Corporate Personhood

In 1886, Santa Clara county lost a lawsuit against Southern Pacific railroad. In 1866, San Mateo county won a lawsuit against the railroad, requiring them to pay taxes. The California Supreme Court sided with the county, ordering the company to pay it's back taxes.

Corporate America, from this point, began one of the most well-executed legal coup d'état in history. Using a law created to protect black citizens from biased courts, the railroad took it's case to the Supreme Court. After the case was heard, J.C. Bancroft Davis, a former railroad executive and Court Reporter, issued the following head note:

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

The issue of corporate personhood was not involved in the case in the least.

The Court ruled that Santa Clara had illegally tried to tax the railroad for property that did not belong to it, and therefore ruled against the county.

The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure equality between all living citizens. Following the Civil War, in an attempt to make the dream of Democracy and Freedom a reality, the Constitution was amended, to ensure that all citizens, no matter their race or background, would be treated as equal citizens. Ironically, the 14th Amendment didn't apply, for a long time, to blacks, women, immigrants, or Native Americans. In fact, it primarily "protected" the corporation from independent communities, who would pass laws to protect local consumers, workers, businesses, and environments.

The headnote had no legal precedent, yet corporate lawyers took up the slogan, using "Corporations are Persons" to defend their "clients". The Supreme Court later cited the headnote in a ruling. While the headnote didn't have the force of law, the ruling did.

Corporations, legally, were now "Persons."

Today, we can see the dark omens that come from that ruling. Corporations now claim human rights and civil liberties that are often denied to human citizens:

They claim the First Amendment entitles them to lie to the public, and to finance and lobby politicians;
They claim the Fourth Amendment protects them from "illegal searches" from government agencies like the EPA, OSHA, and Consumer Protection Groups;
They claim the Fifth Amendment gives them a right to lie about past crimes, or hide knowledge of past crimes;
Finally, they claim the 14th Amendment right to overturn "discrimination" by communities who attempt to keep them out.

A corporation is a publicly created legal fiction, for the purpose of litigation and limited liability. As a corporation, stockholders are not considered "partners," and therefore, their personal property is not at risk. The corporation takes the liability, at the trade that the corporate entity itself may be brought to court.

It is not a person. There cannot be equal footing between a legal fiction and a human. Governments create corporations (in theory, anyway) to serve the public good: Creating jobs, goods, and services. Investors put their money into corporations because it protects them from liability, while giving them a good return.

But in the wake of the Citizens United ruling, we have created a superpower that dwells in our democratic nation. A powerful white male overclass, using the corporation as a weapon, has taken all power from the hands of the people.

What can we do about this?

Well, for one thing, in any capitalist system, those in power will find a way to keep their power, overturn regulations, and influence politics. The best solution is moving towards a system built on democratic empowerment and the common good, where capital is owned socially, by the people, rather than private individuals.

However, in the meantime, a solution seems to appear in the face of a Constitutional Amendment. We can reset the precedent and retake our "democracy," or what's left of it.

Proposed Amendment to the Constitution:

1: Corporations are not persons; they are, in fact, legal fictions, for the purpose of litigation and limited liability, and therefore, are not entitled to equal protection, nor to any civil rights or legal protections not specified;
2: The corporation will be confined to one business mission;
3: The corporation will be banned from owning other businesses or corporations;
4: The corporation will be banned from attempting to influence elections or public policy in any way, direct or indirect;
5: The primary purpose of a corporation is to serve the public good, through the creation of jobs, goods, and services.
6: To insure this, every 10 to 40 years following a corporations chartering, they will have to go before a jury of 12 persons, to show that they have acted in a socially responsible way and have promoted the public good. If this turns out not to be the case, the corporations charter will be revoked, and it's assets seized.

Is this perfect? No, of course not, and it won't solve every problem in the world. But it is the first step towards reclaiming our democracy and moving towards economic justice.

Seek Peace, Fly High, Find Love,
Poncho.

Health Care Reform

What to cover: Good parts of the bill; lack of a public option; opposition to the mandated buy-in; insurance company boondoggle; single-payer; Obama's presidency; dropping the subsidy for businesses buying insurance.

After Congressman Stupak finished grand-standing with pointless provisos on a woman's right to choose (federal money can't be spent on elective abortions already...), the massive, sweeping reform to American health care passed both the House and the Senate. It has been hailed by various progressive voices as the most important piece of social legislation since at least the 1960s, sometimes even compared to passing Social Security during the Great Depression.

Is it?

