the set of Morning Joe. First on how well the markets are doing.

Moore: Oh! It’s so incredible. Yes. Fifteen million people out of work.

Scarborough: Isn’t this a perfect example for you? Isn’t this a great example of what you’re trying to say? How there’s a disconnect between what’s going on on Wall Street, 10,000, and Main Street, 10% unemployment?

Moore: Oh, it’s not a disconnect. It’s connected very well. It’s connected just the way our economic system is set up. It’s set up so that the pyramid scheme that we call capitalism—it’s become a pyramid scheme now—the very few at the top get away like bandits making billions and billions of dollars. And everybody else in the lower parts of the pyramid are told to work really hard and maybe some day they can come up and be on top of the pyramid too. Well guess what? There’s only a few people that can sit on top of the pyramid and it’s just so revolting and so immoral when we live in a country—the wealthiest country on earth—fifteen million people unemployed. One in every eight homes right now is in foreclosure or delinquency. And they’re celebrating on Wall Street? And they’re paying each other bonuses?

Surprisingly Moore gets some agreement from Joe and Mike on the disparity of wealth in the United States. Maria Bartiromo however disagrees with Moore’s view of the news on Wall Street. Shocker right? The Wall Street flack tries to come to their defense.

Bartiromo: A couple of things I have to insert here. On the one hand I am a big fan of Michaels but I have to disagree that capitalism is a pyramid scheme. I think that, I actually think that’s absurd but on the bonuses obviously compensation did get way out of hand on Wall Street and for some individuals at the top. I agree with that.

But let’s not forget the millions and millions and millions of people who have benefited, who have pensions, who have mutual funds who are invested in this market and may not even know it who have made a lot of money over the years. So it’s not necessarily just the people at the top making money when the market goes higher. That is also absurd.

(crosstalk)

Moore: No, I’m sorry. I understand what you just said. That was the old days when Leave it to Beaver and Andy of Mayberry, that is the way it used to work. Here’s how it is now.

Bartiromo: Okay.

Moore: The wealthiest—let me finish—the wealthiest one percent right now in this country have more financial worth than the ninety five percent under them combined. One percent more than ninety five percent combined—that’s capitalism now. It’s a system of legalized greed. It’s way out of control and when you talk about people and their pension funds—people watching us right now—nobody even knows if they’re going to have a pension or what’s going to happen to it. Everybody is full of anxiety. People don’t know if they’re going to have a job next year. That’s just not how you run a country. This isn’t how you create the next great thing and put people to work when you’ve got everybody going around so full of fear and just not knowing what’s going to happen and not knowing if they can pay the mortgage next month. There’s a foreclosure filing once every seven and a half seconds right now.

(crosstalk)

Bartiromo: I mean there was a structure in place and there has been a structure in place in terms of regulating the banks—in terms of overseeing the risks that they take on.

Moore: There’s no structure!

Bartiromo: So you can’t just say that you know, oh these guys were just given the go ahead to do whatever they wanted…

Moore: There’s no structure!

Bartiromo: Who was watching the store in terms of the regulatory environment overseeing the services companies?

Scarborough: Isn’t that the problem though?

Scarborough goes on to cite how lack of regulation of Wall Street has led to this mess and Moore agrees with him and reminds everyone this has been a bipartisan failing going back to the days of Ronald Reagan. Moore notes that the seven largest banks that took our TARP money have seventy five percent of all the baking assets in the United States and suggests people move their money out of the big banks and into community banks and credit unions.

I think Maria Bartiromo has been spending way too much time snuggling up to those CEO’s over at CNBC and a little reality check for her by Moore on what life is like for most Americans was a welcome break from the usual hackery on Morning Joe.

ACORN Housing's North Philadelphia office
Pam Fessler/NPR

Housing counselors at ACORN Housing's North Philadelphia office have to refer clients to new attorneys for legal help, because the group isn't providing that service as long as its funding is frozen.


October 16, 2009

Federal funding has been temporarily stopped for the community group ACORN and its affiliates, and some people worry that worthwhile programs could be affected if the cuts become permanent.

The move comes after a scandal involving videotapes that showed ACORN workers telling a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute how to evade the law.

In the undercover videos, ACORN workers at four offices around the country dished out some very sketchy advice. But in ACORN Housing's North Philadelphia office, the scene is far from the one seen in the videos, which were made by a conservative activist.

What you see here instead are several young women, with yellow case files piled high on their desks, trying to help poor people save their homes. ACORN Housing Corp., an ACORN spinoff, offers free housing counseling to low- and moderate-income homebuyers.

