Palin: Posturing Like a Banker?

Like many other journalists, or actually all of them, I don't know why Sarah Palin chose to announce her resignation as Alaska's governor on a slow news weekend, except the desire to draw less attention to it. It certainly reeks of miscalculated political maneuvering - that whole maverick thing - which ultimately fails in the Washington establishment. Though, it might play well with existing Palin-converts.

But, I do know that many powerful men have resigned from one post in order to jump to another one offering more power, money, or both. President Clinton's former Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, left his public position to 'pursue other interests', which turned out to be code for 'a high-level spot at Citigroup.' There, he made $126 million over an eight-year period. True, Citigroup recently almost imploded and he resigned from the firm earlier this year. But before these pitfalls, he did okay for himself, if not the rest of us. 

President Bush's Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson left his extremely lucrative job running Goldman Sachs to swing over into public office, where he proceeded to initiate the largest bank bailout in US history. And, former co-President of Goldman Sachs, John Thain, left that position to run the New York Stock Exchange, which he took public, bagging millions of dollars for all its major shareholders. From there, he leapt to the helm of Merrill Lynch in late 2007, netting the highest bonus for a Wall Street CEO that year. Things haven't worked out so well for him lately, but his bank account would still make yours cry.

As for Palin - she didn't just jump. She stated that her resignation was really the best thing for Alaska. But, even fabricated humility is a banker ploy. Last fall, JPM Chase CEO, Jamie Dimon, went out of his way to make sure we all knew that his bank did not need TARP money. He was only taking it for the team - so that all of the banks who truly needed the capital wouldn't look as bad. The fact that his firm received all sorts of other federal perks not withstanding.

All that said, these men did demonstrate more advantageous timing and a clearer strategy. Palin's timing, if there is a wider goal, leaves much more to be desired. But, whether Palin runs for President in 2012 (which is likely, certainly doesn't mean she'll win) or whether she just doesn't feel like running Alaska anymore - the move to move on has precedent regardless of whether the outcome is positive or negative for the nation. So either way, there's going to be more Palin pontification in our future.

Law Lessons from Libby

Pundits at both ends of the political spectrum seem to be caught up in the wrong discussion over President Bush’s commutation of “Scooter” Libby’s sentence, one that centers on abuse of power. On the right, the sentence was too harsh and politically motivated obviating the need for the commutation, on the left, there isn't any debate about the length of the sentence itself, but condemnation for its above-the-law 'commutator.' I think both are missing a wider point.

I’m not disputing the severity of the crime of which Libby was convicted, though I’d far rather have seen Bush and Cheney take the stand. But, another way to have punished Libby for impairing freedom of the press and compromising public transparency, would have been to make him a journalist’s intern - forever.

The very essence of debating whether Libby received a comparatively appropriate sentence or even whether this is yet another indication that felons with powerful friends get treated better than ones without any, presupposes that sentencing guidelines are themselves, sacrosanct. And they shouldn't be.

It’s guidelines like these that have spawned the quadrupling of today’s prison population versus that of 25 years ago, despite no such increase in the population, and propelled the stock price of Corrections, Corp. of America, the nation’s largest prison operator, to triple since 2004. Sentencing guidelines need to be modified - to protect the population during the moments when a presidential commutation won’t be happening.

A few years ago, I wrote a book about the culture of corruption spanning Washington, Wall Street and Big Business, Other People’s Money: The Corporate Mugging of America. Then, as now, I made the point that prison terms, while certainly a punishment, don’t alter the system. Putting CEO’s or politicians in jail, doesn't change a loosely regulated corporate environment or a secretive power-hungry executive branch. Instead, they allow the American public to feel empty vindication in the absence of any true rehabilitation. It’s sleight of hand punishment. Putting Libby in jail doesn't get us out of Iraq; not putting him in jail doesn't get us out of Iraq.

Last week, Utah Federal judge, Paul Cassell, testified against mandatory sentencing guidelines in Congress. To characterize the insanity of ‘one-size-fits-all’ justice, he drew from his own experience. He had to sentence a man to 55 years in prison for possessing a weapon during a few pot deals; a sentence, Cassell said, equivalent to one for severe crimes like hijacking an airplane, second-degree murder and rape.

In that context, Libby’s commutation was astounding to me. But not for the main reason that boils the blood of my progressive friends - that it’s one more indication of how President Bush considers himself above the law. We already know that.