It does deal with some of the surface problems. Banning the insurance companies from dropping coverage for those who get sick seems to be common-sense compassion. Kids can stay on their parents plan until they're in their twenties. It creates pools for people with preexisting conditions, and big insurance can't place lifetime limits on your coverage. These make sense, and are needed reforms to our current system.

But there are two major issues I have with this legislation. One is the lack of a public option; the other is the mandated buy-in.

A good friend of mine, a local Republican/Campaign for Liberty activist, said that insurance companies couldn't make profit if they were forced to cover people with preexisting conditions. It would be nice if that's what business they were in, but unfortunately, that's not profitable.

Then tell me this: Why the hell are we still dealing with them? This is the 21st century. By now, we should see health-care the same way we see food and shelter: As a basic human right that everyone deserves, no matter what. What business are these people in, then, if they aren't supposed to pay for the sick to receive treatment? What is so radical about taking the words "over 65" out of Medicare and letting anyone buy into it who wants to?

We have taken a social problem (lack of insurance) and made individuals pay for it. Then, as taxpayers, we pay vouchers to the working poor, now forced to purchase their own health care. And without a public option, all that money goes into the pockets of private insurance companies. As it was said in the International Socialist Review, this is the biggest boondoggle for capitalist America since the railroads in the 1870s.

And maybe hoping for a single-payer system off the bat is a bit idealistic. But in the end, what's so radical about wanting to cover every American?

Short of a public option, and with the mandated buy-in that hurts the working poor and serves as a boondoggle for the insurance companies, I don't know that I can say I support the new legislation.

Missing another week

It's been a bit hectic around here. Last week, I was fired from my job at the census bureau, after a day and a half of work. Why? Because I didn't have a drivers license. That didn't stop the nitwits from hiring me, but it also made them fire me. So, I've been stressed out and trying to relax.

Lately, I've been thinking that my blogs are a little too...philosophical. Not that this is bad, mind you; I want people to be comfortable with where I'm coming from. But I didn't mention a thing about the health-care reform legislation, or any news in Washington. I need to balance wider notions of political philosophy with more focused policy pieces. I plan on writing a review of health care reform and what it means for the Administration. I'm also trying to keep up with the news more.

In personal news, Megh got a job waiting tables at a local family-owned business called Cornerstone. This is a bit of a relief...my job at the Bureau was only temporary (although I didn't expect it to be as temporary as it was), and I haven't heard back from Sitel or CPU2 yet (both local call centers).

Two days ago, our laptop finally gave up the ghost and passed on into electronic heaven. So now, we have a new computer! I don't remember anything about it, apart from something about i3. Whatever that means. But it's fast, and it works. And at the end of the day, that's all I need.

It's strange, being home while Megh is at work. I feel...ill. I know it sounds chauvinistic, but I want to provide for her, for our family. When I'm not at work, I feel like I'm letting her down, or letting myself down. I've been looking for work constantly since January. There must be something out there? Right? I need a helping hand.

I mean, at the end of the day, I'm lucky. I'm living with the woman I love, and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. We've got food in the kitchen, a roof over our heads, friends and family who are on our side, and I'm going to get a good job soon, then a second and possibly a third. And we're gonna be okay. We'll save money and pay rent and pay off debt and get promoted and get better jobs and make enough money to live on.

But even when times are hard, I am grateful for her. She is my rock.

I love you, Meghan.

Seek Peace, Fly High, Find Love,
Poncho.

Tax Justice or Progressive Spending?

Of course, those of us on the radical left want to move beyond budgets and regulations when it comes to economic policy. Taxing the rich and spending it on social goals, like education and health care, is after-the-fact "Justice" that doesn't change the nature of the relationship of property and ownership; it only makes the conditions of suffering slightly less odious. The same with regulation: attempting to regulate corporations in order to protect consumers, establish workers rights, and protect the environment means that private ownership of the means of production is still in place. So, when it comes to the Federal Budget or economic regulations, the Left often attempts to run the hardest line, knowing that it doesn't really matter. This is just a stop-gap, a progressive measure to look out for the poor and working class while we organize for a better day.

To a large degree, this is true. But there is the flip side of the coin: If we accept working within this world, rather than writing constitutions and passing resolutions for a fictional republic, we must also accept Capital's power and influence.

The major question facing the left today is: Do we want tax justice, or progressive spending?

Tax Justice is a focus on writing the wrongs of capitalism through the tax code. We want 60%, 80%, 90% taxes on the wealthiest Americans, because, more often than not, they have received their riches off the backs of working people. We want 90% taxes on profits, as profit is the excess taken from the backs of workers. Unfortunately, we cannot have the radical tax justice we seek with a functioning economy, in this modern world.

