Boogie Man Journal

Noam Chomsky: Support Our Troops Slogan

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Mon, 01 May 2017 00:21:00 +0000

If Fox News Told the Truth

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Mon, 01 May 2017 00:15:00 +0000

Flash Flood

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Mon, 01 May 2017 00:03:00 +0000

10 Things Europe Does Way Better Than America

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:14:00 +0000

10 Things Europe Does Way Better Than America

Europe is ahead of America when it comes to healthcare, better sex ed and less violent crime.

By Alex Henderson / AlterNet

Photo Credit: Henner Damke

The term “American exceptionalism” is often tossed around by politicians. Neocons, far-right Christian fundamentalists and members of the Republican Party in particular seem to hate it when anyone dares to suggest that some aspects of European life are superior to how we do things. But facts are facts, and the reality is that in some respects, Europe is way ahead of the United States. From health care to civil liberties to sexual attitudes, one can make a strong case for “European exceptionalism.” That is not to say that Europe isn’t confronting some major challenges in 2014: neoliberal economic policies and brutal austerity measures are causing considerable misery in Greece, Spain and other countries. The unemployment rate in Spain, the fourth largest economy in the Eurozone, stands at a troubling 26%—although Germany, Switzerland, Denmark and Iceland have lower unemployment rates than the U.S. (5.1% in Germany, 3.1.% in Switzerland, 4.6% in Iceland, 4.2% in Denmark). But problems and all, Europe continues to be one of the most desirable parts of the world. And the U.S.—a country that is in serious decline both economically and in terms of civil liberties—needs to take a close look at some of the things that European countries are doing right.

Below are 10 examples of “European exceptionalism” and areas in which Europe is way ahead of the United States.

1. Lower Incarceration Rates

Benjamin Franklin famously said that those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither, and the U.S. is more dangerous than most of Europe (especially in terms of homicide) even though it is becoming more and more of a police state. The U.S. incarcerates, per capita, more people than any other country in the world: in 2012, the U.S.’ incarceration rate, according to the International Centre for Prison Studies, was 707 per 100,000 people compared to only 60 per 100,000 in Sweden, 72 per 100,000 in Norway, 78 per 100,000 in Germany, 75 per 100,000 in the Netherlands, 87 per 100,000 in Switzerland, 99 per 100,000 in Italy, 103 per 100,000 in France, and 144 per 100,000 in Spain. Certainly, the failed War on Drugs and the Prison/Industrial Complex are major factors in the U.S.’ appallingly high incarceration rate, and unless the U.S. seriously reforms its draconian drug laws, it will continue to lock up a lot more of its people than Europe.

2. Less Violent Crime Than the U.S.

Major European cities like Brussels, Paris, Berlin and Milan can be very bad for nonviolent petty crimes like pickpocketing. The tradeoff, however, is that much of Europe—especially Western Europe—tends to have a lot less violent crime than the United States. Research conducted by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime found that in 2012, the U.S. had a homicide rate of 4.8 per 100,000 people compared to only 0.3 per 100,000 in Iceland, 0.7 per 100,000 in Sweden, 0.8 per 100,000 in Denmark and Spain, 0.9 per 100,000 in Italy, Austria and the Netherlands, 1.0 per 100,000 in France, and 1.2 per 100,000 in Portugal and the Republic of Ireland. Russia, however, had a homicide rate of 9.2 per 100,000 that year, but overall, one is more likely to be murdered in the U.S. than in Europe.

3. Better Sex Education Programs, Healthier Sexual Attitudes

For decades, the Christian Right has been trying to convince Americans that social conservatism and abstinence-only sex education programs will reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. The problem is that the exact opposite is true: European countries with comprehensive sex-ed programs and liberal sexual attitudes actually have lower rates of teen pregnancy and STDs. Looking at data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Guttmacher Institute, Advocates for Youth and other sources, one finds a lot more teen pregnancies in the U.S. than in Europe. Comprehensive sex-ed programs are the norm in Europe, where in 2008, there were teen birth rates of 5.3 per 1000 in the Netherlands, 4.3 per 1000 in Switzerland and 9.8 per 1000 in Germany compared to 41.5 per 1000 in the United States. In 2009, Germany had one-sixth the HIV/AIDS rate of the United States (0.1% of Germany’s adult population living with HIV or AIDS compared to 0.6% of the U.S. adult population), while the Netherlands had one-third the number of people living with HIV or AIDS that year (0.2% of the Netherlands’ population compared to 0.6% of the U.S.’ adult population).

4. Anti-GMO Movement Much More Widespread

Anti-GMO activists are fighting an uphill battle in the U.S., where the Monsanto Corporation (the leading provider of GMO seeds) has considerable lobbying power and poured a ton of money into defeating GMO labeling measures in California and Washington State. Some progress has been made on the anti-GMO front in the U.S.: in April, Vermont passed a law requiring that food products sold in that state be labeled if they contain GMO ingredients (Monsanto, not surprisingly, has been aggressively fighting the law). And GMO crops have been banned in Mendocino County, California. But in Europe, GMO restrictions are much more widespread. France, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and Greece are among the countries that have either total or partial bans on GMOs. And in Italy, 16 of the country’s 20 regions have declared themselves to be GMO-free when it comes to agriculture.

5. Saner Approaches to Abortion

Logic never was the Christian Right’s strong point. The same far-right Christian fundamentalists who favor outlawing abortion and overturning the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 cannot grasp the fact that two of the things they bitterly oppose—contraception and comprehensive sex education programs—reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and therefore, reduce the need for abortions. But in many European countries, most politicians are smart enough to share Bill Clinton’s view that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” And the ironic thing is that European countries that tend to be sexually liberal also tend to have lower abortion rates. The Guttmacher Institute has reported that Western Europe, factoring in different countries, has an average of 12 abortions per 1000 women compared to 19 per 1000 women in North America (Eastern Europe, according to Guttmacher, has much higher abortion rates than Western Europe). Guttmacher’s figures take into account Western Europe on the whole, although some countries in that part of the world have fallen below that 12 per 1000 average. For example, the UN has reported that in 2008, Switzerland (where abortion is legal during the first trimester) had an abortion rate of 6.4 per 1,000 women compared to 19.6 per 1000 women in the U.S. that year. And Guttmacher has reported that countries where abortion is illegal or greatly restricted tend to have higher abortion rates than countries where it is legal: back-alley abortions are common in Latin America and Africa.

Clearly, better sex education, easier access to birth control and universal healthcare are decreasing the number of abortions in Western Europe. So instead of harassing, threatening and terrorizing abortion providers, the Christian Right needs to examine the positive effects that sexually liberal attitudes are having in Switzerland and other European countries.

6. More Vacation Time

In 2013, a report by the Washington, DC-based Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) showed how badly the U.S. lags behind Europe when it comes to paid vacation time. CEPR reported that 77% of private-sector companies in the U.S. voluntarily offered their employees at least some paid vacation time (with 21 days off being the average), but the U.S. has no federal law mandating any time off. And that’s quite a contrast to Europe: CEPR reported that government-mandated paid vacation time in Europe includes 35 days off in Austria, 31 days off in Italy and France, 34 days off in Germany and Spain, 30 days off in Belgium and 29 days off in the Republic of Ireland.

7. Universal Healthcare

The U.S. made a small step in the direction of universal healthcare when Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, but the U.S. is so backwards when it comes to health care that implementing even the modest reforms of the ACA (which doesn’t go far enough) has been an epic battle. Meanwhile, every developed country in Western Europe has universal health care, which is implemented in different ways in different countries. Some European countries have single-payer systems (the U.K. and Spain), while others have public/private systems (France, for example) and others have systems that are essentially private and have employer-based insurance but force insurance companies to adhere to tough and strict government regulations. A 2014 article in The Atlantic reported that with Obamacare, the U.S.’ health care system may end up looking more like Germany’s—which reporter Olga Khazan described as “multi-payer, compulsory, employer-based, highly regulated, and fee-for-service.” But health care reform still has a long way to go in the U.S., where giant insurance companies call the shots and medical bankruptcies continue to be much more common than they are in Europe.

8.Greater Life Expectancy

Easier, more affordable access to quality health care is one of the things that can increase life expectancy, and in much of Western Europe, people are outliving Americans. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), overall life expectancy (factoring in both genders) in the U.S. is 79 compared to 83 in Switzerland (85 for women, 81 for men), 82 in Italy, Sweden, France, Spain, Iceland and Luxembourg, 81 in Norway, Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, Finland and the Republic of Ireland, and 80 in Malta, the U.K., Belgium, Portugal and Slovenia. It should be noted that in some of the poorer parts of the U.S., life expectancy is well below the WHO’s 79 average and is comparable to what one finds in Third World countries: in 2013, a report by the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington found that life expectancy for males was only 63.9 in McDowell County, West Virginia and 66.7 in Tunica County, Mississippi. So in McDowell County, the average male dies 18 years younger than the average male in Switzerland.

9. Mass Transit Systems

For the vast majority of Americans, living without a car is impractical. Public transportation is woefully inadequate in most parts of the U.S., and only a handful of American cities make it easy to be without a car (among them: New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia and Boston). But even in those places, a car becomes a necessity in the surrounding suburbs. Europe, however, has some of the best, most extensive public transportation systems in the world. From London to Rome to Paris to Barcelona, mass transit is a way of life for millions of Europeans. And there are many advantages to that: less congestion, reduced air pollution, health benefits (walking is great exercise), a vibrant street scene/sidewalk culture and more productivity in the workplace (getting to and from work is easier when the busses and trains are convenient and run frequently). Plus, making it easier for people to be without a car reduces the number of DUIs.

10. Europeans More Likely to Speak Foreign Languages

Barack Obama offended a lot of xenophobic Republicans when, during his 2008 presidential campaign, he noted that the U.S. lagged way behind Europe when it came to proficiency in a second or third language, but Obama was right—and in 2012, a European Commission report on foreign-language study in the European Union (EU) found that “on average, in 2009/2010, 60.8% of lower secondary education students were learning two or more foreign languages—an increase of 14.1% compared to 2004-2005. During the same period, the proportion of primary education pupils not learning a foreign language fell from 32.5% to 21.8%.” The report found that in the EU, foreign-language study often began as early as six to nine years of age, which is quite a contrast to the U.S.—where foreign-language study is a rarity at the elementary school level and isn’t nearly as common as it should be at the middle school or high school levels.

SOURCE

Since 1978, average pay has increased 997% for CEOs and 10.9% for workers

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 01:05:00 +0000

Top CEOs Make 300 Times More than Typical WorkersPay Growth Surpasses Stock Gains and Wage Growth of Top 0.1 Percent

By Lawrence Mishel and Alyssa Davis

The chief executive officers of America’s largest firms earn three times more than they did 20 years ago and at least 10 times more than 30 years ago, big gains even relative to other very-high-wage earners. These extraordinary pay increases have had spillover effects in pulling up the pay of other executives and managers, who constitute a larger group of workers than is commonly recognized.1 Consequently, the growth of CEO and executive compensation overall was a major factor driving the doubling of the income shares of the top 1 percent and top 0.1 percent of U.S. households from 1979 to 2007 (Bivens and Mishel 2013; Bakija, Cole, and Heim 2012). Since then, income growth has remained unbalanced: as profits have reached record highs and the stock market has boomed, the wages of most workers, stagnant over the last dozen years, including during the prior recovery, have declined during this one (Bivens et al. 2014; Gould 2015) .

In examining trends in CEO compensation to determine how well the top 1 and 0.1 percent are faring through 2014, this paper finds:

Average CEO compensation for the largest firms was $16.3 million in 2014. This estimate uses a comprehensive measure of CEO pay that covers chief executives of the top 350 U.S. firms and includes the value of stock options exercised in a given year. Compensation is up 3.9 percent since 2013 and 54.3 percent since the recovery began in 2009.
From 1978 to 2014, inflation-adjusted CEO compensation increased 997 percent, a rise almost double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 10.9 percent growth in a typical worker’s annual compensation over the same period.
The CEO-to-worker compensation ratio, 20-to-1 in 1965, peaked at 376-to-1 in 2000 and was 303-to-1 in 2014, far higher than in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s.

In examining CEO compensation relative to that of other high earners, we find:

Over the last three decades, compensation for CEOs grew far faster than that of other highly paid workers, i.e., those earning more than 99.9 percent of wage earners. CEO compensation in 2013 (the latest year for data on top wage earners) was 5.84 times greater than wages of the top 0.1 percent of wage earners, a ratio 2.66 points higher than the 3.18 ratio that prevailed over the 1947–1979 period. This wage gain alone is equivalent to the wages of 2.66 very-high-wage earners.
Also over the last three decades, CEO compensation increased more relative to the pay of other very-high-wage earners than the wages of college graduates rose relative to the wages of high school graduates.
That CEO pay grew far faster than pay of the top 0.1 percent of wage earners indicates that CEO compensation growth does not simply reflect the increased value of highly paid professionals in a competitive race for skills (the “market for talent”), but rather reflects the presence of substantial “rents” embedded in executive pay (meaning CEO pay does not reflect greater productivity of executives but rather the power of CEOs to extract concessions). Consequently, if CEOs earned less or were taxed more, there would be no adverse impact on output or employment.
Critics of examining these trends suggest looking at the pay of the average CEO, not CEOs of the largest firms. However, the average firm is very small, employing just 20 workers, and does not represent a useful comparison to the pay of a typical worker who works in a firm with roughly 1,000 workers. Half (52 percent) of employment and 58 percent of total payroll are in firms with more than 500 or more employees. Firms with at least 10,000 workers provide 27.9 percent of all employment and 31.4 percent of all payroll.

CEO compensation trends

Table 1 presents trends in CEO compensation from 1965 to 2014.2 The data measure the compensation of CEOs in the largest firms and incorporate stock options according to how much the CEO realized in that particular year by exercising stock options available. The options-realized measure reflects what CEOs report as their Form W-2 wages for tax reporting purposes and is what they actually earned in a given year. This is the measure most frequently used by economists.3 In addition to stock options, the compensation measure includes salary, bonuses, restricted stock grants, and long-term incentive payouts. Full methodological details for the construction of this CEO compensation measure and benchmarking to other studies can be found in Mishel and Sabadish (2013).

