Choice Schools Must Share Data
Tom Barrett Signs Milwaukee Lead Pipe Removal Ordinance
5 Ways of Redrawing The U.S. Electoral Map That Actually Makes Sense
All This Talk of Voter Fraud? Across The U.S., Officials Found Next To None
Did Voter ID Laws Hurt Election Turnout? Look At Milwaukee
Tom Brady's Personal Guru Is A Glorified Snake-Oil Salesman
The Electoral College Is Great For Whiter States, Lousy For Cities
The Irrationality Within Us
Keynesian Economics: Is It Time For The Theory To Rise From The Dead?
Under Trump, Red States Are Finally Going To Be Able To Turn Themselves Into Poor, Unhealthy Paradises
Obama's Economy
Trump Inherits Obama Boom
Seattle Offers Lesson For Milwaukee
Minimum Wage Foes Tripped Up By Facts
Memo To Corporate America: Pay More. Treat People Better.
The Really Rich Got Richer, According To IRS's Top 400
The U.S. Is A Low-Tax Nation
Showing posts with label corporate culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corporate culture. Show all posts
Saturday, December 24, 2016
Sunday, May 11, 2014
Sunday Reading
Too Big To Fail. Not Too Strong
The Koch Attack On Solar Energy
Recovery Has Created More Low-Wage Jobs Than Better-Paid Ones
Coburn Says Let Free Market Decide Race To The Bottom On Wages
Scalia Makes Huge Factual Error In Supreme Court Opinion
Do Fewer Unions Make Countries More Competitive?
There's No Evidence Privatization Works, But it Marches On
How Global Warming Is Scorching The United States
Charter Schools Fail: Report Calls Their Magic Into Question
The Koch Attack On Solar Energy
Recovery Has Created More Low-Wage Jobs Than Better-Paid Ones
Coburn Says Let Free Market Decide Race To The Bottom On Wages
Scalia Makes Huge Factual Error In Supreme Court Opinion
Do Fewer Unions Make Countries More Competitive?
There's No Evidence Privatization Works, But it Marches On
How Global Warming Is Scorching The United States
Charter Schools Fail: Report Calls Their Magic Into Question
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
It's The Teachers' Fault...
that Wisconsin students are performing so well.
Wisconsin's teachers are successful. The anti-union, right-wing, pro-business crowd always talks about rewarding success or, as they phrase it, "Not punishing success."
Shouldn't they be defending teacher compensation as a rightful outcome of the teachers' success?
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Co-Conspiratorial Reign
The uber wealthy have been stealing from the workers, it seems, forever, but relatively recently they have gained a willing accomplice to aid in their thievery. The mainstream news media has abdicated their duties of public watchdog and reasoned analysis. From the selling of corporate products, to the selling of corporate policies, our public-discourse narrator on the meaningful issues of the day [the media] has devolved into an echo chamber of greed and commercialism.
We need a class action suit against the American media system as a whole. The majority of the noise being broadcast and printed daily is an advertisement, a nudge, a subtle persuasion, propaganda. It's no longer about how you can live your life better. It's about how you can live your life so that they may live better and, somehow, the rewards will make it back to you.
The Fairness Doctrine immediately needs to be reinstated. A higher proportion of programming should be dedicated to government, election, education, and other public concerns. And, since they are the public airwaves, why don't we charge the networks to broadcast? If they choose not to, those stations can be used for public good. And, if they choose to pay, that is more revenue we can use to repair roads, cut deficits, and catch-up on some long overdue public infrastructure projects.
[We should also be collecting more money from companies extracting minerals and resources from public lands. But that is a topic for another time.]
As Ralph Nader writes, "The television broadcasters were given free license to use public airwaves (worth around $70 billion) by a supine Congress in 1997." What kind of deal is this? So, we as a people, own the airwaves, which are very valuable. But our representatives made a deal with broadcasters to just allow them to operate freely. Are the broadcasters allowing us to watch for free? These are the types of backroom deals that are fiscally destroying the country by robbing us of much needed revenue. What possible reason could they have for suddenly deciding broadcasters shouldn't pay for use of the airwaves anymore?
