Category: Domestic Policy

Alito: What Could Go Wrong?

What’s Wrong Today:

“If it ain’t broke, fix it until it is.”

This saying has been around for about 20 years. According to Barry Popik, “If it ain’t broke, fix it anyway” was first cited in print in May, 1993 in the Virginia Pilot by Jerry Alley.

The sentiment applies to the Supreme Court now that the Hobby Lobby decision’s slippery slope reasoning is out there being reviewed by lawyers. On July 3rd, just three days after Mr. Justice Alito issued his decision, lawyers for two Guantanamo Bay detainees filed motions asking the DC District Court to intervene after the prison’s military authorities prevented them from praying communally during Ramadan, a holy month for Muslims. The banning of communal prayers at Guantanamo is one of a series of recent measures against detainees who are on hunger strikes.

The lawyers argued that, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby decision, the detainees’ rights are protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Requests for Temporary Restraining Orders were filed this week with the Washington DC district court on behalf of Emad Hassan of Yemen and Ahmed Rabbani of Pakistan. The filings were made by a UK-based human rights group Reprieve.

The detainees’ lawyers said courts have previously concluded that Guantanamo detainees do not have religious free exercise rights because they are not persons within the scope of the RFRA, but the lawyers now argue that the Hobby Lobby decision changes that:

Hobby Lobby makes clear that all persons – human and corporate, citizen and foreigner, resident and alien – enjoy the special religious free exercise protections of the RFRA

Which is exactly what Mr. Justice Alito said in his ruling. Despite his claim that it was a narrow ruling, the ruling itself is big enough to drive a truck through. Meet the truck, folks.

More from Cori Crider, an attorney for the detainees and a director at Reprieve:

Why are the authorities at Guantanamo Bay seeking to punish detainees for hunger striking by curtailing their right to pray? If, under our law, Hobby Lobby is a ‘person’ with a right to religious freedom, surely Gitmo detainees are people too

This is one of the unintended consequences from the Hobby Lobby decision: While the owners of Hobby Lobby certainly did not have Gitmo detainees in mind when they took Obamacare to court, it’s clear the ruling has become far bigger than its original purpose. Citizens United argued that “corporations are people,” Hobby Lobby focuses on religious rights and the idea that the government cannot force those corporate people to do things that are against their beliefs.

That could mean anything from refusing to teach evolution in school to ignoring laws designed to prevent discriminatory hiring practices against LGBT people.

The Defense Department did not directly address whether the men were being punished for their hunger strike. US Army Lt. Col. Myles B. Caggins III:

We are committed to religious freedoms and practices for the detainees, keeping in mind the overall goal of security and safety for detainees and staff

The overriding question is if the RFRA is compatible with the First Amendment. It seems to create a special privilege for religious groups that are not enjoyed by anyone else. How is this not itself an establishment of religion? If corporations can say: “but, it is against my religion” to escape the equal application of the laws, isn’t that a special right being bestowed based on religious belief?

Having the Supreme Court actually expand the RFRA beyond the protections put in place by the First Amendment only compounds the problem. Writing new rules to create certain forms of religious privilege seems dubious at best.

Try this thought experiment: Imagine atheists who have a family-owned corporation. Call them the Browns. They hold exactly the same views of birth control and abortion as the Greens, but their beliefs are based on their personal moral views, and not on any religious teaching. Would they be exempt from this mandate?

This isn’t Ms. Justice Ginsburg’s slippery slope, it’s a cliff.

The Supremes have now defined religious freedom not in terms of our own behavior but in terms of our ability to control the behavior of others. The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of more Corporate power, not religious freedom.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – July 6, 2014

On this Sunday of Independence Day Weekend, let’s think about the differences between patriotism and nationalism. We use them interchangeably, but they are not the same.

“Patriotism” denotes a devotion to fundamental fellowship with other human beings belonging to a geographic region. Patriots love, support and defend their country.

“Nationalism” is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves identifying with, or becoming attached to, one’s nation. One definition of nationalism is excessive patriotism or chauvinism. Nationalism leads to asserting one’s own nation’s interests to the total exclusion of the common interests of some nations, and not just those with which we might be waging war.

You should be a patriot. If you are a patriot, you stand when the national anthem is played. You serve your country in accordance with your abilities.

There is nothing wrong with chants of “USA, USA”. But, there is nothing right about them when the crowds in Murrieta, CA chant “USA, USA” at a bus load of illegal immigrants.

Americans will always profess support for American ideals, but chauvinists are far more willing to ignore those situations where America falls short. Those jingoistic Americans display an attitude that when America falls short, it is not a failing of “America” but rather some group (e.g. “liberals”, “the Tea Party”, “illegals”, “the 1 %”)

Remain suspicious of flag waving jingoists and their self-serving ways. Be true to your own beliefs and pay no attention to those who try to shame you into doing otherwise. Now, for some humor.