TABLE 1

CEO compensation, CEO-to-worker compensation ratio, and stock prices, 1965–2014 (2014 dollars)

	CEO annual compensation (thousands)*	Worker annual compensation (thousands)		Stock market (adjusted to 2014)		CEO-to-worker compensation ratio***
		Private-sector production/nonsupervisory workers	Firms’ industry**	S&P 500	Dow Jones
1965	$832	$40.2	n/a	579	5,986	20.0
1973	$1,087	$47.2	n/a	512	4,401	22.3
1978	$1,487	$48.0	n/a	320	2,735	29.9
1989	$2,769	$45.4	n/a	596	4,628	58.7
1995	$5,862	$46.0	$52.4	836	6,941	122.6
2000	$20,384	$48.7	$55.2	1,962	14,744	376.1
2007	$18,786	$51.1	$55.4	1,687	15,048	345.3
2009	$10,575	$53.2	$57.4	1,046	9,808	195.8
2010	$12,662	$53.7	$57.8	1,238	11,585	229.7
2011	$12,863	$53.0	$56.9	1,334	12,584	235.5
2012	$14,998	$52.6	$56.3	1,422	13,371	285.3
2013	$15,711	$52.8	$56.4	1,671	15,255	303.1
2014	$16,316	$53.2	$56.4	1,931	16,778	303.4
Percent change						Change in ratio
1965–1978	78.7%	19.5%	n/a	-44.8%	-54.3%	9.9
1978–2000	1,270.8%	1.4%	n/a	513.0%	439.1%	346.2
2000–2014	-20.0%	9.4%	2.2%	-1.6%	13.8%	-72.7
2009–2014	54.3%	0.0%	-1.7%	84.6%	71.1%	107.6
1978–2014	997.2%	10.9%	n/a	503.4%	513.5%	244.7

* CEO annual compensation is computed using the "options realized" compensation series, which includes salary, bonus, restricted stock grants, options exercised, and long-term incentive payouts for CEOs at the top 350 U.S. firms ranked by sales.
** Annual compensation of the workers in the key industry of the firms in the sample
*** Based on averaging specific firm ratios and not the ratio of averages of CEO and worker compensation

Source: Authors' analysis of data from Compustat's ExecuComp database, Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the Current Employment Statistics program, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis NIPA tables

CEO compensation reported in Table 1, as well as throughout the rest of the report, is the average compensation of the CEOs in the 350 publicly owned U.S. firms (i.e., firms that sell stock on the open market) with the largest revenue each year. Our sample each year will be fewer than 350 firms to the extent that these large firms did not have the same CEO for most of or all of the year or the compensation data are not yet available. For comparison, Table 1 also presents the annual compensation (wages and benefits of a full-time, full-year worker) of a private-sector production/nonsupervisory worker (a group covering more than 80 percent of payroll employment), allowing us to compare CEO compensation with that of a “typical” worker. From 1995 onward, the table identifies the average annual compensation of the production/nonsupervisory workers in the key industries of the firms included in the sample. We take this compensation as a proxy for the pay of typical workers in these particular firms.

The modern history of CEO compensation (starting in the 1960s) is as follows. Even though the stock market, as measured by the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 index, and shown in Table 1, fell by roughly half between 1965 and 1978, CEO pay increased by 78.7 percent. Average worker pay saw relatively strong growth over that period (relative to subsequent periods, not relative to CEO pay or pay for others at the top of the wage distribution). Annual worker compensation grew by 19.5 percent from 1965 to 1978, only about a fourth as fast as CEO compensation growth over that period.

CEO compensation grew strongly throughout the 1980s but exploded in the 1990s and peaked in 2000 at around $20 million, an increase of more than 200 percent just from 1995 and 1,271 percent from 1978. This latter increase even exceeded the growth of the booming stock market—513 percent for the S&P 500 and 439 percent for the Dow. In stark contrast to both the stock market and CEO compensation, private-sector worker compensation increased just 1.4 percent over the same period.

The fall in the stock market in the early 2000s led to a substantial paring back of CEO compensation, but by 2007 (when the stock market had mostly recovered) CEO compensation returned close to its 2000 level. Figure A shows how CEO pay fluctuates in tandem with the stock market as measured by the S&P 500 index, confirming that CEOs tend to cash in their options when stock prices are high. The financial crisis in 2008 and the accompanying stock market tumble knocked CEO compensation down 44 percent by 2009. By 2014, the stock market had recouped all of the ground lost in the downturn and, not surprisingly, CEO compensation had also made a strong recovery. In 2014, average CEO compensation was $16.3 million, up 3.9 percent since 2013 and 54.3 percent since 2009. CEO compensation in 2014 remained below the peak earning years of 2000 and 2007 but far above the pay levels of the mid-1990s and much further above CEO compensation in preceding decades.

FIGURE A

CEO compensation and the S&P 500 Index (in 2014 dollars), 1965–2014

Year	CEO compensation (in millions of 2014 dollars)	S&P 500 Index (adjusted to 2014 dollars)
1965/01/01	0.83191	579.3905
1966/01/01	0.832076	544.4317
1967/01/01	0.832242	569.9553
1968/01/01	1.035328	586.6767
1969/01/01	1.035355	558.2041
1970/01/01	1.035383	452.5541
1971/01/01	1.03541	512.5317
1972/01/01	1.035438	552.3217
1973/01/01	1.086788	511.7382
1974/01/01	1.086975	358.4384
1975/01/01	1.087162	344.8192
1976/01/01	1.087348	386.0265
1977/01/01	1.087535	349.4082
1978/01/01	1.486966	320.0905
1979/01/01	1.487196	313.0516
1980/01/01	1.487427	324.748
1981/01/01	1.487657	319.8241
1982/01/01	1.487887	281.9998
1983/01/01	1.488117	362.5433
1984/01/01	1.488348	348.2643
1985/01/01	1.488578	391.9966
1986/01/01	1.488808	487.2128
1987/01/01	1.489039	572.1898
1988/01/01	1.489269	511.319
1989/01/01	2.769045	595.5699
1990/01/01	2.770492	587.6306
1991/01/01	2.771939	637.7438
1992/01/01	4.905754	687.3812
1993/01/01	5.501263	728.6534
1994/01/01	4.35423	727.3423
1995/01/01	5.862171	835.6524
1996/01/01	7.456101	1007.489
1997/01/01	11.34543	1284.651
1998/01/01	16.90274	1574.586
1999/01/01	14.93373	1886.034
2000/01/01	20.38361	1962.216
2001/01/01	11.42832	1596.986
2002/01/01	10.09622	1308.073
2003/01/01	12.91146	1242.542
2004/01/01	14.18892	1417.185
2005/01/01	16.61245	1464.087
2006/01/01	18.50301	1538.828
2007/01/01	18.78553	1686.762
2008/01/01	13.26949	1341.581
2009/01/01	10.57487	1046.467
2010/01/01	12.66208	1237.875
2011/01/01	12.86322	1334.015
2012/01/01	14.99809	1422.473
2013/01/01	15.71064	1670.708
2014/01/01	16.31562	1931.38

ChartData

Note: CEO annual compensation is computed using the "options realized" compensation series, which includes salary, bonus, restricted stock grants, options exercised, and long-term incentive payouts for CEOs at the top 350 U.S. firms ranked by sales.

Source: Authors' analysis of data from Compustat's ExecuComp database and Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

The alignment of CEO compensation to the ups and downs of the stock market casts doubt on any explanation of high and rising CEO pay that relies on the rising individual productivity of executives, either because they head larger firms, have adopted new technology, or other reasons. CEO compensation often grows strongly simply when the overall stock market rises and individual firms’ stock values rise along with it (Figure A). This is a marketwide phenomenon and not one of improved performance of individual firms: most CEO pay packages allow pay to rise whenever the firm’s stock value rises and permit CEOs to cash out stock options regardless of whether or not the rise in the firm’s stock value was exceptional relative to comparable firms. Over the entire period from 1978 to 2014, CEO compensation increased about 997 percent, a rise almost double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 10.9 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period.

It is interesting to note that growth in CEO pay in 2014 was not driven by large increases in pay for just a few executives or just those with the highest pay. Figure B shows the growth in CEO pay when compensation is ranked and computed by CEO compensation fifths. CEO compensation rose across the board, and in fact grew the most in the bottom and second fifth—11.1 and 7.9 percent, respectively—between 2013 and 2014.

FIGURE B

Real CEO compensation growth, by CEO pay fifth, 2013–2014

Quintile	Percent change
Bottom	11.1%
Second	7.9%
Middle	4.5%
Fourth	5.6%
Top	1.5%

ChartData

Source: Authors' analysis of data from Compustat's ExecuComp database

The increase in CEO pay over the past few years reflects improving market conditions driven by macroeconomic developments and a general rise in profitability. For most firms, corporate profits continue to improve, and corporate stock prices move accordingly. It seems evident that individual CEOs are not responsible for this broad improvement in profits in the past few years, but they clearly are benefiting from it.

This analysis makes clear that the economy is recovering for some Americans, but not for most. The stock market and corporate profits have rebounded following the Great Recession, but the labor market remains sluggish. Those at the top of the income distribution, including many CEOs, are seeing a strong recovery—compensation up 54.3 percent— while the typical worker is still experiencing the detrimental effects of a stagnant labor market: compensation for private-sector workers in the main industries of the CEOs in our sample has fallen 1.7 percent since 2009.

Trends in the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio

Table 1 also presents the trend in the ratio of CEO-to-worker compensation to illustrate the increased divergence between CEO and worker pay over time. This overall ratio is computed in two steps. The first step is to construct, for each of the largest 350 firms, the ratio of the CEO’s compensation to the annual compensation of workers in the key industry of the firm (data on the pay of workers in any particular firm are not available). The second step is to average that ratio across all the firms. The last column in Table 1 is the resulting ratio in select years. The trends prior to 1995 are based on the changes in average CEO and economywide private-sector production/nonsupervisory worker compensation. The year-by-year trend is presented in Figure C.

FIGURE C

CEO-to-worker compensation ratio, 1965–2014

Year	CEO-to-worker compensation ratio
1965/01/01	20.0
1966/01/01	21.2
1967/01/01	22.4
1968/01/01	23.7
1969/01/01	23.4
1970/01/01	23.2
1971/01/01	22.9
1972/01/01	22.6
1973/01/01	22.3
1974/01/01	23.7
1975/01/01	25.1
1976/01/01	26.6
1977/01/01	28.2
1978/01/01	29.9
1979/01/01	31.8
1980/01/01	33.8
1981/01/01	35.9
1982/01/01	38.2
1983/01/01	40.6
1984/01/01	43.2
1985/01/01	45.9
1986/01/01	48.9
1987/01/01	51.9
1988/01/01	55.2
1989/01/01	58.7
1990/01/01	71.2
1991/01/01	86.2
1992/01/01	104.4
1993/01/01	111.8
1994/01/01	87.3
1995/01/01	122.6
1996/01/01	153.8
1997/01/01	233.0
1998/01/01	321.8
1999/01/01	286.7
2000/01/01	376.1
2001/01/01	214.2
2002/01/01	188.5
2003/01/01	227.5
2004/01/01	256.6
2005/01/01	308.0
2006/01/01	341.4
2007/01/01	345.3
2008/01/01	239.3
2009/01/01	195.8
2010/01/01	229.7
2011/01/01	235.5
2012/01/01	285.3
2013/01/01	303.1
2014/01/01	303.4

ChartData

Source: Authors' analysis of data from Compustat's ExecuComp database, Current Employment Statistics program, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis NIPA tables

U.S. CEOs of major companies earned 20 times more than a typical worker in 1965; this ratio grew to 29.9-to-1 in 1978 and 58.7-to-1 by 1989, and then it surged in the 1990s to hit 376.1-to-1 by the end of the 1990s recovery in 2000. The fall in the stock market after 2000 reduced CEO stock-related pay (e.g., options) and caused CEO compensation to tumble until 2002 and 2003. CEO compensation recovered to a level of 345.3 times worker pay by 2007, almost back to its 2000 level. The financial crisis in 2008 and accompanying stock market decline reduced CEO compensation after 2007–2008, as discussed above, and the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio fell in tandem. By 2014, the stock market had recouped all of the value it lost following the financial crisis. Similarly, CEO compensation had grown from its 2009 low, and the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio in 2014 had recovered to 303.4-to-1, a rise of 107.6 since 2009. Though the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio remains below the peak values achieved earlier in the 2000s, it is far higher than what prevailed through the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

Does rising CEO pay simply reflect the market for skills?

CEO compensation has grown a great deal, but so has pay of other high-wage earners. To some analysts this suggests that the dramatic rise in CEO compensation was driven largely by the demand for the skills of CEOs and other highly paid professionals. In this interpretation CEO compensation is being set by the market for “skills,” and rising CEO compensation is not due to managerial power and rent-seeking behavior (Bebchuk and Fried 2004). One prominent example of the “it’s other professions, too” argument comes from Kaplan (2012a, 2012b). For instance, in the prestigious 2012 Martin Feldstein Lecture, Kaplan (2012a, 4) claimed:

Over the last 20 years, then, public company CEO pay relative to the top 0.1 percent has remained relatively constant or declined. These patterns are consistent with a competitive market for talent. They are less consistent with managerial power. Other top income groups, not subject to managerial power forces, have seen similar growth in pay.

And in a followup paper for the CATO Institute, published as a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, Kaplan (2012b, 21) expanded this point further:

The point of these comparisons is to confirm that while public company CEOs earn a great deal, they are not unique. Other groups with similar backgrounds—private company executives, corporate lawyers, hedge fund investors, private equity investors and others—have seen significant pay increases where there is a competitive market for talent and managerial power problems are absent. Again, if one uses evidence of higher CEO pay as evidence of managerial power or capture, one must also explain why these professional groups have had a similar or even higher growth in pay. It seems more likely that a meaningful portion of the increase in CEO pay has been driven by market forces as well.