This episode also parallels Buckly v. Valeo and its pernicious effect on campaigns and elections. Which we'll get to in a bit.
We can see and feel the direct effect on our daily lives from this unchecked, completely profit-driven media presence. The media is now a self-justifying corporate shill. We're instructed more what to buy, how to look, and given a passing he-said/she-said. Facts are now malleable. Everything is in the eye of the beholder. When we have no boundaries nor measurements for truth or fact, when everything is personal perspective, we no longer have truth nor fact.
Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann are worlds aparts. There is barely a Left at all anymore, and nothing that is comparable to the scope and ferocity of today's Right. 40 years ago Olbermann's views would have been considered moderate and Beck would have been laughed out of the political arena and sent back to the zanny morning radio schtick. Today, half of voting Republicans think Beck is a teacher and wise sage. Comparing today's right-wing with recent fascist regimes is much more plausible and supported than the "communist" and "socialist" chants of the Beck-heads.
It's no wonder that 40 years ago we had raising wages, one breadwinner, and shared prosperity. A period where Olbermann-esque moderation governed. A rising tide that lifted all boats. This new, hyper-commercialized, market-driven, greed-era we currently inhabit has resulted in exactly the opposite. Two workers can barely get by today, wages are stagnating, retirements are increasingly volatile, and people are having to choose between medical care and paying their rent.
The rich did not like seeing their social underlings driving cars, owning their homes, and living content lives. So they pushed through Buckley v Valeo (1976) and started buying elections and judges. Once they had their puppets in office, they started pushing through legislation and initiatives that would directly benefit them. Like tax cuts, deregulation, free airwaves, repealing Glass-Steagall, and on and on. All of this right under our noses, neatly packaged, and/or completely obfuscated by the media.
Here we are decades into this failed social experiment. Voters just enthusiastically elected the standard-bearers of this perverted and discredited worldview, in large part thanks to the media and their so-very-terrible representation of reality. To keep doing the same thing, yet expecting different results is insanity. "Cut word lines - Cut music lines - Smash the control images - Smash the control machine - Burn the books - Kill the priests - Kill! Kill! Kill!"
We need a class action suit against the American media system as a whole. The majority of the noise being broadcast and printed daily is an advertisement, a nudge, a subtle persuasion, propaganda. It's no longer about how you can live your life better. It's about how you can live your life so that they may live better and, somehow, the rewards will make it back to you.
The Fairness Doctrine immediately needs to be reinstated. A higher proportion of programming should be dedicated to government, election, education, and other public concerns. And, since they are the public airwaves, why don't we charge the networks to broadcast? If they choose not to, those stations can be used for public good. And, if they choose to pay, that is more revenue we can use to repair roads, cut deficits, and catch-up on some long overdue public infrastructure projects.
[We should also be collecting more money from companies extracting minerals and resources from public lands. But that is a topic for another time.]
As Ralph Nader writes, "The television broadcasters were given free license to use public airwaves (worth around $70 billion) by a supine Congress in 1997." What kind of deal is this? So, we as a people, own the airwaves, which are very valuable. But our representatives made a deal with broadcasters to just allow them to operate freely. Are the broadcasters allowing us to watch for free? These are the types of backroom deals that are fiscally destroying the country by robbing us of much needed revenue. What possible reason could they have for suddenly deciding broadcasters shouldn't pay for use of the airwaves anymore?
This episode also parallels Buckly v. Valeo and its pernicious effect on campaigns and elections. Which we'll get to in a bit.
We can see and feel the direct effect on our daily lives from this unchecked, completely profit-driven media presence. The media is now a self-justifying corporate shill. We're instructed more what to buy, how to look, and given a passing he-said/she-said. Facts are now malleable. Everything is in the eye of the beholder. When we have no boundaries nor measurements for truth or fact, when everything is personal perspective, we no longer have truth nor fact.
Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann are worlds aparts. There is barely a Left at all anymore, and nothing that is comparable to the scope and ferocity of today's Right. 40 years ago Olbermann's views would have been considered moderate and Beck would have been laughed out of the political arena and sent back to the zanny morning radio schtick. Today, half of voting Republicans think Beck is a teacher and wise sage. Comparing today's right-wing with recent fascist regimes is much more plausible and supported than the "communist" and "socialist" chants of the Beck-heads.
