US Uncut Protests Apple's Tax Dodging Practices

US Uncut protested Apple stores this weekend to oppose the company’s federal tax dodging practices. The group staged a series of “dance-in” protests in stores nationwide.

Specifically, the group has taken issue with Apple’s support of the “Win America Campaign,” which would allow Apple to keep $4 billion (overall corporations would shelter $80 billion in taxes) that might otherwise have gone back to the federal government during a time of severe economic austerity. Members of the Win America coalition include Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Kodak, Google, Oracle and Adobe Systems.

Full Article
Source: The Nation 

Senate Republicans Block Yet Another Well-Qualified Obama Nominee

In April 2010, President Obama nominated Peter Diamond, a Nobel Prize–winning economist and MIT professor, to a seat on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. On three different occasions the Senate Banking Committee approved his nomination. Yet Republicans in the Senate, led by Alabama’s Richard Shelby, blocked his confirmation because they disagreed with his economic policy views. “Dr. Diamond is an old-fashioned, big government Keynesian,” Shelby said. Diamond, who finally had enough of the endless delay and partisan attacks, withdrew his nomination today, explaining why in a New York Times op-ed. “Last October, I won the Nobel Prize in economics for my work on unemployment and the labor market,” he wrote. “But I am unqualified to serve on the board of the Federal Reserve—at least according to the Republican senators who have blocked my nomination.”

The absence of a Nobel Prize–winning economist at the Fed at a time of economic crisis is particularly galling. L’affaire Diamond is a perfect illustration of how Senate Republicans have abused and warped Senate rules, which I blogged about last week. Diamond suffered the same fate as other well-qualified Obama nominees, like Goodwin Liu and Dawn Johnson, who Republicans stubbornly refused to confirm.

Full Article
Source: The Nation 

Wisconsin Protests Ramp Up With Approach of Budget Showdown, Recall Elections

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, a political careerist who has never taken one elected office without beginning to position himself to run for the next, made a wild play for the national stage just weeks after being sworn in last winter as a Republican governor with Republican majorities in both chambers of the Wisconsin legislature.

Using a supposedly minor “budget repair bill” as his vehicle, Walker proposed to scrap most collective bargaining rights for state, county and municipal employees and teachers, to radically restructure state government to concentrate power in the governor’s office and to use that power to limit access to healthcare for working families and seniors while bartering off public assets in no-bid deals with favored corporations.

If he could pull it off, Walker told himself and his closest associates, he could be what Republicans have been looking for since the mid-1980s: a new Ronald Reagan. It was a dream he outlined In an extended conversation with a caller who he thought was billionaire conservative campaign contributor David Koch. “Ronald Reagan, whose 100th birthday we just celebrated the day before, had one of the most defining moments of his political career, not just his presidency, when he fired the air-traffic controllers. And, uh, I said, to me that moment was more important than just for labor relations or even the federal budget, that was the first crack in the Berlin Wall and the fall of Communism because from that point forward, the Soviets and the Communists knew that Ronald Reagan wasn’t a pushover,” Walker chirped, in the midst of a self-serving soliloquy. “And, uh, I said this may not have as broad of world implications, but in Wisconsin’s history—little did I know how big it would be nationally—in Wisconsin’s history, I said this is our moment, this is our time to change the course of history. And this is why it’s so important that they were all there. I had a cabinet meeting this morning and I reminded them of that and I said for those of you who thought I was being melodramatic you now know it was purely putting it in the right context.”

Now, almost four months into the fight, Walker does not look much like a new Reagan.

His anti-labor agenda has been blocked by the largest and most consistent pro-union demonstrations the United States has seen since the 1930s, along with legislative maneuvers and court orders. His personal approval ratings have flat-lined, and runs the risk of losing control of the state Senate to Democrats who are determined to block his initiatives.

Full Article
Source: The Nation 

First Wave at Omaha Beach

UNLIKE what happens to other great battles, the passing of the years and the retelling of the story have softened the horror of Omaha Beach on D Day.

This fluke of history is doubly ironic since no other decisive battle has ever been so thoroughly reported for the official record. While the troops were still fighting in Normandy, what had happened to each unit in the landing had become known through the eyewitness testimony of all survivors. It was this research by the field historians which first determined where each company had hit the beach and by what route it had moved inland. Owing to the fact that every unit save one had been mislanded, it took this work to show the troops where they had fought.