Bivens and Mishel (2013) address the larger issue of the role of CEO compensation in generating income gains at the very top and conclude that there are substantial rents embedded in executive pay, meaning that CEO pay gains are not simply the result of a competitive market for talent. We draw on and update that analysis to show that CEO compensation grew far faster than compensation of other highly paid workers over the last few decades, which suggests that the market for skills was not responsible for the rapid growth of CEO compensation. To reach this finding we employ Kaplan’s own series on CEO compensation and compare it to the incomes of top households, as he does, but also compare it to a better standard, the wages of top wage earners, rather than the household income of the top 0.1 percent.4 We update Kaplan’s series beyond 2010 using the growth of CEO compensation in our own series. This analysis finds, contrary to Kaplan, that compensation of CEOs has far outpaced that of very highly paid workers, the top 0.1 percent of earners.

Table 2 presents the ratio of the average compensation of chief executive officers of large firms, the series developed by Kaplan, to two benchmarks. The first benchmark is the one Kaplan employs: the average household income of those in the top 0.1 percent, data developed by Piketty and Saez (2015). The second is the average annual earnings of the top 0.1 percent of wage earners based on a series developed by Kopczuk, Saez, and Song (2010) and updated in Mishel et al. (2012) and Mishel and Kimball (2014). Each ratio is presented as a simple ratio and logged (to convert to a “premium,” the relative pay differential between one group and another). The wage benchmark seems the most appropriate one since it avoids issues of household demographics—changes in two-earner couples, for instance—and limits the income to labor income (i.e., excluding capital income). Both the ratios and log ratios clearly understate the relative wage of CEOs since executive pay is a nontrivial share of the denominator, a bias that has probably grown over time simply because CEO relative pay has grown.5 For comparison purposes Table 2 also shows the changes in the gross (not regression-adjusted) college-to-high-school wage premium. This is also useful because some commentators, such as Mankiw (2013) have simply asserted that the top 1 percent wage and income growth reflects the general rise of the returns to skills, such as a higher college-high school wage premium. The comparisons end in 2013 because 2014 data for top 0.1 percent wages are not yet available.

TABLE 2

Growth of relative CEO compensation and college wages, 1979–2013

	Ratio			Log ratio
	CEO compensation to:		College wages to:	CEO compensation to:		College wages to:
	Top 0.1% households	Top 0.1% wage earners	High school hourly wages	Top 0.1% households	Top 0.1% wage earners	High school hourly wages
1979	1.18	3.26	1.40	0.164	1.183	0.338
1989	1.14	2.63	1.57	0.129	0.967	0.454
1993	1.56	3.05	1.63	0.443	1.115	0.488
2000	2.90	7.77	1.75	1.064	2.050	0.557
2007	1.49	4.36	1.76	0.397	1.473	0.568
2010	2.04	4.85	1.77	0.712	1.579	0.574
2013	2.54	5.84	1.82	0.933	1.765	0.598
Change
1979–2007	0.31	1.10	0.36	0.23	0.29	0.23
1979–2013	1.36	2.58	0.42	0.77	0.58	0.26
1989–2013	1.41	3.21	0.24	0.80	0.80	0.14

Source: Authors' analysis of Kaplan (2012b) and Mishel et al. (2012, Table 4.8)

CEO compensation grew from 1.14 times the income of the top 0.1 percent of households in 1989 to 2.54 times in 2013. CEO pay relative to the pay of the top 0.1 percent of wage earners grew even more, from a ratio of 2.63 in 1989 to 5.84 in 2013, a rise (3.21) equal to the pay of more than three very high earners. The log ratio of CEO relative pay grew 80 log points from 1989 to 2013 using top 0.1 percent household incomes or wages earners as the comparison.

Is this a large increase? Kaplan (2012a, 4) concluded that CEO relative pay “has remained relatively constant or declined.” Kaplan (2012b, 14) finds that the ratio “remains above its historical average and the level in the mid-1980s.” Figure D puts this in historical context by presenting the ratios displayed in Table 2 back to 1947. The ratio of CEO pay to top (0.1 percent) household incomes in 2013 (2.54) was more than double the historical (1947–1979) average of 1.11. The ratio of CEO pay relative to top wage earners in 2013 was 5.84, 2.66 points higher than the historical average of 3.18 (a relative gain of the wages earned by 2.66 high-wage earners). As the data in Table 2 show, the increase in the logged CEO pay premium since 1979, and particularly since 1989, far exceeded the rise in the college-to-high-school wage premium that is widely and appropriately considered substantial growth. Mankiw’s claim that top 1 percent pay or top executive pay simply corresponds to the rise of the college–high school wage premium is unfounded (Mishel 2013a, 2013b). Moreover, the data would show an even faster growth of CEO relative pay if Kaplan had built his historical series using the Frydman and Saks (2010) series for the 1980–1994 period rather than the Hall and Leibman (1997) data.6

FIGURE D

Comparison of CEO compensation to top incomes and wages, 1947–2013

Year	0.1% household income ratio	0.1% wage earners ratio	1947–1979 average: 1.11	1947–1979 average: 3.18
1947/01/01	1.21	3.54	1.11	3.18
1948/01/01	1.11	3.14	1.11	3.18
1949/01/01	1.25	3.55	1.11	3.18
1950/01/01	1.05	3.02	1.11	3.18
1951/01/01	1.14	3.02	1.11	3.18
1952/01/01	1.19	2.95	1.11	3.18
1953/01/01	1.34	3.29	1.11	3.18
1954/01/01	1.20	3.42	1.11	3.18
1955/01/01	1.17	3.44	1.11	3.18
1956/01/01	1.20	3.40	1.11	3.18
1957/01/01	1.31	3.79	1.11	3.18
1958/01/01	1.28	3.79	1.11	3.18
1959/01/01	1.26	4.23	1.11	3.18
1960/01/01	1.07	3.26	1.11	3.18
1961/01/01	0.99	3.54	1.11	3.18
1962/01/01	1.08	3.55	1.11	3.18
1963/01/01	1.12	3.65	1.11	3.18
1964/01/01	1.00	3.41	1.11	3.18
1965/01/01	0.91	3.32	1.11	3.18
1966/01/01	0.98	3.14	1.11	3.18
1967/01/01	0.84	3.09	1.11	3.18
1968/01/01	0.75	3.02	1.11	3.18
1969/01/01	0.84	3.10	1.11	3.18
1970/01/01	1.06	3.00	1.11	3.18
1971/01/01	0.91	2.85	1.11	3.18
1972/01/01	0.95	2.93	1.11	3.18
1973/01/01	1.05	2.72	1.11	3.18
1974/01/01	1.19	2.70	1.11	3.18
1975/01/01	1.19	2.29	1.11	3.18
1976/01/01	1.14	2.33	1.11	3.18
1977/01/01	1.25	2.44	1.11	3.18
1978/01/01	1.35	2.82	1.11	3.18
1979/01/01	1.18	3.26	1.11	3.18
1980/01/01	1.09	2.76	1.11	3.18
1981/01/01	1.16	2.98	1.11	3.18
1982/01/01	1.03	2.79	1.11	3.18
1983/01/01	1.02	2.79	1.11	3.18
1984/01/01	0.94	2.57	1.11	3.18
1985/01/01	1.05	3.12	1.11	3.18
1986/01/01	0.73	2.92	1.11	3.18
1987/01/01	1.33	2.62	1.11	3.18
1988/01/01	0.97	2.38	1.11	3.18
1989/01/01	1.14	2.63	1.11	3.18
1990/01/01	1.28	2.75	1.11	3.18
1991/01/01	1.52	3.12	1.11	3.18
1992/01/01	1.46	2.84	1.11	3.18
1993/01/01	1.56	3.05	1.11	3.18
1994/01/01	1.90	3.99	1.11	3.18
1995/01/01	1.82	4.11	1.11	3.18
1996/01/01	2.18	5.50	1.11	3.18
1997/01/01	2.22	5.28	1.11	3.18
1998/01/01	2.32	5.91	1.11	3.18
1999/01/01	2.39	6.03	1.11	3.18
2000/01/01	2.90	7.77	1.11	3.18
2001/01/01	3.28	6.88	1.11	3.18
2002/01/01	2.96	6.10	1.11	3.18
2003/01/01	2.54	5.40	1.11	3.18
2004/01/01	2.17	5.28	1.11	3.18
2005/01/01	1.78	5.00	1.11	3.18
2006/01/01	1.78	5.18	1.11	3.18
2007/01/01	1.49	4.36	1.11	3.18
2008/01/01	1.80	4.56	1.11	3.18
2009/01/01	2.08	4.61	1.11	3.18
2010/01/01	2.04	4.85	1.11	3.18
2011/01/01	2.17	4.92	1.11	3.18
2012/01/01	1.90	5.08	1.11	3.18
2013/01/01	2.54	5.84	1.11	3.18

ChartData

Source: Authors' analysis of Kaplan (2012b) and Mishel et al. (2012, Table 4.8)

Presumably, CEO relative pay has grown further since 2013. The data in Table 1 show that CEO compensation rose 3.9 percent between 2013 and 2014. (Unfortunately, data on the earnings of top wage earners for 2014 are not yet available for a comparison to CEO compensation trends.) If CEO pay growing far faster than that of other high earners is a test of the presence of rents, as Kaplan has suggested, then we would conclude that today’s executives receive substantial rents, meaning that if they were paid less there would be no loss of productivity or output. The large discrepancy between the pay of CEOs and other very-high-wage earners also casts doubt on the claim that CEOs are being paid these extraordinary amounts because of their special skills and the market for those skills. Is it likely that the skills of CEOs in very large firms are so outsized and disconnected from the skills of others that they propel CEOs past most of their cohorts in the top tenth of a percent? For everyone else the distribution of skills, as reflected in the overall wage distribution, tends to be much more continuous.

What about the average CEO?

A relatively new critique of examining the pay of CEOs in the largest firms, as we do, is that such efforts are misleading. For instance, American Enterprise Institute scholar Mark Perry (2015) says the samples of CEOs examined by the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal, or our earlier work “aren’t very representative of the average U.S. company or the average U.S. CEO,” because “the samples of 300–350 firms for CEO pay represent only one of about every 21,500 private firms in the U.S., or about 1/200 of 1% of the total number of U.S. firms.” Perry notes, “According to both the BLS and the Census Bureau, there are more than 7 million private firms in the U.S.” Perry considers the pay of the average CEO, $187,000, to be a much more important indicator.

This is a clever but misguided critique. Amazingly, roughly sixteen percent of the CEOs in Perry’s preferred measure are in the public sector. Those in the private sector include CEOs of religious organizations, advocacy groups, and unions. One wonders why Perry is not critical of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ measure of CEO pay, since BLS reports that there are only 207,660 private-sector CEOs, far short of the 7.4 million there would be if each private firm had one. The shortfall of CEOs in the BLS data is understandable, however, once one recognizes that the average firm has only 20.2 workers (Caruso 2015, Appendix Table 1). The 5.2 million firms with fewer than 19 employees, averaging four employees per firm, probably do not have a CEO, nor probably do 2 million of the 2.4 million firms with more than 19 employees.

The reason to focus on the CEO pay of the largest firms is that they employ a large number of workers, are the leaders of the business community, and set the standards for pay in the executive pay market and probably do so in the nonprofit sector as well (e.g., hospitals, universities). No agency reports how many workers work for very large firms. We do know from Census data (Caruso 2015, Appendix Table 1) that the 18,219 firms in 2012 with at least 500 employees employed 51.6 percent of all employees and their payrolls accounted for 58.1 percent of total payroll (wages times employment). County Business Patterns data provide a breakout of the 964 firms (just 0.017 percent of all firms) with at least 10,000 employees; these large firms provide 27.9 percent of all employment and 31.4 percent of all payroll. In other words, the CEO of the “average U.S. company” about which Perry purports to be interested does not correspond to the CEO of the firm where the “average” or median worker works. This is further confirmed by a new study that reports that the median firm, ranked by employment, has roughly 1,000 workers while the average firm has about 20 (Song et al. 2015).

Executives and managers comprise a large portion of those in the top 1 percent of income and the top 1 percent of wage earners. The analysis of tax returns in Bakija et al. (2012) shows the composition of executives in the households with the highest incomes; our tabulation of American Community Survey data for 2009–2011 shows that 41.2 percent (the largest group) of those heading a household in the top 1 percent of incomes were executives or managers. Thus, we know that highly paid managers are the largest group in the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent, measured in terms of either wages or household income, and so there are plenty of good reasons to be interested in the pay of executives of large firms. Moreover, the pay of CEOs in the largest firms has grown multiples faster than the wages of other very high earners and hundreds of times faster than the wages these CEOs provide to their workers.

Conclusion

It is sometimes argued that rising CEO compensation is a symbolic issue with no consequences for the vast majority. However, the escalation of CEO compensation and executive compensation more generally has fueled the growth of top 1 percent incomes. In a study of tax returns from 1979 to 2005, Bakija, Cole, and Heim (2010), studying tax returns from 1979 to 2005, established that the increases in income among the top 1 and 0.1 percent of households were disproportionately driven by households headed by someone who was either a nonfinancial-sector “executive” (including managers and supervisors and hereafter referred to as nonfinance executives) or a financial-sector executive or other worker. Forty-four percent of the growth of the top 0.1 percent’s income share and 36 percent of the top 1 percent’s income share accrued to households headed by a nonfinance executive; another 23 percent for each group accrued to financial-sector households. Together, finance workers and nonfinance executives accounted for 58 percent of the expansion of income for the top 1 percent of households and 67 percent of the income growth of the top 0.1 percent. Relative to others in the top 1 percent, households headed by nonfinance executives had roughly average income growth, those headed by someone in the financial sector had above-average income growth, and the remaining households (nonexecutive, nonfinance) had slower-than-average income growth. These shares may actually understate the role of nonfinance executives and the financial sector since they do not account for the increased spousal income from these sources.7

We have argued above that high CEO pay reflects rents, concessions CEOs can draw from the economy not by virtue of their contribution to economic output but by virtue of their position. Consequently, CEO pay could be reduced and the economy would not suffer any loss of output. Another implication of rising executive pay is that it reflects income that otherwise would have accrued to others: what the executives earned was not available for broader-based wage growth for other workers. (Bivens and Mishel 2013 explore this issue in depth.)

