The Fresh Toad

The Absurdity of Corporate Rights

2007-08-02T05:19:00.000-07:00

The notion that a corporation has or should have rights -- either natural rights or constitutional rights -- the same as a natural person, is patently absurd, even when the corporation is regarded as an artificial person for purposes of legal convenience.

Corporations exist only as government franchises. They have no independent existence apart from the state. Corporations are privileged entities. The officers and directors of a corporation enjoy certain legal immunities that ordinary citizens do not. This is privilege. Corporate officers cannot be held legally liable for their honest mistakes nor can they be made to fund losses sustained by the corporation or its shareholders due to management error. There are other immunities enjoyed by those who operate the corporation. All this amounts to privilege not enjoyed by the citizenry at large.

The central theme of the American Constitution is that all power derives ultimately from the people. The people have natural rights as well as constitutional rights. The people are the source of government power via the Constitution which is a legal contract among the states as representatives of the people, that contract having been ratified by the state legislatures elected by those people.

Now, if the people are the source of government power and the people have in fact created the government, and the government issues a corporate franchise or license, then it follows that unless the people have, via the Constitution, delegated to the government the power to confer rights on corporations (which power they have in fact not delegated), then corporations have no rights at all and should not, except for possible limited statutory rights such as the right to due process of law.

As an artifical entity, it is impossible for the corporation to have natural rights or constitutional rights, and further, it is not possible that a government that was created by a higher power -- the people -- can confer on an artificial entity lesser than itself rights equal to the rights naturally enjoyed by the power that created the government. That would be like humans creating an android endowed with godly powers. The creators of the android simply do not have the power to do that, just as the goverment does not have the power to confer natural or constitutional rights on a corporation.

Thus corporations have no inherent right to free speech, for example, no right not to self incriminate, no freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc, unless granted by statute through legislation enacted by the elected representatives of the people. Indeed, as privileged artificial entities, corporations are rightly subject to full regulation and are just as rightly the object of taxation. It is right and just and legally appropriate that corporations be fuly regulated and taxed. Not taxed out of existence -- obviously that wouldn't be good for anyone. But taxed, yes, on their privileged activity, which is the source of their income, which can be used as a measure of the activity.

There is no reason the government could not make a law criminalizing lying on the part of corporations. It could be -- and possibly should be -- a crime for a corporation to say they don't use sweatshop or child labor if actually they do. Not just bad PR, but a crime wherein the officers of the corporation are liable. Similarly, government could proscribe any and all participation in politics by corporations. Even corporate lobbying could be legally prohibited. The justification used now by corporations for lobbying is that the Constitution guarantees the right of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances. That's a constitutional right to be enjoyed by natural persons, not any kind of a right to be enjoyed by an artifical corporate person.

Democracy can be restored in the United States by denying natural rights to the artificial entities known as corporations. It's about time we did just that. The sooner we fix that little mistake, the sooner we restore government of, by, and for the people.

The Myth of Government Spending

2007-03-27T03:07:00.000-07:00

There's this myth in conservative circles that government spending is somehow a bad thing. Nothing could be more wrongheaded. Money spent becomes part of the economy. It's economic activity! Every dollar spent is income to someone, and they will spend it as well, on wages, raw materials, whatever, it gets spent and re-spent, thus enlarging the economy. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, it's very beneficial. The Great Depression was ended by government spending.

Because money flows uphill, even if a source of funds for government spending is taxes on the wealthy class, in the form of repealed tax cuts, for example, they end up with it right back in their pockets anyway. May as well tax them on some of their income and send it around again, to the benefit of everyone.

The measure of economic health is not how much money is held, but how much money is spent -- circulated. It's the circulation of the money that equates to prosperity, not the holding of it. If an economy stagnates, it is the responsibility of government to spend enough to rev things up again.

All the conservative complaints about entitlements and socialized medicine and all their carping about what an unfair burden taxes are for industry, this is all a smokescreen born of stupidity and ignorance born of greed. Government spending is like a giant goose laying golden eggs for everyone. Why kill that?