It's no wonder that 40 years ago we had raising wages, one breadwinner, and shared prosperity. A period where Olbermann-esque moderation governed. A rising tide that lifted all boats. This new, hyper-commercialized, market-driven, greed-era we currently inhabit has resulted in exactly the opposite. Two workers can barely get by today, wages are stagnating, retirements are increasingly volatile, and people are having to choose between medical care and paying their rent.
The rich did not like seeing their social underlings driving cars, owning their homes, and living content lives. So they pushed through Buckley v Valeo (1976) and started buying elections and judges. Once they had their puppets in office, they started pushing through legislation and initiatives that would directly benefit them. Like tax cuts, deregulation, free airwaves, repealing Glass-Steagall, and on and on. All of this right under our noses, neatly packaged, and/or completely obfuscated by the media.
Here we are decades into this failed social experiment. Voters just enthusiastically elected the standard-bearers of this perverted and discredited worldview, in large part thanks to the media and their so-very-terrible representation of reality. To keep doing the same thing, yet expecting different results is insanity. "Cut word lines - Cut music lines - Smash the control images - Smash the control machine - Burn the books - Kill the priests - Kill! Kill! Kill!"
Monday, March 24, 2008
Obama Making Corporate Hacks Nervous
John Torinus, of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, wrote a Sunday March 23, 2008 article, Obama speech full of anti-business rhetoric, lambasting Barack's willingness to confront the business community. Everyone should know by now that in our fascist state, where corporate and government interests are one in the same, no such debate should be proposed.
Torinus asserts, "No Wisconsin corporate executive has been charged with corruption...that can't be said for political or religious leaders." He then goes on to say that these executives are actually trying to solve social problems. Hmmm, how are they doing this? By avoiding $1.3 billion in taxes yearly?
But Obama's premise wasn't merely a jab at Wisconsin's business sector, but at the entire corporate ethos, making Torinus' argument misplaced and illusory. Barack is referencing the likes of the Savings & Loan scandal, Long Term Capital Management, Enron, WorldCom, Arthur Anderson, CountryWide, et al. This isn't simply bad judgment by a few; this is the corrupt paradigm under which big business seems to operate these days.
Torinus then states that except for a few bad apples, corporate accounting is practically infallible, while it is government accounting that is full of fuzzy math. I'd have to agree this is true for the Bush administration, but not for most of government. Especially since the mid-1980s, more and more accounting gimmicks, which originated in the private sector, have come to light and have cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
One of his best lines, also a complete distortion, is that none of this is really the corporate sector's fault, but the fault of Congress because they make the rules. The corporations are merely taking advantage of them. Remind me, though, who again is paying for these politicians to get elected? Oh, that's right, the same corporations dodging taxes, increasing the burden on average Americans, and then having their bought-and-paid-for politicians write legislation in their favor. Ethics no longer apply. Scapegoats are aplenty when accountability begins reaching up the hierarchy.
Another absurdity Torinus spews forth, "When a government runs red ink, it either prints more money or raises taxes and then stumbles on. Businesses go under." Actually this is not the case for the big ones, who have their political apparatchiks lobbying and legislating in their favor. They, as we've seen recently, have the Federal Reserve step in and bail them out, passing the bill of their speculation and mismanagement on to the taxpayers.
Also, sorry Mr. Torinus, the rich don't "carry a hugely disproportionate share of the tax burden." As a percentage of income earned, most states tax their low- and middle-income earners more than the rich. (Though, obviously, if his point was that a millionaire pays, in total dollars, more than a poor person...duh! But when we're talking proportions, a better measure to use is percentage of income paid. But as such an astute businessman, I'm sure he knew that.) And while we're at it, Wisconsin has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the U.S. The low, almost non-existent, corporate tax rate given to Wisconsin business is well known to Torinus. He is the chairman of Serigraph Inc., which paid nothing in Wisconsin corporate taxes in 2003 and 2004. He is also a board member of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (the lobby for Wisconsin big business), an organization where even when it's members pay no taxes at all still feel taxation is too high.