There are policy options for curtailing escalating executive pay and broadening wage growth. Some involve taxes. Implementing higher marginal income tax rates at the very top would limit rent-seeking behavior and reduce the incentives for executives to push for such high pay. Legislation has also been proposed that would remove the tax break for executive performance pay that was established early in the Clinton administration; by allowing the deductibility of performance pay, this tax change helped fuel the growth of stock options and other forms of such compensation. Another option is to set corporate tax rates higher for firms that have higher ratios of CEO-to-worker compensation. Other policies that can potentially limit executive pay growth are changes in corporate governance, such as greater use of “say on pay,” which allows a firm’s shareholders to vote on top executives’ compensation.

– The authors thank the Stephen Silberstein Foundation for their generous support of this research.

About the authors

Lawrence Mishel is president of the Economic Policy Institute and was formerly its research director and then vice president. He is the co-author of all 12 editions of The State of Working America. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, and his articles have appeared in a variety of academic and nonacademic journals. His areas of research are labor economics, wage and income distribution, industrial relations, productivity growth, and the economics of education.

Alyssa Davis joined EPI in 2013 as the Bernard and Audre Rapoport Fellow. She assists EPI’s researchers in their ongoing analysis of the labor force, labor standards, and other aspects of the economy. Davis aids in the design and execution of research projects in areas such as poverty, education, health care, and immigration. She also works with the Economic Analysis and Research Network (EARN) to provide research support to various state advocacy organizations. Davis has previously worked in the Texas House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. She holds a B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin.

Endnotes

1. In 2007, according to the Capital IQ database, there were 38,824 executives in publicly held firms (tabulations provided by Temple University Professor Steve Balsam). There were 9,692 in the top 0.1 percent of wage earners.

2. The years chosen are based on data availability, though where possible we chose cyclical peaks (years of low unemployment).

3. For instance, all of the papers prepared for the symposium on the top 1 percent, published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives (summer 2013), used CEO pay measures with realized options. Bivens and Mishel (2013) follow this approach because the editors asked them to drop references to the options-granted measure.

4. We thank Steve Kaplan for sharing his series with us.

5. Temple University Professor Steve Balsam provided tabulations of annual W-2 wages of executives in the top 0.1 percent from the Capital IQ database. The 9,692 executives in publicly held firms who were in the top 0.1 percent of wage earners had average W-2 earnings of $4,400,028. Using Mishel et al. (2012) estimates of top 0.1 percent wages, executive wages make up 13.3 percent of total top 0.1 percent wages. One can gauge the bias of including executives in the denominator by noting that the ratio of executive wages to all top 0.1 percent wages in 2007 was 2.14, but the ratio of executive wages to nonexecutive wages was 2.32. Unfortunately, we do not have data that permit an assessment of the bias in 1979 or 1989. We also do not have information on the number and wages of executives in privately held firms; their inclusion would clearly indicate an even larger bias. The IRS reports there were nearly 15,000 corporate tax returns in 2007 of firms with assets exceeding $250 million, indicating there are many more executives of large firms than just those in publicly held firms.

6. Kaplan (2012b, 14) notes that the Frydman and Saks series grew 289 percent, while the Hall and Leibman series grew 209 percent. He also notes that the Frydman and Saks series grows faster than that reported by Murphy (2012).

7. The discussion in this paragraph is taken from Bivens and Mishel (2013).

References

Bakija, Jon, Adam Cole, and Bradley Heim. 2010. “Job and Income Growth of Top Earners and the Causes of Changing Income Inequality: Evidence From U.S. Tax Return Data.” Department of Economics Working Paper 2010-24, Williams College.

Bakija, Jon, Adam Cole, and Bradley Heim. 2012. “Job and Income Growth of Top Earners and the Causes of Changing Income Inequality: Evidence From U.S. Tax Return Data.”

Balsam, Steven. 2013. Equity Compensation: Motivations and Implications. Washington, DC: WorldatWork Press.

Bebchuk, Lucian, and Jesse Fried. 2004. Pay Without Performance: The Unfulfilled Promise of Executive Remuneration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bivens, Josh, Elise Gould, Lawrence Mishel, and Heidi Shierholz. 2014. “Raising America’s Pay: Why It’s Our Central Economic Policy Challenge.” Economic Policy Institute, Briefing Paper #378.

Bivens, Josh, and Lawrence Mishel. 2013. “The Pay of Corporate Executives and Financial Professionals as Evidence of Rents in Top 1 Percent Incomes.” Economic Policy Institute, Working Paper #296.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2015. “Occupational Employment and Wages–May 2014.”

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Various years. Business Employment Dynamics. Public data series.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Various years. Current Employment Statistics. Public data series. Employment, Hours and Earnings-National [database].

Bureau of Economic Analysis. Various years. National Income and Product Accounts Tables [online data tables]. Tables 6.2C, 6.2D, 6.3C, and 6.3D.

Caruso, Anthony. 2015. “Statistics of U.S. Businesses Employment and Payroll Summary: 2012.” U.S. Census Bureau.

Compustat. Various years. ExecuComp database [commercial database product accessible by purchase].

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Various years. Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) [database].

Frydman, Carola, and Raven E. Saks. 2010. “Executive Compensation: A New View From a Long-Term Perspective, 1936–2005.” Review of Financial Studies 23, 2099–138.

Gould, Elise. 2015. “2014 Continues a 35-Year Trend of Broad-Based Wage Stagnation.” Economic Policy Institute, Issue Brief #393.

Hall, Brian J., and Jeffrey B. Liebman. 1997. “Are CEOs Really Paid Like Bureaucrats?” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper #6213.

Kaplan, Steven N. 2012a. “Executive Compensation and Corporate Governance in the U.S.: Perceptions, Facts, and Challenges.” Martin Feldstein Lecture. National Bureau of Economic Research, Washington, DC, July 10.

Kaplan, Steven N. 2012b. “Executive Compensation and Corporate Governance in the U.S.: Perceptions, Facts, and Challenges.” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper # w18395.

Kopczuk, Wojciech, Emmanuel Saez, and Jae Song. 2010. “Earnings Inequality and Mobility in the United States: Evidence From Social Security Data Since 1937.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 125, no. 1: 91–128.

Mankiw, N. Gregory. 2013. “Defending the One Percent.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 27, no. 3: p. 21-24.

Mishel, Lawrence. 2013a. “Greg Mankiw Forgets to Offer Data for His Biggest Claim.” Working Economics(Economic Policy Institute blog), June 25.

Mishel, Lawrence. 2013b. “Working as Designed: High Profits and Stagnant Wages.” Working Economics (Economic Policy Institute blog), March 28.

Mishel, Lawrence, Josh Bivens, Elise Gould, and Heidi Shierholz. 2012. The State of Working America, 12th Edition. An Economic Policy Institute book. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Mishel, Lawrence, and Will Kimball. 2014. “The Top 1 Percent of Wage Earners Falters in 2013: Was It a Temporary Event?” Working Economics (Economic Policy Institute blog), October 24.

Mishel, Lawrence, and Natalie Sabadish. 2013. “Methodology for Measuring CEO Compensation and the Ratio of CEO-to-Worker Compensation.” Economic Policy Institute Working Paper #298.

Murphy, Kevin. 2012. “The Politics of Pay: A Legislative History of Executive Compensation.” University of Southern California Marshall School of Business Working Paper #FBE 01.11.

Perry, Mark. 2015. “When We Consider All US ‘Chief Executives,’ the ‘CEO-to-Worker Pay Ratio’ Falls From 331:1 to Below 4:1.” AEI Ideas (American Enterprise Institute blog), May 1.

Piketty, Thomas, and Emmanuel Saez. 2015. “Income Inequality in the United States, 1913–1998” Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, no. 1, 1–39, tables and figures updated to 2013 in Excel format, January 2015.

Reich, Robert. 2014. “Raising Taxes on Corporations That Pay Their CEOs Royally and Treat Their Workers Like Serfs.” Robertreich.org. April 21.

Song, Jae, David J. Price, Faith Guvenen, and Nicholas Bloom. 2015. “Firming Up Inequality.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper #21199.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. “Number of Firms, Number of Establishments, Employment, and Annual Payroll by Large Enterprise Employment Sizes for the United States, NAICS Sectors: 2012.” County Business Patterns.

SOURCE

Trickle Down Economics

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Tue, 08 Sep 2015 00:44:00 +0000

Almost Every Obama Conspiracy Theory Ever

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Wed, 02 Sep 2015 18:17:00 +0000

Chart: Almost Every Obama Conspiracy Theory Ever

Fake birth certificates, ghostwriters, teleprompters, a teenage trip to Mars, and more of the most paranoid and bizarro Obama conspiracy theories out there.

By Asawin Suebsaeng and Dave Gilson / Illustrations by Steve Brodner

Barack Obama's presidency has been an inspiration to many Americans—especially nutjobs. Ever since the first-black-president-to-be appeared on the national political stage, a cottage industry of conservative conspiracy theorists has churned out bizarro, paranoid, and just plain racist effluvia—some of which has trickled into the political mainstream. Below, we've charted some of the Obama-baiters best (i.e., worst) work. (Scroll down for more detailed descriptions of the conspiracy theories in the diagram.)

THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Disclaimer: It should go without saying that none of these are true. Follow links at your own risk.

Obama is a secret Muslim: This one began right after he took the stage at the 2004 Democratic convention, with chain emails alleging his "true" religious affiliation. The rumor soon found its way onto the popular conservative online forum Free Republic, and took on a whole new life in the years to come. Related: Obama secretly speaks Arabic, attended a madrassa as a kid in Indonesia, referred to "my Muslim faith" in an interview, and was sworn in on a Koran. Steve Brodner

Obama is bringing 100 million Muslims to America: Avi Lipkin and his PR outfit Special Guests claimed to have evidence of a scheme to bring roughly 100 million Muslims from the Middle East into the United States, converting the country into an Islamic nation by the end of Obama's second term and making it easier to obliterate Israel.

Obama once aided the mujahideen: Harlem pastor and professional race-baiter James David Manning contended that in his younger days, Obama went undercover as a CIA agent to facilitate the transfer of cash and weapons to the Afghan mujahideen in the '80s, thereby aiding what would become the Taliban.

Obama is in the pocket of the Muslim Brotherhood: Billy Graham's son Franklin wants you to know that Obama is allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to take over the federal government.

Obama redecorated the Oval Office in Middle Eastern style: Driven by his fierce sense ofanti-American interior design, Obama got rid of the red, white, and blue decoration scheme in his White House office.

Obama married a Pakistani guy: World Net Daily correspondent and conspiracymonger extraordinaire Jerome Corsi posted a video in which he claimed to have "strong" evidence that Obama was once married to his college roommate from Pakistan. The smoking gun: Photos of the chums in which the future president is "sitting about on the [Pakistani roommate's] lap." Related: For years Obama wore a gold ring on his left hand. Was it his gay-wedding ring?

Obama's ring has a Koranic verse on it: The very same ring, which Obama now wears as his (straight) wedding band, is allegedly emblazoned with a key phrase in the Islamic declaration of faith: "There is no god except Allah." (It's not.)

Obama was funded by a Saudi prince: Another fairy tale courtesy of Corsi: In late-'70s Chicago, Obama secured political and academic funding from a variety of sketchy Arab sponsors, including a Saudi prince. Which may explain why President Obama bowed to the Saudi king when they met in 2009.

Obama was born in Kenya: In early 2008, fringe theorists began a push to prove Obama was born on foreign soil and was therefore ineligible to live in the White House. The theory gained national attention thanks to the efforts of perennial GOP candidate Alan Keyes, "birther queen" Orly Taitz, and Corsi. Related: Obama's birth certificate is a fake, he killed his grandmother in Hawaii because she knew the truth, sealed access to his birth certificate and other damning documents, and did pretty much everything horrible you could possibly do for the sake of a phony birth certificate.

Obama lost his US citizenship: According to Corsi, Obama became a citizen of Indonesia while he lived there as a child.Steve Brodner

Michelle's "whitey" tape: During the 2008 campaign, rumors surfaced that a video of Michelle Obama using the word "whitey" would be released to sink her husband's campaign. It's never materialized. Related: The time Glenn Beck called Barack Obama a racist.

Obama was a Black Panther: Well, only if you're not very good at spottingphotoshopped images.

Obama is the son of Malcolm X: Because, you know, black people. This charmer popped up on Atlas Shrugged, Pamela Geller's anti-Muslim website. (Geller is also known for obsessing over Shariah turkeys she believes are destroying Thanksgiving.)

Obama is the son of Frank Marshall Davis: The conspiracy film Dreams From My Real Father espouses the theory that Davis, a leftist activist, was not only Obama's ideological mentor but his biological father. Related: Obama got a nose jobto make his nose look less like Davis'.

Obama's mom and dad were communists: That would be his real father, Barack Obama, Sr. And you know thatcommunism is an inherited condition.

Obama's ghostwriter was Bill Ayers: Conservative commentators claimed they uncovered evidence that ex-Weatherman Bill Ayers was the true author of Obama's 1995 memoir Dreams from my Father. Beyond their shared radicalism, Obama asked Ayers to help because he had writer's block.

Obama trained to overthrow the government: In 2008, leading Obama conspiracy theorist Andy Martin declared on Fox News' Hannity's America that the then-presidential candidate had trained for "a radical overthrow of the government" during his time as a community organizer in Chicago.

Obama wouldn't say the Pledge of Allegiance: During the '08 campaign, Obama was rumored to have refused to say the pledge during a town hall meeting. A photo of the incident was actually taken while the national anthem was being sung.

Obama removed the flag from Air Force One: …and replaced it with his campaign logo.

Obama ordered soldiers to swear allegiance to him: In April 2009, a clearly satirical report detailing how secretary of defense Robert Gates was growing "extremely frustrated" with the White House's plans to scrub the Constitution from the military oath of loyalty made the rounds on the right-wing blogosphere.

Obama secretly gave away American islands to Russia: Texas House candidate Wes Riddle endorsed this theory and noted the relinquishment as grounds for impeachment. However, the seven Arctic islands were actually given away in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush.Steve Brodner

Obama caused the recession—in 1995: According to a recent Daily Caller story, Obama's efforts to force banks to lend to African Americans in the mid-'90s led to the subprime mortgage crisis that killed the economy in 2008.

Obama's youth reeducation camps: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) warned that "young people will be put into mandatory service" at politically correct, billion-dollar camps run by the Democrats.