How they fought and what they suffered were also determined in detail during the field research. As published today, the map data showing where the troops came ashore check exactly with the work done in the field; but the accompanying narrative describing their ordeal is a sanitized version of the original field notes.

This happened because the Army historians who wrote the first official book about Omaha Beach, basing it on the field notes, did a calculated job of sifting and weighting the material. So saying does not imply that their judgment was wrong. Normandy was an American victory; it was their duty to trace the twists and turns of fortune by which success was won. But to follow that rule slights the story of Omaha as an epic human tragedy which in the early hours bordered on total disaster. On this two-division front landing, only six rifle companies were relatively effective as units. They did better than others mainly because they had the luck to touch down on a less deadly section of the beach. Three times that number were shattered or foundered before they could start to fight. Several contributed not a man or bullet to the battle for the high ground. But their ordeal has gone unmarked because its detail was largely ignored by history in the first place. The worst-fated companies were overlooked, the more wretched personal experiences were toned down, and disproportionate attention was paid to the little element of courageous success in a situation which was largely characterized by tragic failure.

The official accounts which came later took their cue from this secondary source instead of searching the original documents. Even such an otherwise splendid and popular book on the great adventure as Cornelius Ryan's The Longest Day misses the essence of the Omaha story.

In everything that has been written about Omaha until now, there is less blood and iron than in the original field notes covering any battalion landing in the first wave. Doubt it? Then let's follow along with Able and Baker companies, 116th Infantry, 29th Division. Their story is lifted from my fading Normandy notebook, which covers the landing of every Omaha company.

Full Article
Source: The Atlantic 

Kill the subsidy, but kill them all

With the impending heat death of the Liberal party—er, rather, with the approaching end of the $2-per-vote party subsidy—the commentariat is consumed with what this will mean for the various political parties, and what Stephen Harper’s motives might be for introducing it.

Well, that last bit’s obvious, isn’t it? He wants to destroy the Liberal party. Everybody knows that. But wait: maybe by obliging the opposition parties to rely more heavily on their own supporters for funds, rather than the taxpayer, he will only create a more motivated cadre of foes, while his own troops grow fat and complacent in office. Or maybe by starving the opposition of funds, he will force them to realize there is only room for one left-wing party, hastening the very unite-the-left movement that could one day be his undoing. But how could such a master strategist not see that? Maybe he wants a united left, the better to…

People. Isn’t it possible, just possible, that he’s doing this because…it’s the right thing to do?

Nah. I was just messing with you. Still, even if it’s supremely self-interested—the Conservatives raise more each year than all the other parties combined—that doesn’t mean it isn’t sound in principle. The Tories’ success isn’t a matter of a few monocled millionaires passing the top hat: their average donor gives less than $200. A system based on thousands of small contributors, inspired by a belief in a party’s principles rather than the expectation of some reward: that’s supposed to be what we all want, isn’t it? So how does it become wrong, just because the Tories are good at it and the other parties aren’t?

Abolishing the subsidy isn’t, as critics on the left object, a betrayal of Jean Chrétien’s reforms to party funding, which effectively banned corporations and unions from contributing and capped individual donations at $5,000 (reduced to $1,000 under Harper, or $1,100 after inflation). Neither, as the right suggests, should the corollary of abolishing the subsidy be a loosening of the other constraints. Certainly that would give substance to the left’s fears, that without the subsidy there will be pressure for a return to “big money” politics. But there’s no logical necessity for the one to follow the other.

Both groups share the same basic assumption: that if the parties are denied one source of largesse, private or public, the other must be opened to them. The possibility that the parties could simply make do with less does not seem to occur to either. But there is no fixed amount of money the parties “need” to carry out their activities. Much of what the parties spend their money on today—push-polls, attack ads, meaningless leaders’ tours—we might all be better off without, especially in these days of email and social media, which cost nothing.

Logic would rather suggest the natural corollary to a ban on corporate and union donations is a ban on government donations. Indeed, if the Prime Minister were motivated by principle—remember, I said if—he’d not only close off the per-vote subsidy, but those other spigots through which public funds flow to private parties: the tax credits on private donations, as much as 75 per cent, and the partial reimbursement of campaign expenses.