On a recent day, housing counselor Lianna Crosby talks with client Shawn Drayton about an upcoming mediation session at the city court. Drayton is trying to avoid losing his grandfather's house to a bad mortgage deal. But Crosby says there's been a last-minute change: She has to refer him to a different attorney for legal help, because ACORN Housing won't be able to provide that service as long as its funding is frozen. Congress has blocked, at least until the end of this month, most of the money ACORN Housing relies upon to do its work.

Some lawmakers say they want to make the cutoff permanent because of the videos and other problems with ACORN operations over the past several years.

The housing group is a major recipient of grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It also received almost $24 million over the past two years for a foreclosure-mitigation counseling program created by Congress.

'I Just Couldn't Afford It'

Bruce Dorpalen oversees counseling at ACORN Housing offices around the country.

"We have a little bit of resources to keep going, but if this can't get resolved in a decent way, we would have to lay off staff, not be able to serve clients," Dorpalen says.

Clients such as Fred Butler, a retiree who came here for help, could be affected.

Butler admits he made a big mistake when he got a mortgage with a big balloon payment on his Philadelphia home.

"I just couldn't afford it. And it was just too much," Butler says.

But when he tried to pull out of the deal during a three-day grace period, his mortgage broker was nowhere to be found. ACORN Housing has worked with the lender to negotiate a more palatable deal that will keep Butler in his home.

ACORN's critics say the organization has misused federal funds, and they have called for multiple investigations. But neither HUD nor NeighborWorks America, a nonprofit that administers the foreclosure counseling grants, have reported any problems with ACORN Housing. And HUD continues to list ACORN Housing as one of about two dozen national, HUD-approved counseling agencies.

"They've been one of the highest-performing organizations, so in that regard we have not had any concerns about their performance under this program," says Ken Wade, CEO of NeighborWorks America. "But like everyone else, we were concerned with the videos we saw on television."

He says NeighborWorks is reviewing its contract with ACORN Housing to make sure none of the terms has been violated. Wade adds that if the funding cuts become permanent, it will be a challenge finding other groups to take over the thousands of foreclosure cases now being handled by ACORN Housing. Both HUD and NeighborWorks are waiting to see what Congress does next.

Approached By Videographers

National ACORN officials admit their group has made mistakes in the past, including concealing — until recently — an embezzlement scheme by the founder's brother. And they say they're fixing the problems.

But it could be too little, too late — which is especially troubling for those who work in the Philadelphia office. They're the ones who actually got suspicious when a couple showed up at their office last July asking strange questions.

"They said something about bringing girls from El Salvador into the country to live in the house with them and if I knew anything about getting them papers," says office manager Katherine Conway-Russell.

Conway-Russell says she had no idea she was being videotaped. She told the couple that ACORN couldn't help them and, after the couple left, workers called police.

But when videos — which were taken at other ACORN offices — became public last month, Conway-Russell says her office started getting crank calls. People asked if they could get help opening a brothel — and even threatened to kill one of the counselors.

"It's saddening to know that our staff works so hard to help people, and they feel like this is just an attack," Conway-Russell says through tears, "and it has nothing to do with what we do for the communities that we serve."

So for now, she says, she and the other workers here will just keep doing their jobs. And try not to worry too much about what comes next.

Related NPR Stories

Thursday, October 15, 2009

The New York Times Company Corporate Governance Principles

Revised as of February 21, 2008

Principles

The New York Times Company’s Board of Directors, acting on the recommendation of the Nominating & Governance Committee, has adopted the following Corporate Governance Principles:

1. The Core Purpose and Core Values of the Company

The Company’s core purpose is to enhance society by creating, collecting and distributing high-quality news, information and entertainment.

The core values that enable the Company to achieve its core purpose are:

  1. Content of the highest quality and integrity. This is the basis for the Company’s reputation and the means by which it fulfills the public trust and its customers’ expectations.
  2. Fair treatment of employees based on respect, accountability and standards of excellence.
  3. Creating long-term stockholder value through investment and constancy of purpose.
  4. Good corporate citizenship.

In support of the Company’s core purpose and core values, the Board is committed to the editorial independence at all Company properties....


It's All In The Framing: NY Times Admits Shutting Out Single Payer Coverage

Deleted scenes from Sicko (2007) showing the health care system in Norway.

Ever wonder why the single most sensible, economical and democratic way to provide health care to every person in the US was never really mentioned in the rhetoric whirlwind of public options, opt-outs, co-ops, triggers and free market embracing?