Obama's coming for your guns: Extreme gun-rights outfits, along with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), alleged that the Obama administration is supporting the (nonexistent) United Nations Small Arms Treaty, which would lead to nationwide gun confiscation. Unfounded fears of gun confiscation have multiplied since the Newtown massacre.

Obama's coming for your gold: This theory was floated by Glenn Beck—and the gold company he shilled for.

Obama is planning FEMA concentration camps: Again with the camps. This theory got a big boost from Glenn Beck (whoclaims he didn't mean anything by it). Related: An executive order titled, "National Defense Resources Preparedness," was issued in the middle of March 2012. Conservative commentators saw it as a martial law power-grab that allowed the president to commandeer farmland, steal everyone's food, and draft any American into slave labor for a war of aggression against Iran. Also, he has a "secret vault" at Interpol's headquarters for imprisoning Americans. (Chuck Norris is on the case.)

Obama wants to confiscate your IRA: Townhall.com sent out an message ad claiming that Obama wants to seize your retirement account by force.

Obama caused the BP oil spill: Conspiracy-minded radio host Alex Jones promoted the theory that the Deepwater Horizon spill was all part of the administration's plans of oil nationalization and global government.

Obama was behind the Aurora massacre: In July, Gun Owners of America blasted out a press release claiming that the mass murder at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, was suspiciously timed. "Someone in Washington" was probably behind it, paving the way for Obama-led firearm confiscation and "government genocide."

Obama personally caused Hurricane Sandy: It wasn’t global warming that made Sandy so intense; it was Barack. Alex Jones' site reported the president engineered the storm using a Pentagon weather modification project. The mayhem caused by the hurricane would afford Obama the opportunity to score points by briskly managing disaster relief a week before the election.

Obama had Andrew Breitbart killed: In March 2012, conservative media impresario Andrew Breitbart died of heart failure. Less than a month prior to his death, he had announced that he had uncovered footage of Obama's formative years as a radical. So obviously, Obama had him offed. (The tapes were later revealed to contain things like a young Obama hugging a black college professor.) Related: People—like a Rod Blagojevich fundraiser and an Obama impersonator—died between 2008 and 2012. Obama was in office between 2008 and 2012…coincidence?!?!

Steve Brodner

Obama spiked the jobs report: "Jobs truthers" (like former GE CEO Jack Welch and Florida tea party congressman Allen West) accused the Obama administration of cooking the September unemployment numbers to manufacture a rosier picture of the economy and boost the president's chances of reelection.

Obama faked bin Laden's death: Since no photographs of Osama bin Laden's corpse were produced, the Al Qaeda leader must still be out there. Fox News' Steve Doocy and Andrew Napolitano entertained the idea that Operation Neptune Spear was merely a ploy to revive Obama's sagging approval ratings. Related: Obama was photoshopped into the iconic killing-OBL White House photo.

Obama's plan to fake an assassination attempt: A false-flag operation would create urban tumult and give Obama the pretext to declare martial law, thus suspending democracy, postponing the 2012 election, and prolonging his stay in office. The theory was flagged by Tenn. State Rep. Kelly Keisling, among others, after circulating online.

Obama's planning a third term: The dust from the 2012 election had barely cleared when this one popped up.

Obama the brainwashing hypnotist: As a master of neurolinguistic programming, Obama convinced Americans to vote for him via subliminal messages. Related: Rush Limbaugh pondered if hypnosis was the reason that so many Jewish voters were in the bag for Obama. In October, Georgia GOP lawmakers held a briefing on the president's secret mind-control plot.

Obama's teleprompter: Obama's eloquence is a myth! The 44th president is incapable of speaking in public with his teleprompter.

Obama had a ghostwriter for everything: Jack Cashill over at WND had a hot scoop on how Obama's love letters to his college girlfriend were ghostwritten.

Obama's anti-Semitic poetry: However, according to the American Thinker, Obama's ghostwriters did not write his youthful poem "Underground," which compares Jews to fig-eating underwater apes and echoes Koranic verse.

Obama's exiled lover: Obama was supposedly fooling around with an attractive young staffer from his 2004 Senate campaign. Michelle Obama had the temptress packed off to the Caribbean before the '08 campaign.

Obama is gay: Which explains why he joined Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church. No, really. (Via Corsi, of course.)

Obama's crack cocaine/gay sex/murder orgy cover-up: In 2008, a small-time conman named Larry Sinclair and his kilt-wearing lawyer held a press conference to tell the world of the future president's murderous, drug-and-sodomy-fueled crimes.

Obama's campaigns were funded by drug money: During an October conference call organized to oppose pot legalization, a writer from Lyndon LaRouche's magazine asked about "reports [that both Obama's] 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns have been financed in part by laundered drug money."

Obama is the Antichrist: Obviously. Related: If you play his 2008 Democratic nomination acceptance speech backwards, you can hear him instruct listeners to do Satan's bidding.Steve Brodner

Obama is a lizard overlord: According to codes hidden in Biblical verse, Obama is a reptilian humanoid. This idea has found its way on to some right-wing radio shows, and two Daily Caller reporters recently published a (satirical?) e-book on the topic titled, The Lizard King: The Shocking Inside Account of Obama's True Intergalactic Ambitions by an Anonymous White House Staffer.

Obama's adventures on Mars: As a teen, Obama participated in a CIA initiative to teleport to Mars using a top-secret "jump room." Self-described time travelers William Stillings and Andrew Basiago claim to have met the future POTUS at American space bases on the Red Planet. In early 2012, a spokesman for the National Security Council actually acknowledged these claims, and issued a fairly convincing denial.

SOURCE

A New Plan for American Cities To Free Themselves of Wall Street’s Control--Collective bargaining, but for workers that would be socialism, right?

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Tue, 01 Sep 2015 14:56:00 +0000

A New Plan for American Cities To Free Themselves of Wall Street’s Control

Arbitrary financial fees are sucking cities and states dry. But they can change the terms if they band together and bargain collectively.

BY SAQIB BHATTI

In August 2014, the Los Angeles City Council debated whether to call for the renegotiation of the city’s financial deals. A report by the labor-community coalition Fix L.A. found that the city had spent more than twice as much on banking fees in fiscal year 2013 as it had on street services.

To try to balance its budget, Los Angeles had enacted hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts over the previous five years. City jobs had been slashed by 10 percent, flood control procedures had been cut back, crumbling sidewalks were not repaired and alleys were rarely cleared of debris. Sewer inspections ceased entirely; the number of sewer overflows doubled from 2008 to 2013.

The campaign slogan wrote itself: “Invest in our streets, not Wall Street!”

At the city council debate, Timothy Butcher, a worker with the Bureau of Street Services, got up and said, “I don’t know a whole lot about high finance. I’m just a truck driver. But I do know, if I go to a bank and they give me a bad deal, I don’t deal with that bank any more. And I don’t understand why the city can’t use the same kind of concept on some of these big banks, saying, ‘Hey, help us out or, you know, we’re not going to deal with you any more.’ ”

The City Council approved the resolution unanimously.

It was a blow against both the austerity agenda and the iron grip of Wall Street on American cities. State and local governments in the United States rely on Wall Street firms to put together bond deals, manage their investments and provide financial services. For this, banks charge billions of dollars in fees each year. Public officials believe they have little choice but to cough up. When there are revenue shortfalls, cities typically impose austerity measures and cut essential community services, but Wall Street gets a free pass—payments to banks are considered untouchable.

Public officials assume (wrongly) that financial fees are set in stone because they are based on so-called market rates. However, market rates aren’t preordained by God. Banks set them, and public finance officials simply don’t demand anything substantively lower.

So, what if cities took a page from the labor movement and bargained collectively over interest rates and other financial deals?

The simple reason why anti-union politicians are waging a war on collective bargaining by workers is that it works: There is power in numbers. The basic idea behind such bargaining is to shift the balance of power in the employer-employee relationship and empower workers to negotiate with owners on a more equal footing.

But collective bargaining does not have to be limited to the workplace. Student organizations such as United Students Against Sweatshops have forced university administrations to negotiate over labor standards for their merchandise vendors. Consumer unions press retailers over issues like pricing and safety standards. Community organizations are able to negotiate community-benefit agreements with major corporations in their cities and win benefits such as local hiring policies and community investment standards.

Similarly, public finance officials in cities, states and school districts across the country could apply collective bargaining practices to their financial relationships with Wall Street. While there is no established mechanism for them to do so, there are some creative options worth exploring. For example, cities could establish a nonprofit or publicly funded agency to set guidelines for municipal finance deals and refuse to do business with any bank that does not comply. (More on this later.)

This may sound pie-in-the-sky, but the reality is that American taxpayer dollars are a tremendous source of bargaining power. Just three U.S. cities— New York, Los Angeles and Chicago— together with their related agencies and pension funds, do nearly $600 billion of business with Wall Street every year, more than the gross domestic product of Sweden. Wall Street wants a piece of that action. If it has to jump through a few hoops to get it, it will. This gives public officials the leverage to demand lower interest rates and fairer terms, freeing up scarce funds for community services like parks, libraries and schools.

Runaway fees

Over the last few decades, the banking industry has shifted its profit model away from interest. Big banks’ profits now rely heavily on fees—the money charged for creating loans, packaging them into securities, selling them and servicing them. This structure incentivizes banks to push more complex and expensive deals, like adjustable-rate mortgages and variable-rate bonds, that require fees and add-ons.

Banking fees do not have to bear any relationship to the actual cost of providing services. Banks charge whatever they can get away with, which is why fees have shot up as banks have consolidated and customers’ choices have narrowed. For example, in 2007, Bank of America raised its ATM fee for non-customers from $2 to $3. In all likelihood, the bank’s costs hadn’t suddenly risen 50 percent, despite a spokesperson’s claim that the fee hike would offset “significant” expansion and upgrade of its machines. Banks also arbitrarily raised prices on credit enhancements for municipal borrowers after the financial crash.

For cities and states, which deal in large dollar amounts, this nickel-anddiming hits particularly hard. A 1 percent fee on a $200 million bond is a lot more money than a 1 percent fee on a $200,000 mortgage. That explains why the city of Los Angeles paid $334 million in publicly disclosed fees for financial services in fiscal year 2013, according to the Fix L.A. report. This amount did not include principal or interest on any debt, and neither did it include fees that are not publicly disclosed, like the astronomical fees hedge funds and private equity firms charge pension funds to manage investments.

In Illinois, a preliminary analysis by researchers at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)—full disclosure: where I used to work—found that the state’s pension funds spent approximately $400 million in publicly disclosed fees in 2014 alone. New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer has released a report showing that nearly all of the returns from the city’s five pension funds over the past 10 years—approximately $2.5 billion—have been eaten up by fees. An investigation by the International Business Times found that New Jersey’s pension funds paid more than $600 million in financial fees in 2014.

Every dollar that banks collect in fees from state and local governments and pension funds is a dollar not going toward essential neighborhood services. It’s not just the streets and sewers of Los Angeles. Illinois is teetering on the edge of a government shutdown. Already, Gov. Bruce Rauner has slashed funding for college scholarships for low-income students, taken a hatchet to vital healthcare programs like Medicaid, and cut state funding for CeaseFire, a highly regarded violence-prevention program with a proven track record.

Most public officials still resist acknowledging that these fees are a problem. When Gov. Rauner tried to cut the municipal share of state income tax revenue by 50 percent this spring, the Illinois House of Representatives responded with a first-of-its-kind resolution urging the state to match any such cuts with proportional cuts to financial-service fees. SEIU also proposed a reduction of financial-service fees during its contract negotiations for state workers, but this was roundly rejected by the Rauner administration.

Of course, Rauner has personally profited from these fees in the past. Before deciding to run for office, he was the managing director of a private equity firm that did business with Illinois pension funds, GTCR LLC.

But even public finance officials who don’t have direct industry ties typically drag their feet on fee reductions. The Los Angeles City Council’s efforts to pressure banks into renegotiating or terminating costly financial deals were met with stiff resistance from the city’s financial officers.

There are a number of reasons why finance staff can be reluctant, if not obstructionist, in efforts to curtail banking fees. One is the revolving door between public finance jobs and Wall Street. Another is the fact that public officials can be outflanked by smoothtalking bankers making dishonest and deceptive sales pitches. But perhaps the biggest reason is that officials truly believe they got the best deal they could. Los Angeles’s finance staff point out that even though they paid $334 million in fees in 2013 alone, they actually did better than many of their peers.

When Councilmember Paul Koretz called for a vote on the motion in Los Angeles, he skewered the City Administrative Officer’s (CAO) office, saying: “Our lack of success in negotiating thus far could partly be a factor of CAO saying that, ‘Hey, this is a fine deal and we’ve done as well on this as anything else we could do.’ ”

Changing the rules

Under the current system, Wall Street sets the rules of the game and public officials think they have no choice but to play on those terms. They may negotiate around the margins and get a fee lowered by half a percentage point, but they do not typically push back on the illogic of the underlying fee structures.

Cities that consider taking a stand against Wall Street are routinely told that if they do, their credit ratings will be downgraded, and banks and investors will stop doing business with them. In reality, the public finance officials who claim they have no choice but to pay high fees and accept onerous terms from Wall Street banks are like elephants afraid of mice. The notion that Wall Street could sustain a prolonged boycott against a city or state as punishment goes against the very nature of banking. U.S. taxpayer dollars are among the largest pools of capital in the world. If there is money to be made, there will always be a bank that will step in to get that business.

Similarly, threats about credit rating downgrades are baseless. Rating agencies are concerned with a borrower’s ability to pay back its bondholders. If anything, negotiating lower fees with banks would free up money and make cities and states less likely to default.

Some cities and states are already blazing the trail. In 2010, then-Massachusetts State Treasurer Timothy Cahill moved state deposits out of Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo because the banks’ credit card operations did not comply with the state’s usury law, which caps interest rates at 18 percent.

In 2012, the city of Oakland initiated a boycott of Goldman Sachs because the bank refused to renegotiate a deal that had put the city on the losing side of a risky interest-rate bet costing $4 milion in annual fees and payments.

And earlier this year, the Board of Supervisors of Santa Cruz County, Calif., voted not to do any new business for the next five years with banks convicted of felonies. The boycott affects the five banks, including JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup, that pleaded guilty to illegally rigging foreign exchange rates.