Can we march together anymore?

COW July 4We the corps, in order to form a more perfect union:

COW We The Corps

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One version of the Holy Writ:

COW Holy Corps

And the Word was delivered unto them:

COW Court

Let’s remind each other that at no time does a corporation: a) speak clearly, or b) take full responsibility for what they do.

And in international news, hope is dying in Israel:

COW Common Ground

 

Facebooklinkedinrss

Corporations Celebrate Their Independence Day

Happy Independence Day, corporations!  You’re way more important than women!

Indeed, way back on June 30th, tweeter Scott Wolledge was prescient. The Supreme Court wasn’t done celebrating the religious rights of corporations over those of individuals. After ruling Hobby Lobby had the right to refuse to provide company health insurance coverage for contraception it (erroneously) believed was a form of abortion, the Supreme Court went further and ruled that corporate beliefs about ANY contraceptive trumped all women’s individual rights. From MoJo: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

Less than a day after the United States Supreme Court issued its divisive ruling on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, it has already begun to toss aside the supposedly narrow interpretation of the decision. On Tuesday, the Supremes ordered lower courts to rehear any cases where companies had sought to deny coverage for any type of contraception, not just the specific types Hobby Lobby was opposed to.

The Affordable Care Act had listed 20 forms of contraception that had to be covered as preventive services. But Hobby Lobby, a craft supply chain, claimed that Plan B, Ella, and two types of IUD were abortifacients that violated the owners’ religious principles. The science was against Hobby Lobby—these contraceptives do not prevent implantation of a fertilized egg and are not considered abortifacients in the medical world—but the conservative majority bought Hobby Lobby’s argument that it should be exempted from the law.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion, using many qualifiers in an attempt to limit its scope, but orders released by the court Tuesday contradict any narrow interpretation of the ruling.

The Supremes decided that non-profit organizations objecting to birth control coverage were (somehow) being crushed by the “substantial burden” of having to inform the government that they wanted an exemption. So, SCOTUS gave Wheaton College an injunction against having to fill out the required paperwork to acknowledge that they wanted to opt out. More from the NYT:

In a decision that drew an unusually fierce dissent from the three female justices, the Supreme Court sided Thursday with religiously affiliated nonprofit groups in a clash between religious freedom and women’s rights.

The decision temporarily exempts a Christian college from part of the regulations that provide contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

The court’s order was brief, provisional and unsigned, but it drew a furious reaction from the three female members, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. The order, Justice Sotomayor wrote, was at odds with the 5-to-4 decision on Monday in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, which involved for-profit corporations.

“Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. “Not so today.”

The court’s action, she added, “undermines confidence in this institution.”

So, corporate personhood trumps human personhood. Worse, the religious rights of a corporation outweigh the individual rights of a woman who knows that birth control is a necessary medical expense for her. And filling out a form is too a harsh requirement for Wheaton College. The idea that what constitutes a “substantial burden” should be determined by the party alleging burden is absurd.

This is a 4th of July that doesn’t feel like most others.

We are a divided people on a day that celebrates our unity. It must change.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Republicans Want To Repeal Obscure Tax Law

Reuters reported last week that the Republican National Committee (RNC) approved a resolution that adds the repeal of an Obama administration law to its 2014 platform. The law is designed to crack down on offshore tax dodging.

The legislation that the Republicans are targeting is called the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). What is FATCA? According to Wikipedia, FATCA requires US citizens, including individuals who live outside the US, to report their financial accounts held outside of the US, and requires foreign financial institutions to report to the IRS about their American clients.

Although FATCA was passed by Congress in 2010, it will go into effect on July 1, 2014. It requires foreign banks and investment funds to report to the IRS all assets they hold that exceed $50,000 belonging to US citizens – whether those citizens are living in America or abroad.

The genesis of the law was a 2010 tax-avoidance scandal involving a Swiss bank. One result of FACTA was that last August, Switzerland signed a separate treaty with the US, ending a longstanding tax dispute between the two countries, that gave the IRS unprecedented access to
Swiss accounts held by Americans and US green card holders.

Banks in most tax havens are planning to abide by the new rules because of hefty fines (the IRS can withhold 30% of dividends and interest payments due to the banks from US accounts) since failure to comply with these regulations could seriously impact banks’ ability to do business in America. A successful indictment could bar the bank from the US marketplace. Because of that threat, FATCA is driving a rapid expansion of a network of bilateral, tax-related information-sharing agreements, negotiated by the US Treasury and its overseas counterparts amid heightened global concern about tax dodging.