Part of the reason why is that the media refused to mention it:

The media analysis group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) issued an action alert September 22 titled "NYT Slams Single-Payer" that described lopsided reporting in a New York Times article about "Medicare for all," a form of a single-payer health care system. FAIR noted that the article, titled "Medicare for All? ‘Crazy,’ ‘Socialized’ and Unlikely", laid out a list of arguments against single-payer while failing to include any balancing responses from the option's supporters.

Yeah, those nutty Norwegians, not to mention Canadians, Danes, French, Brits, Swedes, etc. etc. They're all just crazy for treating health as a human right, instead of a corporate profit opportunity. FAIR continues:

It's worth noting that thousands of doctors have voiced support for a single-payer system (see, for example, Physicians for a National Health Program's letter to Barack Obama), in part because they believe they spend too much on the administrative costs associated with private insurance companies. A survey of physicians published in the Annals of Internal Medicine (4/1/08) found that 59 percent supported government-sponsored national health insurance.

Seelye also wrote that Medicare for all "would almost certainly mean a big tax increase on the middle class," before noting in parentheses: "Supporters argue that a tax increase would be somewhat neutralized by the elimination of premiums that people pay now to insurance companies." Actually, single-payer advocates argue that a payroll tax on businesses (many of which currently pay for private insurance for their employees) and a small income tax increase that would likely amount to less than what most citizens currently pay out of pocket could fund a single-payer program. By calling a "big tax increase" a near-certainty and treating the savings on insurance premiums as a claim made by advocates, the Times told readers which side it was on.

Seelye cited Stuart Altman--identified as "a Brandeis economist who specializes in health care and who advised Barack Obama in his presidential campaign," but not as a director of a managed-care company that offers health insurance plans (WhoRunsGov.com)--to make a similar point about potential tax increases, and then went to "the other end of the political spectrum" to quote Robert Moffit of the conservative Heritage Foundation: "I don't see popular support for it beyond liberals.... It's a philosophical question: Do you want to give the government that kind of power?"

Of course, one might point out that public polling for years has demonstrated that support for single-payer is much broader than merely a liberal sliver of the population (FAIR Action Alert, 3/12/09); a July 2009 tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found 58 percent support for Medicare for all. But a piece detailing the deficiencies of a "crazy" single-payer system is an unlikely venue for that.

FAIR is asking that you contact NY Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt as to why they would run such an unbalanced and factually-challenged piece that hurts Americans by lying to them about their health care options.
CONTACT:
New York Times
Clark Hoyt, Public Editor
public@nytimes.com
Phone: 212-556-7652

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

BBC NEWS | Technology | Berners-Lee 'sorry' for slashes

BBC NEWS | Technology | Berners-Lee 'sorry' for slashes
The forward slashes at the beginning of internet addresses have long annoyed net users and now the man behind them has apologised for using them.

Shared via AddThis
Slate Magazine
the best policy

Chamber of Horrors

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce must be stopped. Here's how to do it.

By Eliot Spitzer

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce—the self-proclaimed voice of business in Washington—has been wrong on virtually every major public-policy issue of the past decade: financial deregulation, tax and fiscal policy, global warming and environmental enforcement, consumer protection, health care reform …

The chamber remains an unabashed voice for the libertarian worldview that caused the most catastrophic economic meltdown since the Great Depression. And the chamber's view of social justice would warm Scrooge's heart. It is the chamber's right to be wrong, and its right to argue its preposterous ideas aggressively, as it does through vast expenditures on lobbyists and litigation. Last year alone, the chamber spent more than $91 million on lobbying, and, according to lobby tracker Opensecrets.org, it has spent more than twice as much on lobbying during the past 12 years as any other corporation or group.

The problem is, the chamber is doing all this with our money. The chamber survives financially on the dues and support of its members, which are most of America's major corporations listed on the stock exchange. The chamber derives its political clout from the fact that its membership includes these corporations. Yet we—you and I—own the companies that support the chamber and permit it to propagate its views. Our passive, permissive attitude toward the management of the companies we own has enabled the chamber to be one of the primary impediments to the reform of markets, health care, energy policy, and politics that we have all been calling for. It is time for that to change.

How, you might ask, do we own these companies? Public pension funds and mutual funds are the largest owners of equities in the market. They are the institutional shareholders that have the capacity to push management—and the boards of the corporations. Yet the mutual funds and pension funds have failed to do so. They have failed to control the management of the companies they own because the actual owners of those mutual funds and pension funds—you and I—have failed to raise our voices. We haven't even asked questions.