These actions are first steps. However, they would be significantly more effective if cities and states joined together. When Oakland—a mid-sized city of 400,000 people—boycotted Goldman Sachs, Goldman didn’t flinch. But if several cities, states and school districts banded together and threatened a boycott, the banking behemoth would be forced to take notice.

Power in numbers

In an ideal world, the federal government would establish standards for protecting state and local officials against predatory financial deals. In the same way that there is a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, there is a dire need for a Municipal Financial Protection Bureau whose top priority would be to protect taxpayers’ interests. Even though there are already agencies with oversight over municipal finance—such as the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board and the Securities and Exchange Commission—protecting cities and states from abuse is not their priority. And they have close ties to the financial services industry.

Because federal regulation has proven woefully inadequate, and the chances of effective congressional action in the near future are slim to none, cities and states need to step up.

If just New York, Los Angeles and Chicago banded together and threatened to withhold their collective $600 billion of potential annual business with Wall Street, they wouldn’t have to simply accept the so-called market rates. They have enough bargaining power to set their own.

Together, they could refuse to sign contracts that prevent them from publicly disclosing fees. If they also get their state governments and pension funds on board, they could alter fee structures for things like bond underwriting. They could require any bank that pitches products to sign a fiduciary agreement, meaning they are legally required to put taxpayer interests ahead of their own.

Santa Cruz County Supervisor Ryan Coonerty has already said he is reaching out to other jurisdictions across the country to urge them to join in refusing to do business with felonious banks. If public officials were to coordinate their demands and present a unified front, they could force the banks to take them seriously.

My organization, the Roosevelt Institute’s ReFund America Project, works with community-labor coalitions in cities nationwide that are calling for a reduction in bank fees and an end to predatory municipal finance deals. Last summer, ReFund America and Local Progress—a network linking local elected officials with unions and progressive groups—led a small meeting called “A Progressive Vision for Municipal Finance.” We brought together organizers, policy experts and public officials to discuss various proposals for fixing municipal finance. Among those present were four city councilmembers and three representatives from mayors’ offices. These officials expressed strong interest in developing a bargaining vehicle that would allow cities to take collective action to stand up to Wall Street.

One idea was the creation of a nonprofit or public agency to set municipal finance guidelines. Individual cities and states could subscribe to these guidelines and the agency would in effect become the gatekeeper for banks wishing to do business with them. The more subscribers the agency had, the more bargaining power it would hold. Strict controls would help ensure the agency remained scrupulously independent of Wall Street. That organization could even be the precursor to a national Municipal Financial Protection Bureau.

People over profit

Together, American cities, states and pension funds hold untold power. If they flex their muscles and organize around coordinated demands, they can radically transform taxpayers’ relationship with Wall Street.

In 2012, a community leader from Oakland attended the Goldman Sachs shareholder meeting in New York City and urged CEO Lloyd Blankfein to renegotiate its interest rate swap with the city to avoid library closures and layoffs. He said it was “an issue of morality.” Blankfein responded, “No, I think it’s a matter of shareholder assets.”

This is the mentality that led Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi to call Goldman Sachs “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.”

It’s not just Goldman. All of municipal finance has become an extractive industry, pumping billions away from the communities that need them most. Morality is an externality that financial firms seldom concern themselves with. The financial sector’s fee-based business model is designed to maximize profits, not to protect taxpayers.

Banks may not have a moral compass, but their business contracts with our state and local governments can and should. After all, our cities, states and school districts are not simply fodder for Wall Street’s insatiable greed. Our elected leaders have a duty to protect us from predatory financial practices. Cities and states can force banks to charge drastically lower fees, do away with arbitrary fee structures and eliminate onerous terms that divert billions of dollars away from the most vulnerable members of our society into bonus checks for our nation’s wealthiest few.

Governors in states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Illinois are waging war on collective bargaining and telling taxpayers that empowering publicsector unions robs state coffers, but the real drain on public treasuries is the billions in fees paid to banks every year. And unlike money that goes into workers’ pockets, most of these fees are not recycled back into the local economy but sent to offshore tax havens or invested in complex financial schemes. The irony is that collective bargaining is one of the most effective tools available to public officials who truly want to do right by taxpayers—and cast off Wall Street’s tentacles.

SOURCE

The Dark Politics of Dark Money

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 13:07:00 +0000

The Dark Politics of Dark Money

KAROLI KUNS

In the United States, money spent on candidates, politics, or public policy is protected speech under the First Amendment. What happens when protected speech is wrapped in a cloak of secrecy? How to reconcile Citizens United, which gave corporations the same rights as individuals with regard to political speech while shielding them for any accountability for that speech?

This is the story of how one government agency struggled with these questions and how it was defanged before it could implement rules to force nonprofit organizations who are spending on political campaigns to disclose donors. It is also a story about the unbridled freedom given to political nonprofits in the absence of campaign-finance laws or Internal Revenue Service rules regulating disclosure.

In late 2013, after years of consideration, the Internal Revenue Service proposed a rule regarding the political activity of social welfare organizations classified by the agency as 501(c)(4) organizations: If tax-exempt organizations engage in direct campaign activity, they must disclose the identity of donors funding that activity in a format similar to what is required of political action committees. Disclosure would be required in a more compressed time frame than the current 18-month delay, providing voters the ability to understand who is paying for the blizzard of political ads and literature on their doorsteps, televisions, and mailboxes.

When the IRS released the proposed rule for public comment, a political firestorm erupted over the definition of “political activity.” More than 150,000 comments regarding the rule were filed with the agency, as groups such as the American Conservative Union claimed the IRS was plotting to suppress conservative political activism. The proposed rule was quickly withdrawn, so the definition could be narrowed to one that targeted all groups—liberal and conservative—that spent a large portion of their revenue on direct campaign activity.

While liberal advocacy groups had pushed for rules on campaign financing and “dark money”—political contributions from undisclosed sources—conservatives manufactured a crisis to pressure IRS Commissioner John Koskinen into delaying a transparency rule that would apply to dark money in the 2016 election cycle.

The rule the agency had put on hold was intended to mitigate the impact of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which permits corporations to spend unlimited funds on political campaigns. In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: “The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.” (Emphasis added.)

A Scandal Is Born

In response to Kennedy’s nod toward disclosure, legislators in the House and Senate worked throughout 2010 to pass the DISCLOSE Act, which would have mandated reporting and disclosure for groups making independent expenditures for or against candidates. The bill passed the House in June 2010 but failed by one vote to overcome a unanimous Republican filibuster in the Senate.

Absent campaign-finance law, and with a deadlocked Federal Election Commission incapable of acting, the IRS was the last defense against opaque and unrestricted political money. Yet as Republicans in Congress blocked efforts to address campaign-finance transparency, nonprofits were inundating the IRS with applications for tax-exempt status, many for social-welfare groups. And media outlets were focused on “Tea Party” groups forming around the country.

Against this backdrop, one IRS case manager in the Los Angeles office forwarded an application to the agency’s Cincinnati office for review, expressing concern that the organization applying for nonprofit status was not being established for social-welfare purposes, but instead for political campaign activity. The Cincinnati office, which oversees nonprofit applications, agreed to review the case.

That questionable applicant was a Tea Party group, whose application triggered the reviewer’s concern over its involvement with direct campaign activity relating to specific candidates.

As applications stacked up, the IRS identified areas with potential for abuse, and began to flag applications that followed a similar format, issuing a “BOLO” (Be On the Lookout) alert for new applications with similar features or organizations with similar names.

Throughout 2010 and 2011, the IRS continued to wrestle with how it should handle these organizations in general (and Tea Party applications in particular), while the agency faced mounting pressure from House and Senate investigative committees concerning tax-exempt organizations and donor identities. Tea Party applications were particularly problematic, because the term “Tea Party” was identified with groups backing specific candidates or opposing the policies of the Obama administration.

Such activities are not covered by the “primary purpose” rule applicable to social-welfare groups, which restricts tax exemption (and freedom from disclosure requirements) to organizations that “operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community.”

In September 2010, Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) wrote to then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, asking him to conduct a survey of major 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) organizations involved in political campaign activity to see whether they were in compliance with the “primary purpose” rule. He also requested that the IRS look at whether the organizations “were acting as conduits for major donors advancing their own private interests regarding legislation or political campaigns.”

In 2012, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) made a formal request for the IRS to produce specific information on the activity of several high-profile organizations, includingKarl Rove’s Crossroads GPS, the liberal group Priorities USA, Americans for Prosperity, and Patriot Majority USA. As dark money spending increased in 2012, Levin pressed harder, criticizing the IRS decision to interpret the word “exclusively” to promote social welfare as “more than 50 percent” of the organization’s activity. He wanted to know how many tax exemptions had been audited to see if organizations engaged in excessive political activity.

After the 2012 elections, the IRS found itself caught between mounting pressure from Congressional Democrats and from groups receiving information requests from the IRS but no letters approving their tax-exempt status. The agency was requesting that applicants provide all donors’ names and addresses (presumably to satisfy the Baucus inquiry), sparking outrage among conservative groups asked for that information.

Unbridled Freedom

At the same time, Congressional Republicans began to hear from big donors who were concerned about the loss of anonymity—and the tax deductions that some of the nonprofits provided. And from “grass roots” groups impatient with the IRS.

One of these groups was KSP/True the Vote, a Texas-based voter-integrity organization originally known as the King Street Patriots—one of the nonprofit applicants selected by the IRS for closer scrutiny, based upon its application and media reports in 2010 in which KSP/True the Vote activists were accused of intimidating voters at the polls.

In 2010, acting under the name King Street Patriots, conservative Texas activist Catherine Engelbrecht accused a voter-registration group, Houston Votes, of being “the New Black Panthers office” in Texas. Claiming to have found thousands of fraudulent voter registrations in the Houston area, Engelbrecht appeared on Fox News, accusing Houston Votes of massive voter fraud. The King Street Patriots also produced a video that warned: “Our elections are being manipulated by the RADICAL LEFT.” Backed by an ominous soundtrack, the video also included a doctored image of an African American holding a sign that read: “I only got to vote once.”

Ironically, one documented case of voter fraud surfaced in Texas in 2010 when County Commissioner candidate Bruce Fleming, who had been endorsed by Engelbrecht, was found to have cast votes in Pennsylvania and Texas in the 2006, 2008, and 2010 elections, boasting that he “had the chance to vote twice against Barack Obama.”

Indeed, KSP/True the Vote’s literature established that they were operating for campaign purposes, as evidenced by a self-published “Legislative Agenda for Texas” in 2011 and their lobbying for stricter voter-ID laws. The state Democratic Party sued, and in 2011 a Texas court ruled that the King Street Patriots was a PAC and not a nonprofit group. The group was ordered to reveal its donors and pay Houston Votes a substantial settlement.

Despite the court ruling and extensive news coverage, when news broke on May 9, 2013, that the IRS may have singled out conservative groups for scrutiny, Engelbrecht was prepared. On May 21, KSP/True the Vote filed a federal lawsuit against the IRS for targeting them. The suit was dismissed in late 2014.

On February 6, 2014, Engelbrecht testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, contending that True the Vote had been singled out for IRS scrutiny because it was a conservative organization. Tearful and angry, she told committee members that “this government attacked [her] because of [her] political beliefs.” Engelbrecht also claimed that KSP/True the Vote was “a citizen-led liberty group,” suggesting that it was a grassroots organization comprised of concerned citizens who “pass the hat” for funding. Engelbrecht’s testimony was featured on all of the major networks that day, establishing her as the face of an IRS oppression “scandal.”

In fact, KSP/True the Vote is a beneficiary of the Citizens United decision. It doesn’t use its nonprofit status to buy campaign ads, but it does receive large contributions to train and place poll monitors in select districts where large numbers of registered Democrats, minorities, and poor people reside.

From its inception in 2009 to 2013, KSP/True the Vote received total donations of $3,406,177, without disclosing any of its donors. Most of the revenue was characterized as payment for non-deductible services rather than tax-deductible donations, because KSP/True the Vote’s tax-exempt status was still in question. In 2013, after receiving its tax-exempt status from the IRS, the organization received more than a million dollars in tax-deductible donations, enabling it to hire a public relations firm, a professional fundraiser, and social media consultants.

Newly armed with tax-exempt status, in 2013 KSP/True the Vote declared its intention to thwart organizations promoting voting rights and fight the “left-wing Hydra” by training citizen-integrity groups, reviewing voter registry files, lobbying legislatures for voter ID-laws, and monitoring polling places in minority districts, or where KSP/True the Vote perceived voter fraud to be occurring, despite the failure to identify any voting fraud in 2012.

During a message-coordination meeting in May 2013 with Breitbart News Managing Editor Stephen Bannon, former Congressman Allen West, leaders of the Tea Party Patriots, Judicial Watch, Election Law Center, and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, Engelbrecht made her case. “The organized left is preparing a massive campaign to promote universal registration and threatening to block citizen observers from the polls,” Engelbrecht declared. She vowed to defeat the Hydra by “attack[ing] the source of its strengths,” which includes unions, the NAACP, Common Cause, Demos, the Center for American Progress, The Nation Institute, and others.

Yet because True the Vote has 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, the sources of corporate cash flowing into its coffers will not be disclosed to the public, but its donors will qualify for a “charitable deduction” from the IRS.

Dark Money in Sunny California

In 2012, California voters were asked to consider two ballot measures. The first one—a tax increase on the wealthy to help shore up the state’s public schools—was placed on the ballot by Governor Jerry Brown. The second measure would have limited unions’ ability to spend on elections. (The tax measure prevailed; the anti-union proposition was defeated.)

Shortly before the election, the Small Business Action Committee, a state-based PAC, spent $11 million on ads encouraging voters to defeat the tax measure and vote for the union spending limits. Under California law, individual donors to state PACs must disclose their identity. The only disclosure the PAC made was to say the funds came from a nonprofit organization based in Arizona—Americans for Responsible Leadership.

Determined to reveal individuals behind the funding, state officials went to the California Supreme Court to force disclosure under state law. Ultimately, they were able to trace the money trail but unable to unmask any specific donors. The source of the funds spent by the Small Business Action Committee was Americans for Job Security, a group closely aligned with right-wing billionaires Charles and David Koch. Americans for Job Security revealed it had received the funds from the Center to Protect Patient Rights, another organization closely associated with the Koch network of nonprofit organizations.