More interesting is what the original sentence says about the justice system. Though not Bush's intention at all (clear from the pile of 2500 commutation and 1000 pardon requests sitting at the Department of Justice), Bush cast attention on minimum sentencing guidelines, the ones his administration has been working to make mandatory. The message behind Bush’s self-protective benevolence has validity despite its messenger and surrounding circumstances.

Congressional leaders, whatever their opinion on Libby, should address the fact that the White House has been pushing to make the minimum federal sentencing guidelines, mandatory. Many Democrats are against this action, and now, so it seems, are the Republicans who support Bush’s commutation of Libby.

There’s been a slew of press debate on comparatives for Libby’s sentence; from the right who consider it too strict to the left who consider it too lenient. Yet, the judge sentenced Libby within the minimum sentencing guidelines (30 to 37 months). If the guidelines had been 60 days to 5 years, Bush might have been commuting a 61 day sentence.

The problem with the guidelines is that their very existence sets up the framework for this debate. More generally, sentencing guidelines render individual judges harder pressed to exercise individual case discretion, even supposing that jury verdicts are accurate and truly unbiased for the general population. Judges must justify downward and upward departures, which requires more work and inherent reputation risk, conditions the guidelines allow them to avoid.

Perhaps, if Libby’s sentence wasn't levied relative to draconian sentencing guidelines, Libby wouldn't have received a 2.5 year prison sentence for a non-violent, first time offense to begin with (even if we condemn what he did). Then we would still be discussing the merits of its commutation, but at least anyone else facing similar prison time could be spared.

Bush State of Confusion

I've been a bit blog-absent, while working on a book proposal. But, I did watch Sir Bush do his State of the Union thing, hoping (foolishly) that perhaps some distance and time spent away from following his every word, would give me some sort of, I don't know, calmness to decipher whatever he was rambling about, before resorting to swearing at my TV.

But, I just couldn't do it. Because, he's just not of this planet.

On his planet, perhaps people can afford health-care, and would be even more involved with private health insurance, if only they had a tax deduction to, you know, spur them along. I may have missed it, while yelling at my TV, but I'm sure Bush didn't say anything about how private health insurance companies guage private insurees, and that millions of people not only can't afford insurance, they can't access it.

A tax break is not going to dial Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and apply and receive single-payers insurance. A tax break won't force Oxford to pay for doctors they don't want to recognize, even though they recognize all the premiums. A tax break isn't going to have a conversation with CIGNA about covering more preventative care. And creating health savings accounts for a country with a negative savings rate, isn't an investment necessity, it's a total impossibility.

Oh, but the real reason we can't afford or get health care easily from private insurance companies is all the lawsuits, not say, because health insurance premiums are under absolutely no scrutiny, regulation, or capping? Seems that if private insurance companies increased the number of people they cover, while reducing individual rates so more of those people could both pay for and receive coverage, everyone would be happier. Why didn't Bush suggest that? Maybe, because he doesn't worry about losing coverage himself, or being undercovered, like most of the other people living in the country?

On another topic, he said that what we need is to impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. Uh, he said the same thing in his State of the Union Address in 2003, or precisely, that we should show some spending discipline in Washington. Repetitive? maybe. Effective? not so much. This is coming from a man who's now overseen more emergency war addendums passed under his administration that throughout all of American history combined.

And reduce gasoline usage by 20% in ten years? What does that even mean? And, why 20% in ten? Did he take out some special economic calculator that produced that very percentage after that much time? Why not 30% in fifteen or 5% in two? This is the guy that signed a huge gas company tax break bill while on vacation at his ranch, while cutting the budget for the very part of the Energy Department that researched alternative fuels by 40% that same year.

As for more troops in Iraq, that was the point at which I had to turn down the volume, and just watch the hand gestures...it had all become too tragic and too similar.

Trump, Tents and Capitalism

Last Friday, I was on CNBC's Kudlow & Co. show. The topic, as always, was the joys of capitalism. When I was asked something like whether the Democrats would increase taxes for the rich, I said something like, "if the Democrats can redistribute the tax burden, i.e. tax those that have more by more, we can pump the same net revenue into the fiscal budget, maybe even more revenue, and the markets would be fine."

I just don't think higher taxes on the rich will crash the markets. It occurred to me, that this means I believe in the power of capitalism more than many free-marketer types. I think capitalism will find a way to grow even if it has to pay more taxes, in the process. Meaning, it can withstand higher taxes and tighter regulations....more on that over the course of the year.