Mutual funds, until recently, didn't even disclose how they voted the proxies of shares they owned. When asked why not at a forum I was part of several years ago, the general counsel of one of the largest mutual fund companies tried to explain that it would be too expensive to make such disclosure. The answer was patently ridiculous, and it hid the much more important reason for nondisclosure: Mutual funds rarely if ever want to vote in opposition to management because mutual funds want to be included among the list of 401(k) options the company chooses for its employees. Mutual funds make money by increasing the size of the portfolios they manage, and if management knocks them off the 401(k) list, they will lose that revenue stream. This basic conflict of interest has neutered mutual funds. They are not meaningful checks on corporate mismanagement.

The comptrollers and treasurers who run public pension funds (often elected officials), have also failed to flex their political muscles. The passivity of the publicly elected officials who have the capacity to raise these issues has been a bit surprising.

So what should be done? The issue of passive institutional ownership is one of the most vexing and serious problems in American business. Expecting CEOs and boards to run companies properly without our input is a prescription for failure. But at least on the one issue of corporations playing politics with our money through support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, there is an easy answer.

The elected comptrollers and treasurers who agree—as a vast majority will—that the Chamber of Commerce has a distorted view of both economic and political policy should demand that each company in which they own stock drop its membership in the chamber. If the CEO doesn't agree, the public pension funds should pressure the board to drop the chamber membership. If one activist state comptroller begins to build this coalition, the other state pension funds will follow.

In recent weeks, Apple and two energy companies—PG&E and Exelon—have defected from the chamber, objecting to its environmental policies. The Wall Street Journal editorial page of course views this bit of wisdom as heresy and counter to shareholder interest.

If elected comptrollers and treasurers do take a stand against the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, expect a hue and cry from the typical voices. They will complain that elected comptrollers and treasurers are injecting politics into corporate management. To which the answer should be: No, they are trying to take politics out of it! It is corporate leadership, though its support of the chamber, that has injected politics into the corporations that we own. We are reminding corporate leaders that they are our fiduciaries. As long as the chamber and the CEOs who are supposed to be our representatives are using our money to be overtly political, it is our duty to respond. If we are passive, we permit the chamber to hijack our funds and companies to support positions antithetical to our own views. Waking pension funds and mutual funds from their slumber on this relatively easy issue might finally begin the necessary process of fixing mismanaged corporations.

Eliot Spitzer is the former governor of the state of New York.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2232441/

POLITICS PROFESSOR: a dictionary of political theories and theorists

Fascism

jeez, get it right would ya? Nazis were a far right reactionary party that first targeted the communists and the Bolsheviks as well as social liberals for disenfranchisement. grow up, oxymoron, you can't be a communist fascist, k?

Former right-wing leader warns of religious right violence: ‘Anyone can be killed’

By Larisa Alexandrovna
Wednesday, October 14th, 2009 -- 10:32 am

Frank Schaeffer is an outspoken critic of the politicized Christian evangelical right. He sees the “End Times” movement as anti-Semitic. He fears that a right-wing terrorist might assassinate the President of the United States.

None of these talking points would be novel on the left, but Schaeffer is hardly a bleeding heart liberal. His father, Dr. Francis Schaeffer, is considered to be the godfather of the modern religious right movement. Schaeffer himself took up the family mission and became a prominent speaker and writer, promoting many of the sentiments that have given rise to the politically active, extremely well organized and zealous movement of today. He left the religious right in the 1980s, and was a Republican until 2000.

In an interview with Raw Story, Schaeffer -- who has a new book coming out this month called Patience with God: Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion (or Atheism) -- discussed his concerns about the radicalization of the Christian right and the increasingly violent rhetoric he foresees turning into actual violence.

"Since President Obama took office I've felt like the lonely -- maybe crazy -- proverbial canary in the coal mine," Schaeffer said. "As a former right wing leader, who many years ago came to my senses and began to try to undo the harm the movement of religious extremism I helped build has done, I've been telling the media that we're facing a dangerous time in our history. A fringe element of the far right Republican Party seems it believes it has a license to incite threatening behavior in the name of God."

"The bestselling status of the Left Behind novels proves that, not unlike Islamist terrorists who behead their enemies, many evangelical/fundamentalist readers relish the prospect of God doing lots of messy killing for them as they watch in comfort from on high," he added. "They want revenge on all people not like them -- forever."

The former religious right leader also says he's worried President Obama could be assassinated -- or that extremists might launch another "Oklahoma" type bombing.