In the end, the trail of the mysterious $11 million twisted through four separate nonprofit organizations and three states. None of the organizations was required to disclose their donors. The trail went cold at the doorstep of the Center to Protect Patient Rights (CPPR), which sent over $24 million total to Americans for Responsible Leadership in 2012, all of which was intended for political campaigns. Total campaign spending through CPPR in 2012 was at least $60 million, yet CPPR reported no money spent on campaigns or lobbying in that year.

Surveying the Damage

After numerous congressional hearings on the subject, leaked emails, and a mini-scandal involving IRS executive Lois Lerner’s defective hard drives, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa released a 224-page report, saying that improper targeting based on organizations’ names had taken place, a conclusion that had already been drawn by the independent auditors reviewing IRS procedures for auditing applications.

The only nonprofit organization stripped of its tax-exempt status by the IRS was Emerge America, a liberal group formed to train Democratic women to run for office. But for corporate funders, tax-exempt status for political activity was only part of what they sought. It was more important to so strongly discredit the IRS as a consequence of the “scandal” that it would abandon all efforts to bring forward meaningful disclosure rules.

In this atmosphere, the National Rifle Association elected not to disclose $66 million spent on the 2014 midterms as political spending. To do so would have forced it to pay taxes on a portion of what was spent under current law. A defanged IRS means never having to say you’re accountable.

In the 2014 midterm elections, dark money expenditures far outpaced traditional PAC spending. According to OpenSecrets.org, nearly $4 billion was spent on the 2014 midterm elections, of which $768 million is attributable to outside spending by PACs and super-PACs, according to FEC reporting.

Those totals still don’t tell the story.

They don’t include tax-deductible dollars flowing into policy shops, social media, and internet sites that influence votes and should be disclosed as political spending.

In 2015, dark money has already paid for a “government transparency organization” to publish 2016 campaign opposition research on a candidate and market it to national newspapers—with no transparency as to who paid for the research and the motive behind publishing it.

The Government Accountability Institute, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, published Clinton Cash, a book attacking Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. Author Peter Schweizer serves as president of the Government Accountability Institute, and Breitbart News Managing Editor Stephen Bannon is chairman of its board.

Liberal donors have resolved to form their own dark money network for 2016. The Democracy Alliance, a partnership of 100 wealthy liberals—individual and corporate—announced the formation of a network to build competitive organizations across the states. Like their counterparts on the right, they will not be required to disclose their donors, nor will voters necessarily know who is speaking to them when these groups use their money as “speech.”

At least four Republican presidential candidates are currently raising funds via 501(c)(4) organizations. Bobby Jindal has raised at least $3 million for America Next, which has paid for him to travel and speak at various conferences around the nation. Rick Santorum’s Patriot Voices has raised $8 million since 2012. Rick Perry is backed by Americans for Economic Freedom, which was seeded with leftover money from his 2012 bid for the nomination (he has an ultimate fundraising goal of $15 million for 2016). Ohio Governor John Kasich formed Balanced Budget Forever in late 2014, but hasn’t yet launched a robust fundraising effort. And Jeb Bush’s Right to Rise organization is reportedly on track to raise $100 million for his election bid.

The Ready for Hillary group has been raising funds for Hillary Clinton since early 2014, but is about to dissolve and disclose its large donors when they turn over their assets to her campaign.

Others will form as the race for the presidency unfolds. Unless the nonprofit veil of secrecy is pierced, voters will never know who is buying that political speech and for what purpose.

Because the Congress will not act, and the IRS has been subdued, that veil is unlikely to be lifted before the 2016 presidential election.

Calls to the office of the IRS commissioner, to inquire about when a rule for political nonprofits will be issued, went unanswered.

SOURCE

The horrible cost of a four day hospital stay in Australia

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Sat, 04 Jul 2015 12:44:00 +0000

Sanders files bill to strengthen, expand social security. “The most effective way to strengthen Social Security for the future is to eliminate the cap on the payroll tax on all income above $250,000 so millionaires and billionaires pay the same share as everyone else.”

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:47:00 +0000

Sanders Files Bill to Strengthen, Expand Social Security

Thursday, March 12, 2015

WASHINGTON, March 12 – As boxes of petitions signed by 2 million Americans were hauled into the Capitol today, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced legislation to expand benefits and strengthen the retirement program for generations to come.

The Social Security Expansion Act was filed on the same day Sanders and other senators received the petitions gathered by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

“Social Security is the most successful government program in our nation's history. Through good times and bad, Social Security has paid out every benefit owed to every eligible American,” Sanders said. “The most effective way to strengthen Social Security for the future is to eliminate the cap on the payroll tax on all income above $250,000 so millionaires and billionaires pay the same share as everyone else.”

Sanders’ measure would make the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share. Under current law, the amount of income subject to the payroll tax is capped at $118,500. That means someone making millions of dollars a year pays the same amount in payroll taxes as some making $118,500 a year. The legislation would subject all income over $250,000 to the payroll tax. Doing so would impact only the top 1.5 percent of wage earners, the Center for Economic Policy Research has estimated.

The bill also would subject unearned household income above $250,000 to the same 6.2 percent tax as applies to most earned income. The top 0.1 percent of Americans gets about half of all capital gains income.

Asking the wealthiest Americans to contribute more into Social Security, would not only extend the solvency of Social Security through 2060, it also would allow Social Security benefits to be expanded for millions of Americans.

“At a time when over half of the American people have less than $10,000 in savings and senior poverty is increasing, we should not be talking about cutting Social Security benefits. We should be talking about expanding benefits to make sure that every American can retire with dignity,” the senator said.

The bill would:

Increase Social Security benefits by about $65 a month for most recipients.
Increase cost-of-living Adjustments for Social Security recipients.
Provide a minimum Social Security benefit to significantly reduce the senior poverty rate.

Social Security today has a $2.8 trillion surplus and will be able to pay all promised benefits until 2033, after which it will be able to pay around 75 percent of all promised benefits. The Social Security Expansion Act would increase revenue and extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 45 years.

SOURCE

Bernie Sanders: "The six largest financial institutions have assets of almost 60% of our GDP. If Teddy Roosevelt were President today, you know what he would say? 'Break 'em up.' And he would be right. It's time to break up the large Wall Street banks."

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:43:00 +0000

Now my little girl can sleep with a gun that is safe!

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:14:00 +0000

Vintage Add

On the little girl’s chest, it says, “Papa says it won’t hurt us!” Papa’s reasoning, no doubt, “I got a gun that has a child lock on it—now my daughter can sleep with a gun that is safe ”

The Battle of Gettysburg

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:48:00 +0000

Maps of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania (1863)
BATTLE OF GETTYSBURG ANIMATED MAP

Watch our animated map of the Battle of Gettysburg, produced by Wide Awake Films. Learn more about this important Civil War battle in Pennsylvania.

A Threat to American Democracy

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:30:00 +0000

To change a lightbulb

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:23:00 +0000

SOURCE

How my morning was being a stoner and not a drinker

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:17:00 +0000

A True American Hero

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:54:00 +0000

A True American Hero

Image

SOURCE

Aesthetically Pleasing: NSFW

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:36:00 +0000

Top 10 Greatest LSD Quotes

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:30:00 +0000

Top 10 Greatest LSD Quotes

#10 - JERRY GARCIA [1942-95]

“Nobody stopped thinking about those psychedelic experiences. Once you’ve been to some of those places, you think, ‘How can I get back there again but make it a little easier on myself?’”
—Quoted in Rolling Stone, November 30, 1989

#09 - TERENCE MCKENNA [1946-2000]

"LSD burst over the dreary domain of the constipated bourgeoisie like the angelic herald of a new psychedelic millennium. We have never been the same since, nor will we ever be, for LSD demonstrated, even to skeptics, that the mansions of heaven and gardens of paradise lie within each and all of us."

#08 - STEVEN WRIGHT [1955- ]

"If God dropped acid, would He see people?"

#07 - BILL HICKS [1961-94]

"Always that same LSD story, you've all seen it. 'Young man on acid, thought he could fly, jumped out of a building. What a tragedy.' What a dick! Fuck him, he’s an idiot. If he thought he could fly, why didn’t he take off on the ground first? Check it out. You don’t see ducks lined up to catch elevators to fly south—they fly from the ground, ya moron, quit ruining it for everybody. He’s a moron, he’s dead—good, we lost a moron, fuckin’ celebrate. Wow, I just felt the world get lighter. We lost a moron! I don’t mean to sound cold, or cruel, or vicious, but I am, so that’s the way it comes out. Professional help is being sought. How about a positive LSD story? Wouldn't that be news-worthy, just the once? To base your decision on information rather than scare tactics and superstition and lies? I think it would be news-worthy. 'Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we're the imagination of ourselves' . . . 'Here's Tom with the weather.'"

#06 - JIM MORRISON [1943-71]

"In the beginning we were creating our music, ourselves, every night . . . starting with a few outlines, maybe a few words for a song. Sometimes we worked out in Venice, looking at the surf. We were together a lot and it was good times for all of us. Acid, sun, friends, the ocean, and poetry and music."

#05 - KEN KESEY [1935-2001]

"I believe that with the advent of acid, we discovered a new way to think, and it has to do with piecing together new thoughts in your mind. Why is it that people think it's so evil? What is it about it that scares people so deeply, even the guy that invented it, what is it? Because they're afraid that there's more to reality than they have confronted. That there are doors that they're afraid to go in, and they don't want us to go in there either, because if we go in we might learn something that they don't know. And that makes us a little out of their control."
—Quoted in the BBC documentary, "The Beyond Within: The Rise and Fall of LSD," 1987

#04 - TOM WOLFE [1931- ]

“The Pranksters had what looked like about a million doses of the Angels’ favorite drug—beer—and LSD for all who wanted to try it. The beer made the Angels very happy and the LSD made them strangely peaceful and sometimes catatonic, in contrast to the Pranksters and other intellectuals around, who soared on the stuff . . . The Angels were adding LSD to the already elaborate list of highs and lows they liked, beer, wine, marijuana, Benzedrine, Seconal, Amytal, Nembutal, Tuinal. Some of them had terrible bummers—bummer was the Angels’ term for a bad trip on a motorcycle and very quickly it became the hip world’s term for a bad trip on LSD. The only bad moment at Kesey’s came one day when an Angel went berserk during the first rush of the drug and tried to strangle his old lady on Kesey’s front steps. But he was too wasted at that point to really do much.”
—The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, 1968

#03 - TIMOTHY LEARY [1920-96]

"'Turn on' meant go within to activate your neural and genetic equipment. Become sensitive to the many and various levels of consciousness and the specific triggers that engage them. Drugs were one way to accomplish this end. 'Tune in' meant interact harmoniously with the world around you—externalize, materialize, express your new internal perspectives. Drop out suggested an elective, selective, graceful process of detachment from involuntary or unconscious commitments. 'Drop Out' meant self-reliance, a discovery of one's singularity, a commitment to mobility, choice, and change. Unhappily my explanations of this sequence of personal development were often misinterpreted to mean 'Get stoned and abandon all constructive activity.'"
—Flashbacks, 1983

#02 - HUNTER S. THOMPSON [1937-2005]

“That was the fatal flaw in Tim Leary’s trip. He crashed around America selling ‘consicousness expansion’ without ever giving a thought to the grim meat-hook realities that were lying in wait for all the people who took him too seriously . . . All those pathetically eager acid freaks who thought they could buy Peace and Understanding for three bucks a hit. But their loss and failure is ours, too. What Leary took down with him was the central illusion of a whole life-style that he helped to create . . . a generation of permanent cripples, failed seekers, who never understood the essential old mystic fallacy of the Acid Culture: the desperate assumption that somebody—or at least some force—is tending the Light at the end of the tunnel.”
—Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, 1971

#01 - ALBERT HOFMANN [1906-2008]

"Of greatest significance to me has been the insight that I attained as a fundamental understanding from all of my LSD experiments: what one commonly takes as 'the reality,' including the reality of one's own individual person, by no means signifies something fixed, but rather something that is ambiguous—that there is not only one, but that there are many realities, each comprising also a different consciousness of the ego. One can also arrive at this insight through scientific reflections. The problem of reality is and has been from time immemorial a central concern of philosophy. It is, however, a fundamental distinction, whether one approaches the problem of reality rationally, with the logical methods of philosophy, or if one obtrudes upon this problem emotionally, through an existential experience. The first planned LSD experiment was therefore so deeply moving and alarming, because everyday reality and the ego experiencing it, which I had until then considered to be the only reality, dissolved, and an unfamiliar ego experienced another, unfamiliar reality. The problem concerning the innermost self also appeared, which, itself unmoved, was able to record these external and internal transformations. Reality is inconceivable without an experiencing subject, without an ego. It is the product of the exterior world, of the sender and of a receiver, an ego in whose deepest self the emanations of the exterior world, registered by the antennae of the sense organs, become conscious. If one of the two is lacking, no reality happens, no radio music plays, the picture screen remains blank."
—LSD: My Problem Child, 1980

SOURCE

It appears that for most of my Republican colleagues in the Senate, a war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq were not enough. They now apparently want a war in Iran as well.

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Tue, 10 Mar 2015 19:35:00 +0000

Bernie Sanders: GOP 'itching' for war with Iran

By Jonathan Topaz

“[M]y Republican friends seem to be itching for that war,” said Sanders, an independent who is openly considering a presidential bid as a Democrat. “When you sabotage the effort to reach a peace agreement by the leader of the United States of America — the man who is charged with dealing with foreign policy — that, to me, is really unspeakable.”

Sanders, one of the Senate’s leading liberal voices and former chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, detailed what he called the significant cost in lives and dollars of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Apparently, some of my Republican colleagues do not believe that two wars are enough,” he said, later adding: “I think that is a very, very tragic position to hold.”

A group of 47 GOP senators, led by Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, sent an open letter on Monday to the leaders of Iran, cautioning them against reaching an agreement with the U.S. on its nuclear program. The senators wrote that an agreement without congressional approval would be “a mere executive agreement” and noted that the next president could overturn a deal when Obama leaves office.