Please, Mr. Torinus, you and your ilk in the corporate community whom have benefited most from the largess of government over the past three decades, stop baldly lying and presenting a false reality about what a harsh environment you operate in. Stop repeating your same phony lines and baseless claims. The middle-class is disappearing, inequality is rising, unemployment and poverty are rising, CEO compensation is climbing, and the corporate tax rate is continually falling (along with any and all taxation on capital). Spare us your woe-is-me diatribes for the corporate sector.
For Further Reading:
Free Lunch and Perfectly Legal by David Cay Johnston
Big Box Swindle by Stacey Mitchell
The Great American Jobs Scam by Greg LeRoy
Tax Fairness Institute for Wisconsin's Future
White House For Sale
Torinus asserts, "No Wisconsin corporate executive has been charged with corruption...that can't be said for political or religious leaders." He then goes on to say that these executives are actually trying to solve social problems. Hmmm, how are they doing this? By avoiding $1.3 billion in taxes yearly?
But Obama's premise wasn't merely a jab at Wisconsin's business sector, but at the entire corporate ethos, making Torinus' argument misplaced and illusory. Barack is referencing the likes of the Savings & Loan scandal, Long Term Capital Management, Enron, WorldCom, Arthur Anderson, CountryWide, et al. This isn't simply bad judgment by a few; this is the corrupt paradigm under which big business seems to operate these days.
Torinus then states that except for a few bad apples, corporate accounting is practically infallible, while it is government accounting that is full of fuzzy math. I'd have to agree this is true for the Bush administration, but not for most of government. Especially since the mid-1980s, more and more accounting gimmicks, which originated in the private sector, have come to light and have cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
One of his best lines, also a complete distortion, is that none of this is really the corporate sector's fault, but the fault of Congress because they make the rules. The corporations are merely taking advantage of them. Remind me, though, who again is paying for these politicians to get elected? Oh, that's right, the same corporations dodging taxes, increasing the burden on average Americans, and then having their bought-and-paid-for politicians write legislation in their favor. Ethics no longer apply. Scapegoats are aplenty when accountability begins reaching up the hierarchy.
Another absurdity Torinus spews forth, "When a government runs red ink, it either prints more money or raises taxes and then stumbles on. Businesses go under." Actually this is not the case for the big ones, who have their political apparatchiks lobbying and legislating in their favor. They, as we've seen recently, have the Federal Reserve step in and bail them out, passing the bill of their speculation and mismanagement on to the taxpayers.
Also, sorry Mr. Torinus, the rich don't "carry a hugely disproportionate share of the tax burden." As a percentage of income earned, most states tax their low- and middle-income earners more than the rich. (Though, obviously, if his point was that a millionaire pays, in total dollars, more than a poor person...duh! But when we're talking proportions, a better measure to use is percentage of income paid. But as such an astute businessman, I'm sure he knew that.) And while we're at it, Wisconsin has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the U.S. The low, almost non-existent, corporate tax rate given to Wisconsin business is well known to Torinus. He is the chairman of Serigraph Inc., which paid nothing in Wisconsin corporate taxes in 2003 and 2004. He is also a board member of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (the lobby for Wisconsin big business), an organization where even when it's members pay no taxes at all still feel taxation is too high.
Please, Mr. Torinus, you and your ilk in the corporate community whom have benefited most from the largess of government over the past three decades, stop baldly lying and presenting a false reality about what a harsh environment you operate in. Stop repeating your same phony lines and baseless claims. The middle-class is disappearing, inequality is rising, unemployment and poverty are rising, CEO compensation is climbing, and the corporate tax rate is continually falling (along with any and all taxation on capital). Spare us your woe-is-me diatribes for the corporate sector.
For Further Reading:
Free Lunch and Perfectly Legal by David Cay Johnston
Big Box Swindle by Stacey Mitchell
The Great American Jobs Scam by Greg LeRoy
Tax Fairness Institute for Wisconsin's Future
White House For Sale
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)