"Sadly that line from the 'Godfather' sticks in my brain about the fact that anyone can be killed," Schaeffer told Raw Story. "The scary thing is that there are a number of pastors on record as saying they are praying for the President’s death. Can you imagine what some gun-toting paranoid who hears that in a sermon is thinking and might do? And to them the fact that 'the world' likes this black man is reason enough to hate him. You wait. The reaction to Obama winning the Nobel Prize will be entirely negative from the far Religious Right. 'See the world, all those socialists like him that just proves he’s a -- fill in the blank -- communist, secret Muslim, the Antichrist, whatever.'"

Schaeffer asserts that he's trying to "right" the Christian right while also trying to explain God and religion to non-believers. But ultimately, he has a very critical view of the Christian right and what he believes is the reason for their deep-seated anger: resentment. He has recently written a column in support of a campaign to prosecute threats of violence and hate speech that may incite violence:

“The campaign includes letters from attorney Kevin Zeese and myself to Attorney General Eric Holder asking that he take the issue of domestic terror seriously by investigating and prosecuting threats and acts of violence," Schaeffer says. "I'm working with others on a campaign to reach religious leaders who enable and encourage this violence, and asking for the launching of investigations into the use of the media and web organizations by the right wing to foment violence. It is time to combat hate speech.”

More on this campaign can be found at StopDomesticTerror.com.

###

Coming Full Circle

Larisa Alexandrovna: For those who are not familiar with you and your family, could you please provide a brief summary of your history?

Frank Schaeffer: One morning in the early 1980s, I looked out over several acres of pale blue polyester and some twelve thousand Southern Baptist ministers. My evangelist father -- Francis Schaeffer -- was being treated for lymphoma at the Mayo Clinic, and in his place I’d been asked to deliver several keynote addresses on the evangelical/fundamentalist circuit. I was following in the proudly nepotistic American Protestant tradition, wherein the Holy Spirit always seems to lead the offspring and spouses of evangelical superstars to “follow the call.”

A few weeks before, after being introduced by Pat Robertson, I had delivered a rousing take-back-America speech to thousands of cheering religious broadcasters. And not long after, I would appear at a huge pro-life rally in Denver. Cal Thomas -- once the vice president of Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, who later became a Fox News Commentator -- would introduce me as “the best speaker in America.” The “anointing” he said, was “clearly on this young man!” They were saying that I was a better speaker than my famous father.

LA: You mention your father and I think it is important to point out just how well connected your father was and subsequently how important you and your family were to the movement.

FS: [Yes]. At that moment the Schaeffers were evangelical royalty. When I was growing up in L’Abri, my parents’ evangelical/fundamentalist religious community in Switzerland, it was not unusual to find myself seated across the dining room table from Billy Graham’s daughter or President Ford’s son, even Timothy Leary. The English actress Glynis Johns used to come for Sunday high tea. I figured it was normal. They were just a few of the thousands who made it through our doors. Only later did I realize that L’Abri attracted a weirdly eclectic group of people who otherwise would not be caught dead in the same room. My childhood was, to say the least, unusual.

When Gerald Ford died in January of 2007, I recalled that the day he had assumed the presidency, his daughter-in-law Gayle w as babysitting my daughter Jessica as her job in the work-study program at L’Abri, where Mike Ford, the President’s son was a student.

Mom and Dad met with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. and stayed in the White House several times. In the 1990s when my mother Edith -- then in her eighties -- heard that George W. Bush might run for the presidency, she exclaimed, “What? But Barbara asked me to pray especially for young George. She didn’t think he had what it took to do anything.”

LA: But you have moved away from that history or perhaps a better way to put it is that the movement moved entirely away from you -- from Conservatism to extremism?

FS: Dad and I were mixing with a new set of people that had not known much, if anything, about my father. If they had even heard of Dad before he came on the pro-life scene in the mid-seventies, they probably hadn’t liked the sound of him. These people included Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, James Kennedy and all the rest of the televangelists, radio hosts, and other self-appointed “Christian leaders” who were bursting on the scene in the 1970s and early eighties.

Compared to Dad these slick media figures were upstarts. They were “not our sort of people,” Dad often said. What people like Robertson and Falwell got from Dad was some respectability.

Dad had a unique reputation for an intellectual approach to faith. And his well deserved reputation for frugal ethical living, for not financially profiting from his ministry, for compassion, openness and intellectual integrity, was the opposite of the reputations of the new breed of evangelical leadership, with their perks, planes, and corner offices in gleaming new buildings and superficial glib messages. Empire builders like Robertson, Dobson and Falwell liked rubbing up against (or quoting) my father, for the same reason that popes liked to have photos taken with Mother Teresa.

What I slowly realized was that the religious right leaders we were helping to gain power were not “conservatives” at all in the old sense of the word. They were anti-American religious revolutionaries.