Four potential 2016 GOP hopefuls — Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ted Cruz of Texas and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — all signed the letter.

The White House and several congressional Republicans and Democrats have criticized the letter as an attempt to politicize the issue and purposefully derail the president’s foreign policy goals.

Asked whether he would urge his Democratic colleagues to continue to support the president on a potential deal if negotiators fail to agree by the March 24 deadline, Sanders said: “The devil is in the details. We’ll have to see what happens. But I think what the American people want, what I certainly want, is to do everything that we can to reach a peaceful agreement with Iran.”

Sanders hailed the importance of trade unions in his speech on Tuesday morning and also took a shot at Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a potential GOP presidential candidate, for signing right-to-work legislation in his state.

“The goal is that if you can disempower working families, it is easier to continue to push them down, it is easier to prevent them from organizing politically, and that is what’s going on,” Sanders said, aligning the legislation with corporate America. “That is an intrinsic part of the war against working families today, is to break unions, and that’s what Gov. Walker and his friends are about.”

The senator’s address — the first on a day that will include speeches from other potential Democratic presidential candidates former Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia and former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland — struck familiar tones for Sanders, as he railed against “the billionaire class” and called for a grassroots coalition for a working-class agenda.

“Maybe, just maybe, it’s time for corporate America and the wealthiest people in this country to start paying their fair share of taxes,” he said in one of his loudest applause lines.

Sanders has visited early nominating states New Hampshire and Iowa several times in recent months, most recently a three-day, nine-event visit to the Hawkeye State last month.

The senator, who has recently expressed frustration with repeated questions about his potential 2016 rival, likely frontrunner Hillary Clinton, declined twice to comment on her email scandal.

“I really don’t want to talk about Hillary Clinton,” he said, when asked about her upcoming press conference Tuesday where she is expected to discuss her use of a private email account used to conduct business while she headed the State Department.

At a speech and Q&A at Washington’s National Press Club on Monday, Sanders said he had received no constituent phone calls about the emails and that it’s “not one of the big issues” he’s focused on.

A Sanders adviser said Monday that the Vermonter is likely to make a preliminary decision on a 2016 run this month.

How to Become a Conservative in Four Embarrassing Steps

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Tue, 10 Mar 2015 00:19:00 +0000

Photo Credit: Alexeysun/Shutterstock.com

How to Become a Conservative in Four Embarrassing Steps

Not that we'd want to. But many Americans, perplexingly, have taken that path in the last ten years.

By Paul Buchheit

Not that we'd want to. But many Americans, perplexingly, have taken that path in the last ten years, as 27 percent of those polled now consider themselves 'mostly' or 'consistently' conservative, up from 18 percent in 2004. (Conservatives were at 30 percent in 1994. Liberals increased from 21 to over 30 percent in the 1990s and have remained approximately the same since then.)

The language of true conservatives often turns to denial, dismissal, and/or belligerence, without verifiable facts of any substance. There is also evidence for delusional thinking and a lack of empathy. Here are four ways to be just like them.

1. Ignore Facts

Research shows that conservatives tend to modify facts to accommodate their beliefs and convictions, while liberals are more willing to deal with the complexity of multiple sources of information that help determine the true facts.

In simpler terms, numerous studies (here, here, here, and here) conclude that conservatives are not very smart.

Perhaps the best example of fact-aversion is climate change. Incredibly, even though 97 percentof climate scientists agree that climate warming is very likely due to human activities, 66 percent of Republicans say they do not believe in global warming.

It's even more incredible that the Chair of the Committee on the Environment, James Inhofe, brought a snowball to the Senate floor to back up his earlier suggestion that manmade global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

If there is even a chance that humans are damaging the environment, a thinking person would consider the potential effect on his or her children and grandchildren. But the exact opposite has happened. Half of all carbon emissions have been dumped into the air in approximately the last 25 years. Even the Pentagon, much trusted by right-wingers, has warned that "the danger from climate change is real, urgent, and severe."

2. Make Up Your Own Facts

This is the opposite of ignoring facts, for in this case conservatives are inventing new ones. A prime example is the stubborn belief in supply-side, trickle-down economics, and in the supposed power of the free market, as summarized by Milton Friedman when he said, "The free market system distributes the fruits of economic progress among all people."

The "Laffer Curve," named after economist Arthur Laffer, hypothesizes that tax rate increases will eventually reach a point of diminishing returns for tax revenue. Conservatives have contorted this economic theory into the 'fact' that all tax reductions are beneficial.

But there are numerous reputable economists, research groups, and tax analysts who have concluded that the maximum U.S. tax rate can and should be about twice its current level.

Adherence to supply-side beliefs may help to justify 35 years of trickle-down persistence in the minds of the people getting rich. As conservative analyst Michael Barone once said, "Markets work. But sometimes they take time." 100 years, perhaps?

3. Display No Empathy for Others

Conservatives tend to blame poor people for their own misfortunes. Like when John Boehner voiced his perception of people without jobs: "This idea that has been born...I really don't have to work; I don't really want to do this. I think I'd rather just sit around."

Almost all healthy adult Americans, of course, want to work. But in 2011 Senate Republicans killed a proposed $447 billion jobs bill that would have added about two million jobs to the economy. Members of Congress filibustered Nancy Pelosi's "Prevention of Outsourcing Act," even as two million jobs were being outsourced, and they temporarily blocked the "Small Business Jobs Act." In April, 2013 only one member of Congress bothered to show up for a hearing on unemployment.

When asked what he would do to bring jobs to Kentucky, Mitch McConnell responded, "That is not my job. It is the primary responsibility of the state Commerce Cabinet."

It gets worse beyond our own borders, where American neoconservatism leads to behavior that is shockingly devoid of empathy. A 13-year-old Yemeni boy told The Guardian about the drones buzzing incessantly overhead: "I see them every day and we are scared of them...day and night...we even dream of them in our sleep."

That boy was killed by a drone in early 2015.

4. Shout Down Your Opponents

If nothing else works, belligerence will. Many of the top right-wingers use this strategy. John McCain told Code Pink protestors to "Get out of here, you low-life scum." Michael Moore has reportedly received death threats from both Glenn Beck and Clint Eastwood. Bill O'Reilly bashed Mother Jones chief David Corn as a "liar" and an "irresponsible guttersnipe," and then assailed New York Times' Emily Steel in an interview about the Falklands controversy: "I am coming after you with everything I have. You can take it as a threat."

The bully tactics are especially frightening at the global level. "All of Russia," notes Paul Craig Roberts, "is distressed that Washington has destroyed the trust that had been created during the Reagan-Gorbachev era." And as noted by The Nation, "There’s the perception across the Global South that, while the United States remains embroiled in its endless wars, the world is defecting to the East." Toward China, that is, as their New Silk Road opens doors of cooperation from the far east all the way to Europe.

Our conservative-controlled nation's self-serving belief in "exceptionalism" is taking us further and further from the rest of the world. And closer to a world of trouble for our children.

SOURCE

What If the Electoral College is Tied?

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Tue, 10 Mar 2015 00:02:00 +0000

Millions of Americans don't have equal voting rights. John Oliver is not happy about it.

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 23:09:00 +0000

“The Internet Freedom Act” is a House bill intended to destroy newly instituted Net Neutrality rights. And of the bill's 31 co-sponsors, all but two of them received money from a major telecom or its lobby in 2014 alone.

noreply@blogger.com (Boogie Man Journal) — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 19:33:00 +0000

The Campaign Cash That Can Kill the Open Internet

Ben Collins All but two of the 31 co-sponsors of a House bill to kill net neutrality received thousands from telecoms in just the last election cycle. Is their cash enough to end a free Web?

“The Internet Freedom Act” is a House bill intended to destroy newly instituted Net Neutrality rights. And of the bill's 31 co-sponsors, all but two of them received money from a major telecom or its lobby in 2014 alone.

The 29 co-sponsors received over $800,000 from AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and their lobby, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA).

The legislation would invalidate rules instituted by the FCC last week that declared the Internet a public utility and disallowed telecoms from forcibly slowing or blocking Web traffic to competitors, or separating the Web into artificial, cable package-like tiers for lower-paying users.

The bill was brought to the House floor by Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and 30 Republican colleagues. In the last year, Blackburn received $87,000 from those Internet service providers, or ISPs, and their lobby, through her campaign committee and her political action committee, MARSHA PAC. This included a maximum $25,000 donation from AT&T.

Five other co-sponsors received $50,000 or more in the same cycle. An FEC mandate caps donations at $10,000 per candidate for each company (or $25,000 for those with PACs).

The NCTA spent $196,500—or 28 percent of its total Republican House spending budget—funding just 23 co-sponsors of this bill. There are 245 Republicans in the House, and the NCTA donated campaign money to 126 in the 2014 election cycle.

Still, the NCTA says that the Internet Freedom Act “isn't a bill that we are promoting.” When asked if the lobbying group agrees with the premise of the bill, NCTA VP of Communications and Digital Strategy Brian Dietz replied, “Essentially, yes.”

“Title II reclassification (which declares the Internet a public utility) is heavy regulation of the Internet that goes way beyond the reasonable net neutrality protections that have widespread support,” Dietz told The Daily Beast.

The only two co-sponsors of the bill to not receive campaign funding from an Internet service provider in 2014, John J. Duncan Jr. (R-TN) and Walter Jones(R-NC), were two of the last three representatives to sign on as co-sponsors,according to Congress.gov.

Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) received $81,500 in contributions from Internet service providers and their lobby in 2014. Brett Guthrie (R-KY) also took in $59,000 and Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) received $51,500

The NCTA spent $196,500—or 28 percent of its total Republican House spending budget—funding just 23 co-sponsors of this bill. There are 245 Republicans in the House.

“This is a Frankenstein bill that’s had previous lives and has been shuttled back into the hands ofMarsha Blackburn,” says Tim Karr, the senior director of strategy at Free Press, a nonprofit that advocates for Internet consumer rights. “It’s called the ‘Internet Freedom Act,’ but it’s cynically designed to take freedoms out of the hands of Internet users and put them in the hands of the companies that bankroll people like Marsha Blackburn’s political campaigns.”

Karr argues that the nearly million-dollar infusion in the last election cycle alone is “a drop in the bucket” compared to both how much money Internet service providers would have to gain from a tiered, Net Neutrality-free Internet, and also compared to lifetime campaign spending.

“This is a battle that’s been going on for two decades. In that time, [the telecommunications industry] has spent close to a billion dollars lobbying against this sort of ruling,” says Karr. “If you look at [Blackburn’s] career numbers, she’s among the most highly paid members of the House by telecoms. And this is all for something that would undermine consumer rights.”

The bill has virtually no chance of passing. President Obama insisted in this year’s State of the Union Address and in recent public comments he'd veto any legislation that would allow ISPs to block traffic or create a speed toll for competitors or consumers on the Web. This legislation would likely bar the FCC from the ability to enforce punishments for—let alone seek out wrongdoers of—that kind of anti-competitive behavior.

“I think that [the telecom lobby] is going to have a number of initiatives to try to kill this FCC ruling. The courts are one other obvious path,” says Karr. “But this specific bill certainly doesn’t have a chance.”

SOURCE

Boogie Man Journal

Noam Chomsky: Support Our Troops Slogan

If Fox News Told the Truth

Flash Flood

10 Things Europe Does Way Better Than America

10 Things Europe Does Way Better Than America

Since 1978, average pay has increased 997% for CEOs and 10.9% for workers

Top CEOs Make 300 Times More than Typical WorkersPay Growth Surpasses Stock Gains and Wage Growth of Top 0.1 Percent

CEO compensation trends

CEO compensation, CEO-to-worker compensation ratio, and stock prices, 1965–2014 (2014 dollars)

CEO compensation and the S&P 500 Index (in 2014 dollars), 1965–2014

Real CEO compensation growth, by CEO pay fifth, 2013–2014

Trends in the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio

CEO-to-worker compensation ratio, 1965–2014

Does rising CEO pay simply reflect the market for skills?

Growth of relative CEO compensation and college wages, 1979–2013

Comparison of CEO compensation to top incomes and wages, 1947–2013

What about the average CEO?

Conclusion

About the authors

Endnotes

References

Trickle Down Economics

Almost Every Obama Conspiracy Theory Ever

Chart: Almost Every Obama Conspiracy Theory Ever

Fake birth certificates, ghostwriters, teleprompters, a teenage trip to Mars, and more of the most paranoid and bizarro Obama conspiracy theories out there.

THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES

A New Plan for American Cities To Free Themselves of Wall Street’s Control--Collective bargaining, but for workers that would be socialism, right?

A New Plan for American Cities To Free Themselves of Wall Street’s Control

Runaway fees

Changing the rules

Power in numbers

People over profit

The Dark Politics of Dark Money

The Dark Politics of Dark Money

The horrible cost of a four day hospital stay in Australia

Sanders files bill to strengthen, expand social security. “The most effective way to strengthen Social Security for the future is to eliminate the cap on the payroll tax on all income above $250,000 so millionaires and billionaires pay the same share as everyone else.”

Bernie Sanders: "The six largest financial institutions have assets of almost 60% of our GDP. If Teddy Roosevelt were President today, you know what he would say? 'Break 'em up.' And he would be right. It's time to break up the large Wall Street banks."

Now my little girl can sleep with a gun that is safe!

The Battle of Gettysburg

Maps of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania (1863)BATTLE OF GETTYSBURG ANIMATED MAP

A Threat to American Democracy

To change a lightbulb

How my morning was being a stoner and not a drinker

A True American Hero

Aesthetically Pleasing: NSFW

Top 10 Greatest LSD Quotes

It appears that for most of my Republican colleagues in the Senate, a war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq were not enough. They now apparently want a war in Iran as well.

How to Become a Conservative in Four Embarrassing Steps

How to Become a Conservative in Four Embarrassing Steps

What If the Electoral College is Tied?

Millions of Americans don't have equal voting rights. John Oliver is not happy about it.

“The Internet Freedom Act” is a House bill intended to destroy newly instituted Net Neutrality rights. And of the bill's 31 co-sponsors, all but two of them received money from a major telecom or its lobby in 2014 alone.

Maps of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania (1863)
BATTLE OF GETTYSBURG ANIMATED MAP