Consider the opposite extreme. What if economic conservatives could have their way and "starve the beast" called government. No spending by government at all. What then? Roads crumble, buildings collapse, water becomes undrinkable, the air becomes unbreathable, airplanes crash into each other, schools close, people become restive, riots ensue. If you think market forces would prevent those kinds of consequences, you're dreaming or on drugs.

Market forces would cause those effects as greed drove every corporation to pillage the marketplace. The wealthy class would provide services, but only for itself, leaving the vast majority to fend (badly) for themselves. Think this isn't so? Look at the Katrina debacle. This is how government responds to social crisis when that government is run by people who don't believe in government. Which victims got their insurance payments and their houses rebuilt in the Gulf Coast region following Katrina and which ones got screwed? You know the answer. The government stepped aside and the wealthy class took care of its own.

Extremes are not healthy on either end of a spectrum. Overtaxing would be counterproductive because it would rob businesses and individuals of incentive and discourage entrepreneurship. There's a happy medium to be found in tax and spend. It's up to responsible government to find that happy medium.

Probably most taxes should come from corporate revenue rather than taxes on wages. A corporate revenue tax would not have to impact corporations adversely because the taxes would simply be passed on in the price of goods. This is fair, as long as wages are not taxed, because the end user has to pay the costs anyway. What do you suppose people would do with the extra money in every paycheck if they weren't taxed on income? They'd spend it! What a bonanza! For rich and working poor and middle class alike!

As economic stimulus, tax cuts should therefore be applied at the bottom of the economic ladder and taper upwards, with the super wealthy getting no tax cuts at all. They'll still get richer because working people will spend the extra money and money flows uphill.

Doesn't this make a lot of sense? Yes, but economic conservatives have to see past their greed. They have to realize that everyone including themselves can become wealthier through government spending and tax cuts for the working class.

This is not socialism, it's capitalism. Sensible capitalism. This is not advocating collective ownership by the people of the means of production, which has been shown not to work. It is healthy capitalism where the legitimate needs of all sectors of the society are taken into consideration and prosperity is boosted for everyone, not just for some. This means that government spending and government regulation of industry and the marketplace are necessary. The wealthy class has to see past its own greed in order to make that a reality.

What politician will step up to the plate and propose these policies?

Why the Neocons Outed Valerie Plame

2007-03-07T01:56:00.000-08:00

It wasn’t because of what Joe Wilson wrote debunking the Niger yellow cake story, even though he was right that the yellow cake deal was BS. They outed Valerie Plame because of what Valerie Plame herself had done.

Valerie Plame headed up the CIA’s WMD interdiction unit. She and her cover company, Brewster Jennings, were responsible for identifying and preventing illicit trafficking in WMDs and related materials around the world. She was the top expert in this.

Remember in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, Rumsfeld said “We even know where they are” referring to WMDs in Iraq. How could he “know” that, especially in view of the fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq. He could only have known that for sure if the neocons were about to secretly plant WMDs in those locations. Then they could “find” them after the invasion. This was their ace in the hole, the ultimate justification for the invasion. This was how they could fix the intelligence and get away with it.

Valerie Plame’s group deprived the neocons of their ace in the hole by preventing the movement of those WMDs into Iraq. That is what so enraged the administration that they would lash out to punish her. Joe Wilson and his op-ed piece only provided unwitting cover for the career assassination of his wife.

If this is true — and it must be, with Rumsfeld claiming to know in advance where the WMDs were located in Iraq, and with Valerie Plame heading up that particular CIA operation — it means the Bush administration has destroyed the ability of the U.S. to monitor and interdict clandestine WMD related activity in the world. All because they were ticked off at Valerie Plame, whose actions prevented the false justification for the Iraq invasion that the neocons were counting on.

That, my friends, is treason.