Separately, I watched The Apprentice Sunday night. I've never quite warmed to Donald Trump or the show, but this season, there's a different premise; divide the wannabe apprentices into winners, or 'have's', who get to live in a mansion and chow on Wolfgang Puck's cuisine and losers, or 'have nots', who get to live in tents and chow on fairly unmemorable food.

It turns out that Donald Trump is somewhat of a sociologist, maybe even a rebel, after all. Sure, in his world, the hungry and ambitious take all and boost ratings in the process. They are called winners. The losers, on the other hand, get nothing, which on the show, forces them to become more resolved to reclaim what they belief is rightfully theirs from the winners.

Frank and his team only lost the car-wash challenge to Heidi's team by a tiny margin. But, Frank probably didn't come on the show because he likes camping. Equally, Heidi's not likely to want to share the mansion any time soon. Carry forth that idea into mainstream society and Trump, the billionaire, would appear to be calling for a revolution.

As Emma Goldman said, "If they do not give you work, demand bread. If they deny you both, take bread. It is your sacred right."

I'm staying tuned for the season.

The Queen and Bush: Lessons

Last Sunday, I finally got around to seeing the film, The Queen, starring Helen Mirren. Mostly, I went to see Mirren's performance, given the pre-oscar buzz. Besides that, I had lived in London at the time of Diana's death; during the period when Tony Blair and the Labour party swept into parliament following the inept bumbling of John Major.

Her death was shocking, certainly - her modern, fashionable class, confessionary TV specials, and predisposition with good causes and interesting men, made her far more the stuff of iconic legend than Paris Hilton should ever apire to. During those days, as the movie got right, you couldn't avoid the outrage at the 'Royals' - the 'why don't they get it', the 'how frigid can they be' the 'why are they still there' type headlines.

But, the Queen of England, at the time and as dramatized in this movie, did something that Bush, in all his boy-in-a-bubble arrogant stupidity can't do.....She considered public opinion (25% of which was against her for her initial handling of the Diana situation, compared to the 90% against Bush for his handling of Iraq.) She considered her decision not to make a public statement regarding Diana. She may or may not have listened to Tony Blair's insistence to say something as the film surmises, but nonetheless - she put her pride (and decades of her brand of leadership, sullen and dignified vs. emotional and tabloidal) aside and did a public about face......

She didn't wait ALMOST FOUR YEARS to take the pulse of reality and the public - she chewed on it for a COUPLE OF DAYS.

Now, I'm not comparing the magnitude of Diana's death with that of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Iraqi civilians plus thousands of American soldiers. But, that difference is precisely the point. Bush is going away to 'have a think' about a new Iraq strategy? What? What part of the bloody civil-war-sparking incompetent mess going on in Iraq requires more time to figure out? If he had the balls of the Queen of England, he'd be able to process the years of being so very wrong without having to return to his ranch over Christmas AND New Year's while thousands more people DIE to change his strategy.

Freedom of Peace Prevails

It’s hard to feel threatened by four women carrying a peace petition. Yet, that was the contention of the NYPD who, on March 6, 2006 arrested and imprisoned overnight, activist mom of slain soldier, Cindy Sheehan, CODEPINK leader, Susan (Medea) Benjamin, Episcopal preach, Reverend Patricia Ackerman, and Melissa (Missy) Beattie.

For carrying a petition to end the Iraq war to the United States Mission at the United Nations, police and security officers said these women created a “dangerous situation.” During their week long trial, deputy police commissioner for public information, Paul J. Browne, said individuals who engage in civil disobedience ‘expect to be arrested.’

The trial on an initial trespassing charge, plus four other misdemeanors that the District Attorney threw in, ended today, December 11. At 10:00 AM, New York City Criminal Courtroom 450A was full of supporters. By 10:30 AM, we were asked to switch courts due to the 50+ crowd which included members from various peace activist groups like CODEPINK, the Granny Peace Brigade, and Veterans against the Iraq War.