The principle I refer to is that people who want to give to political parties should do so with their own money. Corporate CEOs should not be giving their shareholders’ money, union presidents should not be giving their members’ money, and individual party supporters should not be giving the taxpayers’ money, whether in the form of subsidies or tax credits.

Full Article
Source: Macleans 

Take the roof off campaign donations

I have an idea to reform our democratic system that’s so radical it will be met with scorn, ridicule and disbelief – and that’s only what my mother will think. So what’s my idea?

Well, I propose we change the laws so that money – long considered the root of all evil in politics – can play a bigger role in our democratic process. More specifically, I suggest we scrap the current campaign finance law, which imposes a severe limit on how much money citizens can voluntarily contribute to political parties.

Right now, those individual contribution limits are set at an absurdly low level – $1,100 each for party and riding associations.

Why not allow Canadians the freedom to contribute as much as they wish, especially now that Prime Minister Stephen Harper will eliminate the “per vote” public subsidy for political parties? This at least would give the Liberals and other opposition parties a fighting chance to raise the money they would need to effectively operate.

Why is this radical? Because for a lot of Canadians the idea of lifting campaign contributions is tantamount to political heresy. After all, the conventional wisdom in this country views money as kind of corruptive poison that must be purged. Otherwise, the “rich” will use fat contributions to influence our elected leaders.

This viewpoint, while widespread, also reflects a profoundly depressing take on both politics and humanity. For one thing, it assumes politicians are for sale to the highest bidder.

The reality, of course, is that the vast majority of politicians are actually honest. They make their policy decisions based on many factors other than on who contributes to their campaigns, including ideology, party discipline and public opinion.

Why it is always assumed people who contribute large sums of money to political parties have evil motivations? Likely this reflects an ideological bias against people in business. Simply put, contribution limits are seen as a way to insulate politicians from the greedy clutches of “money-grubbing” capitalists.

Full Article
Source: Globe & Mail 

Forensic review of Ford’s election expenses urged

Can a campaign supporter also be a campaign supplier?

That question emerged as a potentially crucial distinction involving Mayor Rob Ford’s campaign RV, in the wake of the latest request by a Toronto citizen for a forensic review of Mr. Ford’s election expenses.

Retired teacher David DePoe told council’s three-person compliance audit committee Monday that the $1,808 the campaign paid Michael Robertson in rent for a campaign van for four months was well below fair market value, which he estimated to be over $200 a day.

Mr. Robertson owns Outback Storage, which is located at 318 Greenwood Ave, and declined to be interviewed. “It’s my business and my corporation and it’s my RV, and it’s a personal private matter.”

Mr. DePoe said that he and his wife in 2003 paid $12,000 to rent a used recreational vehicle for a three-month journey across North America. “That’s just a little van and that was a long time ago.”

The committee dismissed Mr. DePoe’s application, with chair Douglas Colbourne stressing that the compliance audit ordered last month will review all aspects of the mayor’s campaign finances. Mr. Ford's lawyers have appealed the order.

But after the meeting adjourned, Mr. Ford’s lawyer Thomas Barlow and Stephen Chan, a senior executive with the Ford family company Deco Labels and Tags who served as the CFO for the campaign, appeared to contradict one another about whether the van was provided to Mr. Ford by a supporter or a supplier.

Full Article
Source: Globe & Mail 

When the axe falls, will the streets fill with protests?

This is the budget that sets the clock ticking. In nine months, the alarm will sound and the real drama of this Parliament will begin.

Then we will see what a majority Conservative government looks like, and whether what activist Jamie Biggar calls “the public voice” is still alive in the land.

Budget 2011 version 2.0 is not, as Finance Minister Jim Flaherty suggests, a simple rehashing of the March 22 budget. There is one very large change.

It commits the Conservative government to eliminating the federal deficit in 2014-15, one year earlier than planned. For most governments, advancing a deficit-reduction target would be agony. It will hurt here as well.

“Is it challenging to do? It’s challenging to do,” Finance Minister Jim Flaherty acknowledged at his news conference on Monday. “Is it doable? Absolutely doable.”