LA: Then you defended Senators Jim Webb (D-VA) and John McCain (R-AZ) for the way they were treated by this movement. Can you point to a particular issue you took with both the attack on Webb and on McCain? What happened after?

FS: I had long since left the evangelical subculture when I wrote an op-ed for the Dallas Morning News, and it was picked up by several hundred blogs and posted on the front page of James Webb’s campaign website. I had defended Webb against a series of scabrous attacks wherein his novels were smeared and he was even labeled a “pedophile” because he had described a sexual tribal ritual. I noted that Webb is a serious novelist whose work has been widely praised by many, including Tom Wolfe, who called Webb’s books, “The greatest of the Vietnam novels.”

I also took the Republicans to task for doing to Webb what they did to another war hero, Senator John McCain, back in the 2000 Republican primaries. I went so far as to say that, in disgust, my wife Genie and I were switching from registered Republicans to independents.

A few days after this op-ed was published I wrote another piece, this time for the Huffington Post, about the reaction to my departure from the Republican Party. This was picked up by dozens of Democrat-friendly blogs. As the congratulatory e-mails poured in I was reminded of the welcome given new believers when they converted from some particularly hideous life of sin. Then the Drudge Report and dozens of other right wing and/or evangelical outlets alerted their faithful to my treason.

Furious e-mails flooded in. They fell into two categories: The evangelical “Church Ladies” said they hadn’t read Webb’s novels but were shocked by his immorality nonetheless and went to three and four page single-spaced quivering lengths to justify the Republicans' tactics; The second group were simply profanity-spewing thugs. The Church Lady emails contrasted markedly with the insults. It was as if I’d stumbled into a Sunday school picnic at a Tourette’s syndrome convention.

“As a Christian the best question you could ask is what would Jesus do? He wouldn’t give Webb’s books a pass just because he’s a veteran.. .”

“Mr. Schaeffer: Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out you FUCK!”

"Mr. Webb has no excuse for using profanity..."

"Good fucking riddance -- you fucking cry baby!"

"I have never read any of Mr. Webb’s novels. However, the excerpts [in the Drudge Report] are very disturbing. . . . As for the Bible, yes it has all the things you mentioned: rape, murder, adultery, masturbation, etc. However, the Lord did not give us graphic details . . . And I hope as Christians we can remember that and be a voice crying out against ALL the ugly things..."

"We don’t need your lame ass motherfucking comments or your support..."

When combined the hundreds of emails seemed to boil down to: "Do what we say Jesus says -- and if you don’t we’ll kick your head in!" The reaction confirmed why any sane person would run, and keep on running from the right-wing/evangelical/Republican morass as far as their legs would carry them, something I’d been doing for more than twenty years. But I had brought this upon myself. The truth is, that with my father I had once contributed mightily to the creation of the right wing, evangelical/Republican sub-culture that was attacking me.

Alarms Bells Sound

LA: Most recently you have expressed serious concern about right-wing extremism in the name of God and the radicalization of the Christian right since the election of President Obama. What is it that has you so alarmed?

FS: Since President Obama took office I've felt like the lonely -- maybe crazy -- proverbial canary in the coal mine. As a former right wing leader, who many years ago came to my senses and began to try to undo the harm the movement of religious extremism I helped build has done, I've been telling the media that we're facing a dangerous time in our history. A fringe element of the far right Republican Party seems it believes it has a license to incite threatening behavior in the name of God.

They have singled out President Obama as their target. Since the real President Obama is not who they describe -- no, he's not the Antichrist, was born in America and doesn't want to kill your grandmother -- they have resorted to lies and intimidation to try and stop his agenda of much needed change. The problem is that I believe that Religious Right leaders and their Republican base are also potentially inciting violence. Within their numbers are unhinged people who also happen to be well armed.

Rachel Maddow and the readers of Huffington Post and Alternet have heard my warnings and so have a lot of bloggers. However, most of the media have ignored the looming threat of far right violence while conservatives deride those of us who link crazy talk to the potential of crazy actions. (I explain and expose the link between evangelical/fundamentalist "End Times" theology, politics and violence in my new book Patience With God--Faith For People Who Don't Like Religion (Or Atheism).

LA: Have we not seen angry rhetoric before or is this something new, something different?

FS: David Gergen recently said that the racial attacks on Obama are reminiscent of the atmosphere leading to the killing of President Lincoln. Thomas Friedman wrote in the New York Times that he saw this same disturbing play of religious hate shortly before Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated in Israel. And Roger Ebert warned of the rise of the fringe in the GOP and how they are undermining democracy.