Right-Wing Mud Slinging

2006-09-13T06:17:00.000-07:00

You know, this crap really pisses me off. This accusation by the right wing that if I oppose the Iraq war then I must be on the side of the terrorists and that I must hate America has gone way too far. Damn their evil lies. Damn their Neocon hides.

This is what I have to say to them: Don't you dare impugn my patriotism. Don't you dare tell me that my sentiments are un-American. I'll tell you. My ancestor arrived here in 1633. Our family includes a signer of the Declaration of Independence, who also became the first President of the United States in Congress Assembled under the Articles of Confederation. Our family includes not one but two Revolutionary Wars generals, one of whom served with General Washington and endured the famous winter at Valley Forge and later chose the location of the U.S. Military Academy. Numerous others from our family have served - and died - in every war this country ever fought. My own father fought in the battles of Okinawa and Saipan and earned a Bronze Star. We know well the cost of freedom. Don't you dare try to tell me otherwise. I'll tell you.

Damn their lies. Damn them.

I'm sick and tired of those chicken-hawk right-wing incompetent unelected bastard warmongers fucking up the country my ancestors fought so hard to help create and help protect.

Am I liberal? Damn right I am. This country was founded by liberal men on liberal principles and I will not stand by silently while cowards who never served steal elections and denigrate the service of real heroes. Every single societal advance from safe drinking water to safe working conditions to retirement benefits to you-name-it were fought for by liberals and fought against by conservatives. Every one of them! Damn right I'm liberal and proud of it.

Damn their stinking Neocon hides. Damn them to hell.

Angrily,

Ralph J. Huntington
11th-generation American

Open Letter to Howard Dean

2006-03-13T06:07:00.000-08:00

Dear Dr Dean,

What's a furious citizen to do? The Republicans are destroying American society and the Democrats are holding the door for them. Are Al Gore, Russ Feingold, Robert Byrd and John Murtha the only high-profile Democrats with any kajones?

Did you read Molly Ivins latest piece? (www.progressive.org/mag_ivins0306) That article precisely sums up my feelings. We Democrats are unhappy. We are disaffected. We are angry. Every progressive societal advance made in the last century is being undermined or reversed by Republicans sold out to corporations and industry.

Where are the Democrats? How could all those Democrats have voted for the renewal of the (un)Patriot(ic) Act? Where are their consciences? What about the Constitution? Who are they afraid of?

We're not happy, Dr Dean. Every Democrat I know is angry at the Party, and that's quite a lot of people. My family and friends are not anomalies. We are every-day working Democrats, ordinary people who have had it with the lies, the incompetence, the destruction, the abuse, the perversion of American values and the loss of good will around the world, to name just a few of the sticking points that enrage us.

We need you, not a Harry Reid or a Nancy Pelosi who haven't got the guts God gave rabbit, to rouse the narcoleptic Democrats from their stupor and somehow make them come out fighting.

I wish Al Gore would announce (now). His speech of Jan 16 was of the right timbre and substance. Who cares what the right-wing pinheads say about him! Come out fighting!

Hillary lost me when she signed onto that stupid anti-flag-burning bill. What is she thinking? That she can pander to the extreme right and still retain my confidence even as she proposes trashing the Bill of Rights? What kind of principles are those?

This country was founded by Liberals on Liberal principles. Let's proudly take back our cherished label. I'm proud to be liberal, dammit, and I don't want Democrats in Congress ducking for cover whenever some Rovean creep points the finger of unpatriotism my way. I'm the patriot! Let's take a stand, for crying out loud.

Please, Sir. The clock is ticking on America. I hate to say this, but I don't see myself cracking open my wallet for wimps and cowards. Why should we throw money at an unresponsive party? But if someone will stand up and go toe to toe with the Republican Party and the Bush Administration, then I'll give and give and give whatever it takes, to defeat the agents of corporate greed that have hijacked the country.

I propose these planks for the Democratic platform. Who's got the muscle to hammer them home?

- Get us out of Iraq. Bring the troops home.
- No more pre-emptive wars.
- Public financing of all campaigns NOW.
- A return to healthy environmental policy.
- Roll back the damn tax cuts!
- Single-payer health insurance for everyone NOW!