The challenge is particularly acute because the Conservatives are committed to preserving or increasing spending over the coming years on health and social transfers, equalization transfers, funding for native Canadians, at least some funding for cities, and defence. They know that any major cuts in direct services to people, provinces or the military could lead to a sharp and permanent loss in popular support.

What does that leave? It leaves civil-service jobs. Culture. Environment. Agriculture and fisheries. Parks. Immigration training and settlement. Regional economic development.
An $80-billion aggregate budget must lose $4-billion, or 5 per cent, with no allowance for inflation. In some places, cuts will be severe. And those who are affected will fight back.

In the past, when governments have swung the axe aggressively to save money, people have taken to the streets. Labour has brought its workers to the lawns of legislatures. Brian Mulroney and Mike Harris faced major demonstrations and public-servant strikes.

But people don’t seem to demonstrate against the Harper government, apart from the odd smatterings of curmudgeons who show up at this event or that. The unpleasantness at the G20 summit last June was more about globalization in general.

Full Article
Source: Globe & Mail 

A new mandate for Flaherty’s belt-tightening budget

Stephen Harper is using his majority to plow ahead with the same budget that triggered an election this spring: a fiscal plan that adds slightly more than $1-billion to annual federal spending for seniors, businesses and research.

There are two big differences, however.

The biggest new item is a $2.2-billion cheque for Quebec: an election promise to underwrite the province’s shift to a sales tax that more closely mirrors the GST. Unveiled during the campaign, the pledge delivered no political benefit for the Conservatives who lost more than half their seats in the province on May 2.

The second new measure takes an axe to subsidies for political parties in Canada. The Tories will phase out the $2-per vote taxpayer subsidy for federal political parties introduced by Jean Chretien in 2003.

The 374-page budget document so closely matches the earlier March 22 budget that the Finance Department resorted to using a blue font to highlight sections that are new.

The Conservatives have to move fast in passing at least some elements of their budget.

They have promised $300-million in increased aid for low-income seniors will take effect July 1 – benefit worth up to $50 per person. This means the Tories must get parliamentary approval on implementing legislation before the month is out so the cheques for the extra Guaranteed Income Supplement cash can start flowing.

The Conservatives are comfortable with the repetitive nature of the budget because it underlines the Tory campaign message that their defeat in March interrupted important fiscal measures including the fiscal plan now being re-released and passed.

Full Article
Source: Globe & Mail 

Tories pledge to slay deficit by 2014

OTTAWA—Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says Ottawa will have to axe federal programs and services to reach the goal announced in Monday’s budget update of eliminating the $32-billion deficit by 2014.

“There will be some programs that will not continue. There’s no question about that,” Flaherty told the media as he prepared to table a slightly modified version of the economic blueprint he released on March 22 before the election.

“Already we’ve seen some instances of programs that have outlived their usefulness, quite frankly,” he said of previous efforts to reduce spending.

“Governments are very good at creating programs. They’re not so good at ending them. Not every program is designed to go on forever.”

The Conservatives have run record budget deficits that reached as high as $40 billion in 2010. But Flaherty said in the earlier version of the 2011 budget that he could balance the books by 2015. Then, during the election campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised to eliminate the deficit a year earlier, by 2014.

Flaherty said finding the cuts will be a challenge but added that Harper is determined to make the cuts needed to rein in federal spending, which has grown by leaps and bounds since the prime minister took power.

Flaherty said the problem isn’t convincing Canadians that Ottawa’s spending should be reduced—it’s dealing with the people who are attached to the specific programs and services that come under the knife, he explained.

The Conservatives, re-elected with a majority on May 2, will be conducting a cross-government review in hopes of finding savings through efficiencies and by not replacing some of the thousands of baby-boomer-aged federal public servants who are expected to retire in the next few years. The aim is to find cuts of $4 billion a year out of about $80 billion in operational spending.

Already in recent weeks, some government departments, agencies and museums have been trimming staff, cuts that are blamed on Ottawa’s cost-saving moves from previous budgets.

The cost-cutting vowed in Monday’s budget promise to be deeper and have a greater impact on government operations. Flaherty said there hasn’t been a serious belt-tightening in Ottawa in 15 years.



Full Article
Source: Toronto Star