Which brings me to my point: What do we want more: High taxes on the super-rich and major corporations, or prioritizing jobs, education, health care, green energy, and poverty fighting in our spending?

I feel that we can create a modestly progressive tax system, one that both aids working people and the poor, and one that is "economically friendly" in a capitalist world. Then, we can refocus our spending priorities from aid to corporations and propping up a global police state to more progressive, people-centered goals. We can also do all of this in the context of independent reform-centered movement towards clean government and fiscal responsibility, building a true majoritarian consensus for our actions.

As Jeffrey Sachs put it, the American Left "needs to learn from European social democrats: who know that it's more important to be progressive on the spending side — in education, poverty relief and public services — than to focus tax policy only on the rich." This means the promotion of tax reform. One of the more popular solutions is the Value-Added Tax. This tax is sold as a "progressive sales tax": Rather then adding an extra 5% onto a $5.00 product, the business making the profit pays 5% of the $5.00. This avoids the pressure the deeply regressive sales tax puts onto consumers, particularly the working poor, while also bringing in a lot of revenue and not distorting the economy too deeply.

Another proposal, last publicly advocated by progressive presidential candidate George McGovern, is the Negative Income Tax. This de facto progressive tax combines a flat tax with a flat rebate. For instance, let's say the tax rate is set at 25% of income, while the rebate is $10,000 dollars. If someone makes $10,000 a year, they pay $2,500 in taxes, but receive a net gain of $7,500 dollars. If someone makes $40,000 a year, they come out even. If someone makes $100,000 a year, they pay a net total of $15,000 a year. If someone makes several million, their rebate is marginal. It's progressive by default, but it's effective. It simplifies the tax system and provides a floor against poverty. While this may not be the perfect solution, it does offer new ideas about how to reform taxes.

As far as spending, a number of issues have been "Hands Off" for far left activists for a long time. Any talk of "Entitlement Reform", coming from the privileged voices in Washington, the corporate mavens on Wall Street, or the talking heads in the corporate media, tends to mean privatization and anti-Welfare attacks. However, we forget to look at the flip side: If programs, like Social Security, are becoming insolvent, then doing nothing will lead to the abolition of one of the bedrock pieces of social legislation in American history. How will that help American pensioners?

There are progressive ways to reform entitlements. By taxing the rich more for entitlement programs and providing them less by way of benefits, we attempt to create a more just system. After all, with the ceiling on taxable income, and the general rate of return to all people, we end up paying Bill Gates the same in Social Security as my grandparents, while he payed in as much as they did. This is clearly unjust. Of course, it may take some sacrifice from working people, including raising the retirement age (an unfortunate reality of longer lifespans). But we can save Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and do it in a responsible manner.

Also, cutting back on subsidies (including employer-paid health coverage, "Agriculture" subsidies that go to major agribusiness, and homeownership subsidies that don't increase American home ownership) and refocusing our spending priorities on local projects can make a big difference in both efficiency and effectiveness.

The American Left has an opportunity to take on the Federal Budget as both a moral and a practical matter. We can stand up for working people and the poor and promote progressive spending priorities, while getting support from a constrained middle class that sees it's own benefits in true reform. And in building this movement, we can begin to ask the deeper questions, about working life, poverty, power, and freedom. At that point, reform becomes revolution, and the world is changed.



Authors Note: Much of the material taken for this blog came from Jeffrey Sachs article in Time Magazine, "How to Tame the Budget Deficit," and Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, writing "Defusing the Debt Bomb."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1959029-4,00.html
http://www.newsweek.com/id/234277

Confessions of a Scalawag

I identify as a Southerner. Culturally, socially, politically, my outlook on life is defined, in many ways, from a Southern outlook. But this is a difficult position for a self-identified Progressive Radical. After all, Southern "Culture" is just a softened-over idealistic romantic vision of class division, patronizing sexism, and viscious racism, right?

Well, like any culture, there are many aspects to Southern Culture. True, there are the Plantation Patricians; old money, old power, the "gentlemanly racialist," rather then the course prolitarian racist. The true aristocrats who, through gentle gestures and polite manners, sugar over a type of oppression that should not exist in any democratic society. But this is not my Southern culture.

I am proud to say I am a Scalawag. I am one of the millions of Southerners who, throughout our history, has been oppressed and under-thumb of these "nobel gentleman." My culture was built out of a sense of oppression; we were small farmers, later sharecroppers, later the factory workers and mill workers, who suffered long, inhuman, brutal working conditions to provide those gentleman with their fancy homes and luxurous living.