So, do Republicans want to allow rich individuals and wealthy companies to continue to hold money in off-shore banks without subjecting these monies to federal taxes? Apparently,
and they also want to attract votes and funding from Americans living abroad. The US expatriate community is violently opposed to the law, and some have legitimate concerns about losing
their banking relationships in the foreign country where they live. Their banks are concerned that the costs of flagging the accounts of Americans and maintaining separate reporting formats for them may too high for the less-than-$50k accounts that the US is not interested in. In 2013, nearly 2,400 expatriates gave up their US citizenship or turned in their green cards, some at
least, in an effort to avoid US taxation.

Reuters quotes Solomon Yue, an RNC official from Oregon:

I see FATCA just like Obamacare…It will attract American overseas donors

So, Republicans are eager to use FATCA as a campaign and fundraising issue against the Democrats in the Congressional mid-term elections in November. Repeal seems unlikely, but another issue that raises the political temperature could help defeat Democrats.

The RNC has set up a petition site at MoveOn.org that has about 2200 signers, quite a few from overseas. They have also set up a Repeal FATCA site. Here is a quote from the disinformation available there:

All this supposedly is justified by FATCA’s claim to “recover” lost taxes of less than $1 billion per year – enough to run the government for about two hours. (In fact, the way the U.S. Treasury plans to enforce FATCA, it would probably lose more money than it would take in!)

The Republicans seem to be saying that we don’t need $1 billion if it causes increased tax payments. Politically, it seems strange that this issue should become a hot issue for the Republicans, who are taking a beating in the polls over their stand on income inequality.

On the other hand, US wealthy individuals (Mitt Romney) and corporations that are able to use tax havens and have been able to hide behind account secrecy, would be very happy to see Mr. Boehner take up a bill to repeal FATCA. Foreign banks, many of which contribute to US political campaigns would also like to see the bill repealed

No one is asking the rich to pay unfairly – they already get all kinds of tax breaks − but
to encourage tax evasion seems to be far beyond the Republican’s usual pale.

How about having the rich simply pay their fair share and watch the federal deficit which they
are so concerned about, fall, without requiring Americans to give up food stamp subsidies or funding for long term unemployment benefits? So next time you hear Republicans talking about cutting the deficit, ask them why they are for tax evasion as opposed to tax compliance.

Hopefully, someone will ask Mr. Boehner why repealing a law that will promote the harboring of hidden money and continued tax avoidance is in our best interest. We know it is a key loophole for Mr. Romney. So Mr. Speaker, please tell us again why repealing laws is more important that strengthening them? They were passed for a reason. Maybe you should start pushing for our laws and regulations to be followed, rather than repealed.

Many other countries are striving for better education, better healthcare, a more engaged attitude about our planet and environment, a willingness to regulate guns and business with an eye toward the best interests of the people.

Thanks to US conservatives, we’ve headed in almost the opposite direction.

For Republicans, as long as rich people don’t pay more, undermining our country is okay. There’s just no restraining Republicans if the restraint we need involves the rich. And if responsible politicians try, the conservatives cry, “government overreach” or “socialism.”

But that’s just a red herring, an excuse so that they can continue to pillage America
for all they can get.

Facebooklinkedinrss

It’s Just A Suggestion, But…

Would Gun Insurance Help?

Not insurance that pays to replace stolen firearms, but liability insurance for the damage that is done by firearms. Over the past few days, there have been many suggestions about mandating such insurance as a way of:

  • Paying for the damages done by people irresponsibly using (storing, playing with, or loaning) their guns
  • Reducing gun ownership by increasing the costs associated with it

Can we agree that guns as weapons are inherently dangerous to society? Can we agree that gun owners should bear the risk and true social costs of gun ownership?

Suggestion: Require both owners and sellers to purchase liability
insurance that is underwritten by private insurance companies according to the relative risk of the gun or the buyer. As John Wasik writes in Forbes:

When you buy a car, your insurer underwrites the risk according to your age, driving/arrest/ticket record, type of car, amount of use and other factors. A teenage driver behind the wheel of a Porsche is going to pay a lot more than a 50-year-old house wife. A driver with DUI convictions may not get insurance at all. Like vehicles, you should be required to have a policy before you even applied for a gun permit. Every seller would have to follow this rule before making a transaction.

This is where we take social economics beyond theory. Actuaries would work to understand which buyers/guns are most at risk to commit a gun crime, or to be used in a gun crime. Gun owners/buyers would then be underwritten according to age, mental health and place of residence, credit/bankruptcy record and/or marital status, whatever causal criteria turn out to be the most relevant.

Insurance companies have mountains of data and know how to use it to price policies, or in industry parlance, to reduce the risk/loss ratio. Wasik continues:

Who pays the least for gun insurance would be least likely to commit a crime with it. An 80-year-old married woman in Fort Lauderdale would get a great rate. A 20-year-old in inner-city Chicago wouldn’t be able to afford it. A 32-year-old man with a record of drunk driving and domestic violence would have a similar problem.