Ten minutes after reassembling in the larger court room, the Judge announced that the jury had reached a verdict. He told the audience to refrain from any outbursts. Democracy, of course, doesn’t do ‘silent’ well. But, silence continued as the foreperson read the verdict. Beginning with Cindy Sheehan, the tone was set. Not guilty for resisting arrest, not guilty for obstruction of government administration, not guilty for both counts of disorderly conduct, but guilty for trespassing on private property (the original charge)

After the judge thanked and dismissed the jury, Ms. Sheehan’s defense attorney, Robert Gottlieb, requested the trespassing charge be set aside because the DA had conveyed grossly inaccurate information to the jury about the nature of private property, the crux of the case. The prosecution retorted they had sufficiently conveyed the state of law. The judge denied the application.

Then, in an act of stunning ignorance as to what these women do with their lives, the prosecution asked that 5 days of community service be given the defendants as punishment - for the charges on which they’d been acquitted.

All three defense attorneys responded to the absurdity of that request and asked instead for non-conditional dismissal. Medea Benjamin’s lawyer was outraged, “For 30 years, [Medea] has spent every waking moment helping other people – to have her do community service as a punishment is ludicrous.”

The judge agreed, “The fact that they spent a day in jail, two days the way the corrections department counts a day in jail, is sufficient.” However, he did set a conditional discharge as sentence. “Conditional, on living a law abiding life,” plus the $95 trial fee.

Fortunately, the binds of the justice system can’t keep a good movement down. In her inimitable heroic style, Medea turned to the audience even before leaving the courtroom, “We will now take our petition to the UN mission.”

There was a bigger access issue riding in court today. The government simply shouldn’t have as important an office as the UN mission housed in a private building. Public offices should be open to the public. “It’s obvious,” said Medea, "who the people are that should have been on trial here – like George W. Bush.”

Upon leaving the court room, Cindy Sheehan, was still seething, “I am furious that they arrested us for trespassing, piled on these other charges, and that we spent a night in jail - just because of who we were. I feel violated.”

In the hallway, Medea told supporters, “We are going to meet for lunch in the café at the US mission and deliver our petition.”

“We love you guys!” added Cindy, to loud applause.

Congress Needs an Empathy Shot

Sometimes, you need to go back in time to move forward. That thought occurred to me as I was watching Sam Wood’s 1941 classic film, The Devil and Miss Jones. It’s the story of a tycoon, J.P. Merrick, who takes on the identity of Mr. Higgins, a shoe salesman in his department store, so that he can infiltrate and bust up a group or workers unionizing for better wages and conditions.

Then, empathy and love happen. Mr. Higgins befriends two of the main organizers (including the progressive and spirited Miss Jones) and an older woman, with whom he falls in love. For this woman, feelings towards him are not about money - she doesn’t know who he is or how much money he has. They are about the hero she thinks he is; someone that will stand up to management and fight for what’s right.

At first, an undercover J.P. Merrick, can stand up in day to day situations; in the back of his mind, he knows he is management. Power provides that confidence. Afterwards, he learns empathy. He stands up because he comes to see his workers as real people: people with whom he hangs out on a crowded Coney Island beach. In the end, he saves everyone’s job and takes them all on a cruise. He becomes a hero, not through having accumulated obscene wealth, but through doing the right thing. Okay, it's Hollywood in the 40s, but still.

While, it’s hard to imagine today’s CEO’s spending an hour in the jobs of their union or other workers, it needn’t be a stretch to bring back the sense of fairness that walking a mile in someone else’s shoes should inspire.

It’s that empathy that should be at play in the 110th Congress. Americans voted for and against many issues on November 7th. Most importantly, they sent a clear demand for change. It’s time to honor that demand.

Fairness requires a living wage be enacted at the federal level. It requires creating a mechanism for providing preventive and active health care coverage to all. It requires fixing Medicare Prescription D – no donut holes, no breaks for drug companies – instead caps for any drugs companies that want to be represented by the program.

We need a progressive social security tax so that billionaires can proportionally pay for social and financial insurance for a wider spectrum of aging Americans. We need to increase the higher education budget and replenish the $12 billion cut that was voted in last year. Congress, while funding post-Katrina reconstruction, should penalize insurance companies who don’t honor their claims.

The new finance committee should cap credit card company charges and interest rates. These firms don’t have to extract 28% interest rates from individuals and only 7% from corporations. Fairness requires examining the egregious multiple of 421 times the average workers compensation that CEO’s made last year. It should transfer that excess to secure employee pension funds and health-care costs.

Not each congressperson may pull a Mr. Higgins and live in the shoes of their average constituents, but they can listen, take the votes for them seriously, add some empathy and long term thoughtfulness, and change some damn laws!