I love my culture and heritage, but we must look back and see the horrible things that have gone on in our home. 150 years of slavery, followed by 100 years of segregation, followed by another 50 where we are still short of true Equality, true Freedom, true Justice, for our black brothers and sisters. Yet there is also a lack of true Equality, true Freedom, true Justice, for all of us. And I think that's the key: Our oppression has made us more clear-eyed and more genuine. The man on the hill, for all his kindly words, is still a capitalist and an aristocrat. My black brothers and sisters are not so different from me. We both suffer the same yolk of oppression.

Our humor, our hospitality, and our "proper manners" are not guises, like those of our masters. With us, it is genuine. We are gentle men and women, not to provide a polite veil over that most intimate oppression, but because we believe everyone deserves to be treated decently, as a human being.

We fight for economic and social justice here in our homeland, because we see, Black, White, or Latino, the issues facing working folks and everyday citizens unite us as one people. But in fighting for Justice and Freedom here, we see the appaling lack of Freedom and Justice around the globe. So, while being a Scalawag identifies us with our "tribe," as progressive Southerners, it also makes us internationalists, in what Gore Vidal called the irony of our time. The more I identify with this Southern culture, the more kinship I feel with brothers and sisters around the world.

I called this blog "Red Dixie" for a reason. My Southernism bred my Socialism, which I now apply to that region I claim as home, for better and (often) for worse. The Revolution begins at home, so for me, it must begin here. Clearly, we've got a lot of work to do.

Seek Peace, Fly High, Find Love,
Poncho.

Missing a week.

YES! Okay, alright already. I know, my dear adoring fans, that I missed this Saturday. Well, I have an excuse: Family is over. To be specific, my fiancées brother (Happy 20th Birthday, Pat!) and momma (Love you, Mel) have come by to visit, so spending time blogging about politics would be rude. (Or, at least, that's my excuse.) =]

I'm currently working on something of a "Magnum Opus." It should have been the introduction to this blog, but I didn't finish it before I started writing. It's supposed to be my overall outlook on politics: On my view of Freedom, on my opposition to Capitalism, on my version of Socialism, and on my idea of Revolution. With those laying out my world view, where I stand and what I write about makes a great deal more sense. I'm thinking about condensing these into one overall blog, hitting the salient points and leaving the details for a later date.

Nevertheless, I will be posting again soon!

Seek Peace, Fly High, Find Love,
Poncho.

Saturday Post: The American Dream

The United States has been called "The Land of Opportunity." Here, anyone can come and make something for themselves. You can get a good job, or start a business of your own. You can own your own home. You can worship as you wish, speak your mind freely, and elect your government. Here, you can truly be free. This American Dream has been the bright light behind the eyes of millions of immigrants over the last two hundred years. We've had uncountable millions of young men and women give their lives to ensure this dream.

Yet, to quote Langston Hughes, this is a dream deferred.

In my home town, you've got a few options when you get out of high school. You can get a job at McDonalds, or one of the handful of other fast-food joints in the surrounding area. You can get a job with the local grocery store, or go down the road a ways to get a job at the new Wal-Mart. You can get a job at the last factory in town (standing for a 12 hour shift at minimum wage, while your temp agency gets the lions' share of your paycheck). A lot of kids end up joining the armed services, where they get sent to the other end of the world to catch a hot one for Exxon-Mobile.

A few kids go off to college, but a number of them don't make the cut. Why? Because our high school barely taught us how to get into college, much less how to succeed at college. Our tiny, underfunded school has failed every student who attend. Some of us go on to university and succeed, but very little of that is thanks to our "education." Perhaps the wisest among us decided to go to community college, get a trade certificate, and then go on to be auto mechanics or nurses.

But do you know what the true tragedy is? Even these options are becoming less and less available to people. Getting a job at Wal Mart or McDonalds or Arvato isn't as much of a no-brainer as it used to be, with lay-offs and hiring freezes. Student loan money (along with money for the middle school and high school) is drying up, as tax payment slows to a trickle while private loan companies shut their doors. Mechanics and Nurses are in a market glut; for the most part, all their jobs have been filled. The crummy jobs we had are scarce; the money for education is drying up; and the hope that our specialized labor will carry us through is quickly becoming a thing of the past.

Working class kids, be they white, black, or Latino, be they rural, urban, or suburban, be they native-born or immigrant, deserve more options then a fast-food job or the Marine corps. They deserve the true opportunity to become the best that they can be.