Wake them up on the Hill, Dr Dean. Please!

When Life Begins is a Religious Question

2006-03-11T04:06:00.000-08:00

In my religion, the name of which is unimportant, and which the First Amendment guarantees us the right to practice without government interference, human life begins at the time of birth. According to my religion, human life begins at the moment of birth when the soul takes possession of the body. From that point forward, we have a person with natural and legal rights of their own.

Also according to my religion, prior to birth and the soul taking possession of the new body, the fetus is a biological organism under the exclusive control of the woman carrying it. What she does with it prior to birth is entirely up to her and between her and God. Again, this is religion. There is no science that can refute this belief and no law that can constitutionally interfere with it.

Some people have the religious view that human life begins at conception. That's fine. They are free to believe that as an article of faith and to live according to that faith and there is no science that can refute such and no law that can constitutionally interefer with it. Pepople of this belief system are most likely to find abortion morally wrong, and I can see where for them it would be.

The First Amendment enjoins the government from interfering with the practice of either of these belief systems or from making laws based on any system of religious belief.

Therefore, neither the federal government nor any state can constitutionally make a law requiring, for example, that a doctor tell a woman that life begins at conception (or any other time) because that is a religious position and the First Amendment prohibits the enacting of laws based on religion. You'd think this point would be obvious to the legal scholars out there.

In closing, I offer a little prayer of liberation:

Lord, deliver us from the overbearing among us who, well intentioned as they may see themselves, would in violation of the law of the land seek to impose their religious stricture upon those of differing belief. Spare us, Oh Lord, from such iniquity, we beseech you in the name of all that is right and good and just. Amen.

The Right to Privacy

2006-01-10T06:21:00.000-08:00

       Whenever the discussion turns to constitutional safeguards for personal privacy, it's not unusual to hear people on the political right say that there is no such thing, that the Constitution neither mentions privacy nor protects it. In fact, exactly the opposite is true, and the Constitution goes to great length to make the point.
       Amendment IV states very clearly that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
       How this plain language could not be interpreted as the guarantee of privacy that it most assuredly represents is a mystery. Not only is the government enjoined from snooping into your affairs, but in order to poke around at all, there must be a sworn statement from someone attesting to an observation of some particular evidence of criminality before any government agency can intrude upon your person, your domicile or your personal effects. That is a powerful guarantee of privacy; there really is no other way to interpret that.
       But just in case the point is not made sufficiently clear by Amendment IV, there is Amendment IX, which states in very plain language that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This means that just because a right is not specifically mentioned by name in the Constitution does not mean the people do not possess that right. In other words, rights are to be interpreted expansively.
       And lest anyone miss the point that Amendment IX limits governmental power in ways not explicitly listed, there is Amendment X, which states, also in plain language, that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This means that if a power is not granted explicitly by the Constiutution to the government, then the government does not possess and may not assume that power. In other words, government power is to be interpreted restrictively.
       Personal rights are to be interpreted expansively while government power is to be interpreted restrictively. It's all there in plain language in the Constitution. Everyone should read it.

How Bush Supports the Troops

2006-01-04T06:22:00.000-08:00

       The president visited injured troops at Brooke Army Medical Center on New Year's Day, 2006, to award Purple Hearts and in an apparent attempt to boost morale and maybe get some good press. While most of what he said was typical morale boosting rhetoric (though nothing was said about restoring benefits cut from veterans' programs, which would have been a genuine morale booster) two of Bush's statement stand out.
        "I can't think of a better way to start 2006 than here at this fantastic hospital," Bush said. Really? I'll bet the 51 seriously injured soldiers and marines staying at Brooke AMC can think of a better way. How about at home with their families? Leave it to Bush to mock another's pain and suffering, something he's shown an affinity for on previous occasions.
       The Commander-in-Chief also said to the injured troops, "As you can possibly see, I have an injury myself - not here at the hospital, but in combat with a cedar. I eventually won. The cedar gave me a little scratch."
       The silence must have been deafening. Imagine saying something like that to someone who lost their leg fighting a guerilla war you started! What a way to insult the troops! Who could be that insensitive? It shows what an utter lack of awareness Bush has of real people and real life. It's obvious that to him 'compassion' is just a sound bite word he got from Rove. Hell, the guy even says he doesn't read.
       Never misunderestimate this president's depthitude for shallowness (or his capacitation for evildoing in the name of righteousity, which is what got those troops into Brooke AMC in the first place).