(Read more at Huffington Post.)

Of course in [President] Roosevelt's time the far-right was pro German and called him a Jew.

LA: This I did not know. But to the current far-right, why do you think religion, Christianity in particular, has become so politicized?

FS: Power is a strong drug. But the most recent power grab goes back to Roe v. Wade. It was too soon and too fast a change. That started the whole culture war as we know it. The bestselling status of the Left Behind novels proves that, not unlike Islamist terrorists who behead their enemies, many evangelical/ fundamentalist readers relish the prospect of God doing lots of messy killing for them as they watch in comfort from on high.

They want revenge on all people not like them -- forever. Knowingly or unknowingly, Jenkins and LaHaye cashed in on years of evangelical/fundamentalists’ imagined victimhood. I say imagined, because the born-agains had one of their very own, George W. Bush, in the White House for eight long, ruinous years and also dominated American politics for the better part of thirty years before that.

Nevertheless, their sense of being a victimized minority is still very real -- and very marketable. Whether they were winning politically or not, they nurtured a mythology of persecution by the "other." Evangelical/fundamentalists believed that even though they were winning, somehow they had actually lost.

LA: Can you better explain this mentality?

FS: I used to be part of the self-pitying, whining, evangelical/fundamentalist chorus. I remember going on the Today Show with host Jane Pauley back in the late 1970s (or early 1980s). I debated with the head of the American Library Association about my claim that our evangelical/fundamentalist books weren’t getting a fair shake from the "cultural elites." We Schaeffers were selling millions of books, but the New York Times never reviewed them. I made the point that we were being ignored by the "media elite," which was somewhat ironic, given that I had been invited to appear on Today to make that claim.

I dropped out of the evangelical/fundamentalist subculture soon after that Today appearance. Others carried on where I left off, pushing the victimhood mythology to the next generation of evangelical/fundamentalists, and they have cultivated a following among the terminally aggrieved based on ceaselessly warning them about "the world."

The Radicalization of Religion

LA: Do you think there a direct correlation between the radicalization of Islam by extremists to the radicalization of Christianity by extremists?

FS: No. we were ready to try and take over America long before the present wave of Islamic-inspired terror started. But now it's another excuse for the far right to hate the "other."

LA: What is it that is driving the Christian right to such extremes? Is it fear? If so, fear of what? Is it something else?

FS: It is fear of facts. Look, if you believe in the earth being 6000 years old, that gays chose to be gay and can "change," that Jesus will come back soon, that war in the Middle East is good... what you fear is the real world, the reality-based Americans who know you are dumb, crazy or both. It is resentment that drives the right.

LA: For those of us who are not familiar with the "end-times" movement, could you please summarize what it is? How does it relate to Israel?

FS: The expanding Left Behind entertainment empire also feeds the dangerous delusions of Christian Zionists, who are convinced that the world is heading to a final Battle of Armageddon and who see this as a good thing!

LA: A good thing? And what does Zionism have to do with this movement?

FS: Christian Zionists, led by many "respectable" mega-pastors -- including Reverend John Hagee -- believe that war in the Middle East is God’s will. In his book Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World, Hagee maintains that Russia and the Arabs will invade Israel and then will be destroyed by God. This will cause the Antichrist -- the head of the European Union -- to stir up a confrontation over Israel between China and the West.

LA: Wait a moment. Aside from the obvious of the real geopolitical allegiances and resource interests -- making this scenario less likely than all of us packing up and moving to Mars soon -- they believe this is a good thing?

FS: Yes. It will "prove" that they will "inherit the earth." In other words they’ve spent their lives feeling left behind by culture and scholarship. If the "End" comes, they get the last laugh. So they cling to this like an addict clinging to his last fix.

Perhaps, in the era of Obama, Hagee will do a fast rewrite and say that President Obama is the Antichrist, because the same folks who are into Christian Zionism are also into the far, far loony right of the Republican Party represented by oddities like Sarah Palin.

These are the same people who insist that President Obama is a "secret Muslim," "not an American," and/or "a communist," "more European than American," or whichever one of those contradictory things is worse -- not like us anyway, that’s for sure. Christian Zionists support any violent action by the State of Israel against Arabs and Palestinians because the increasingly brutal State of Israel is, in the fevered evangelical/fundamentalist mind, the nation presently standing in for Jesus as avenger on evildoers everywhere, by which they mean Arabs and others not like us.