Moreover, the market would over time, become very efficient at weighing these risks, since insurers specialize in figuring out the odds of something going wrong and charging the appropriate amount for the risk.

And there’s a good argument that the damage caused by firearms gives the government a “compelling interest” to require insurance, the basic test for infringing the constitutional rights of our 2nd Amendment lovers.

If it seems like requiring insurance might be too expensive, remember that the social cost is already expensive: We pay a huge cost for firearms injuries, says the National Center for Biotechnology Information, a part of NIH. According to their study, most injuries are paid for with public funds. Mandatory insurance would shift that cost from a public tax burden to a private insurance burden borne by gunowners. Quoting from the conclusion of the referenced study:

96 % of the patients in this report had their costs of care covered by the government, because they had no primary insurance coverage.

There could be a possibility of lower taxes down the road, if medical costs paid by the government come down; the taxes needed to pay those medical costs could come down too.

Given that gun violence kills more than 30,000 Americans annually, it is harmful not only to our well being, but our economy, so using economic disincentives to moderate their use makes sense.

If you think that the idea of mandatory insurance is onerous, think again:

You can’t finance a home mortgage without homeowner’s and title insurance. If you haven’t got title insurance and are interested in getting some advice about it, you could contact an insurer like Bay Title Company for example to see what help they could give you. Insurance is needed for just about anything. Want to own a car? Most states require liability insurance. You can’t employ someone in most states without worker’s compensation or unemployment insurance.

The advantages of mandatory gun insurance include the following:

  • Responsibility is placed on the gun owner: The law would require firearm owners to take responsibility for their firearms. Insurance separates responsible firearm owners from irresponsible ones
  • Control remains in the private sector: Private firms will vet the buyer for proper acquisition of firearms, not the Government
  • 2nd Amendment rights are protected: Anyone can purchase firearms as long as they can get insured
  • Promotes registering of existing weapons: Unregistered weapons will not be insured so the owners will not be able to buy ammo for those guns
  • Those who are injured: Will receive some recompense for their injury

What about the economic burden on gun owners?

If the insurance is required by the gun, the cost may prevent some people from buying them. A buyer in the middle class or higher could easily afford insurance on multiple weapons. If insurance was required for each gun registered, it might discourage multiple purchases by high risk owners. It may make people more responsible when they store their guns: Stolen guns had better be from a broken-into gun safe or your policy renewal will be a lot more expensive; the same would probably happen to your rates if little Billy finds a loaded gun in the desk drawer and shoots his friend with it.

It probably means that poorer people won’t be able to afford the insurance, so it probably will not dramatically affect gun violence (or coverage for same) in inner cities. We know that people take the chance of driving without insurance all the time and it’s a lot easier for someone to hide an uninsured gun than to drive an uninsured automobile.

But, will it work?

Insurers underwrite risk: casualty loss, liability, health, auto, home and life insurance. If you’re looking into life insurance you’ll want to make sure you research as much as possible or get expert advice so you know the policy you’re going with is the best suited one for you. For those of you in Canada, the most trusted comparison site is arguably PolicyMe.com so that might be the place to start. For American citizens, there are similar comparison sites that you could use. I always think these are the best way to view prices. One thing to remember is that Affordable Life USA offers great Mortage Life Insurance. Just make sure you do your research before accepting the first quote. With gun insurance, instead of charging the highest premiums for overweight smokers, alcoholics with bad driving records and dangerous hobbies, the most expensive gun policies will be priced for those who are younger with histories of mental illness, divorce, criminal records or severe financial difficulties. Or, the highest prices will be for the kinds of weapons that kill the most people the quickest: A shotgun owner who has hunted for years without incident would pay far less than a first-time owner purchasing a semi-automatic.

People would have a financial disincentive to purchase the most risky firearms. They would have a financial incentive to attend gun safety classes and use trigger locks. Using insurance to drive outcomes instead of attempting to enforce widespread bans and confiscation may result in much of the behavior we seek, without another festering, divisive issue draining our society.

Requiring insurance will simply add the already known social costs to the actual manufacturing costs of a weapon. If the social costs go higher, price of owning a weapon will be higher; if the social costs go down, so will insurance costs.

The market will decide what the fair price will be.

Insurance can be used to effectively price the risk and costs of social harm. This idea falls short of immediately getting rid of the most dangerous weapons and it will not prevent the next Newtown, but we have to start somewhere.

The Constitution was ratified in 1789. We are the Founders now. These are our problems and we must come up with our own solutions. The 2nd Amendment does not fit perfectly with current circumstances. Gun ownership has become a bigger problem than any of the problems it was meant to solve. The British are NOT coming; Indians no longer threaten your little fort.

Buy insurance for each gun, or turn the gun in.

Facebooklinkedinrss