Christian Zionists are yet another reason why I and countless other Christians, including many of the more moderate evangelicals, mainline Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox are hesitant to be labeled "Christian." Who wants to be confused with some of the most dangerous and stupid people in the world: nuclear-armed, paranoid evangelical/fundamentalist Bible-thumpers rooting for Armageddon on and worrying in paranoid "official" documents about being forced to become like "the Europeans"? (Just a thought: does that make high-speed rail service a tool of the Devil?)

LA: Being a Jew, this idea of Christian Zionism sounds very much like anti-Semitism. Would you say that Christian Zionism -- and the whole end-times philosophy -- is anti-Semitic or am I misunderstanding it?

FS: Yes. The "purpose" of the Jews is to be there to be killed after the Second Coming. Christian Zionists love Israel the way oncologists love cancer. It's a good living. Jews who play footsie with evangelicals in return for the "support" of the State of Israel are fools.

LA: What do you fear will happen? Who or what do you fear will be targeted?

FS: I don't fear large scale violence. I fear another Oklahoma type bombing, and most of all the assassination of President Obama.

Sadly that line from the "Godfather" sticks in my brain about the fact that anyone can be killed. The scary thing is that there are a number of pastors on record as saying they are praying for the President’s death. Can you imagine what some gun-toting paranoid who hears that in a sermon is thinking and might do? And to them the fact that "the world" likes this black man is reason enough to hate him. You wait. The reaction to Obama winning the Nobel Prize will be entirely negative from the far Religious Right. "See the world, all those socialists like him that just proves he’s a -- fill in the blank -- communist, secret Muslim, the Antichrist, whatever."

LA: How would you describe the audience to whom this violence is marketed?

FS: This is rube white America. This is the cracker fundamentalist South. These are the Sarah Palin "He's Not-A-Real-American" Obama haters. These are the people waiting for Jesus to come back and/or the UN to take over the world or the Army to take their guns.

LA: Who do you see as fueling this rhetoric?

FS: Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, Glenn Beck... we all know this crew. And of course there's Rush Limbaugh. But worst of all are not the famous leaders but the every day religious leaders feeding hate. Look how they came together in California to push prop 8. Behind them are those like James Dobson who has told his followers to beat their children into submission. He is always looking for new enemies and is now aiming at gays. But none of this would happen if there were not thousands of pastors and followers whose idea of faith is to divide themselves from the "other."

LA: What do you think motivates these media personalities, politicians, and so forth? Are they true believers or opportunists?

FS: I'll speak for the ones I know personally. Dobson gave away 150,000 copies of one of my far right 80's hate screeds. He had me on his show. His intentions started out as good. Then he got used to power and became a genuine egomaniac. Pat Robertson is a genuine lunatic. I've been on Fox talking about my military-friendly books before they put me on their shit list. They are just plain stupid.

LA: Have you seen similar extremism from left-wing Christians? If so, how is it the same or different from what you observe from the right-wing?

FS: I wouldn't say I've seen the same levels of hate and outright lies from the left. If you read the comments on places like Huff Post they are shrill sometimes but no one is being condemned to hell, and people try and stick to facts. The amazing thing about the religious right is the combination of lies, myth and hate into a rather unique blend.

LA: What do you think a workable solution might entail? Some would argue that no matter how hateful, ugly, even violent the speech, it is still protected speech. How then do you think your concerns could be addressed in that context?

FS: All I'd say is this: The hate speech of the right ought to draw the same level of public and governmental attention as, say, Muslim hate speech. If we take bin Laden seriously when he talks about God hating America's sins, we should take the America extremists as seriously. There should be no free ride for these idiots carrying weapons near presidential or other political gatherings. People like Operation Rescue should be investigated to see how many of their members are planning to murder more abortion providers. And if you want to know what the greatest threat to our president is, look no further than where evangelical "Christianity" intersects with Glenn Beck's fans. The FBI should seize his fan letter email. I'll bet they'd find some very interesting folks out there, people in militias, far right hate groups, and all the rest.

LA: How do you think your father would react if he were still alive today? How about Jesus?

FS: Dad would despise Glenn Beck. My father was not a hater. He opposed abortion on demand and Roe. But he never bashed gays but welcomed them and everyone else in his ministry. Even before he died in 1985 he told me that he thought Robertson was a nut, Falwell crass, and Dobson power-hungry. Except for the abortion issue my father was center left, interested in art and culture. As for Jesus, well, I won't speak for him, but let me just say that if "conservatives" are now going to edit out the "liberal" parts of the Bible, they better cut the four Gospels in their entirety.

LA: Thank you for your time.

Larisa Alexandrovna is managing editor of investigative news for Raw Story. Contact: larisa@rawstory.com.