Tax Cuts for the Wealthy

2005-12-24T04:18:00.000-08:00

       Supply siders will have us believe that tax cuts for the wealthy act as an economic stimulus. They do not. The reason for this is simple: unlike water, money flows uphill. No matter where money is injected into the economic system, it flows upward to the top.
       The purported theory behind giving tax breaks to the wealthy is that they will use the money to create jobs. President Bush has even called his tax cuts a jobs package. But that's mere sloganeering to hide the reality. Let me ask: who ramps up production in the absence of increased demand? No one. This is so obvious it's amazing that anyone falls for the jobs-package line of bull. Who hires extra help, especially in the absence of increased demand? Obviously, no one.
       What is one to do with such a windfall - assuming one is wealthy ewnough to receive one? Invest in something that pays dividends, perhaps, since taxes have been reduced or eliminated on such investments. But all the exchanges of stock by traders and investors do nothing to boost the kind of economic activity on which people's livelihoods depend. Demand-side stimulus is the only way to achieve the necessary momentum. I know I wouldn't hire extra help until demand picked up significantly and forecasts were for more increased demand.
       What does it take to boost demand? Simple, put the money in the hands of the working class. They will spend it! The $300 crumb Bush grudgingly tossed to the contemptible masses is a huge insult and is not a real tax cut. Bush adds injury to the insult by scooping out huge rebates for the wealthy.
       Everyone who got that $300 tax rebate immediately spent it, so whatever economic stimulus ensued was very short lived, perhaps a week or two - probably less than the margin of error of any system that could measure it. What if the majority of the tax cut dollars went to the working class? Imagine an extra hundred or two in every paycheck. Week after week, month after month. Now that that would be a stimulus.
       Here's a radical idea. Why not exempt the first, say, $20,000 or $25,000 of wages and salaries from tax. What do you suppose would happen with that money. It would be spent! It would be injected into the economy at the consumer level, greatly stimulating demand for goods and services. Companies would have to ramp up production and begin hiring additional workers. The economy would buzz. And all that money would trickle uphill as it always does, making the rich even richer. And that's the point, really. No matter where you inject the money, the rich get richer. Why not inject it at the bottom so that everyone benefits, not just the wealthy folks at the top?

Corporate Power

2005-12-22T03:14:00.000-08:00

Corporate power is getting out of hand and part of the problem is this thing called media consolidation. [The Fresh Toad will go on about lobbyists another day.] We’ve got a handful of individuals and corporations with right-wing agendas buying up media properties and slanting the reportage and editorialization such that there remain fewer and fewer unbiased sources of news and opinion for an ever more jaded populace to pick from.
Now, bad reportage, slanted news and the like is nothing new. What is new is the ownership consolidation that has been allowed to take place. This directly threatens the American way of life because it invests way too much power in the hands of way too few. Witness how people have (apparently) completely forgotten the difficult times that

America

has endured, times that led to legal and societal reforms that protect people.
       Reforms like clean water, breathable air, insured bank deposits, worker safety. Each of those societal advances was opposed by conservatives of the time, yet consolidation of media power by conservatives is what people are expected to accept now even though it reduces the diversity of information available and threatens further advances in living quality for all people, not just the rich. It makes no sense, unless you favor investing more political power in the corporation.
       I’m not saying we should be all liberal all the time. Conservatism makes a good balance for liberalism because in its true form it keeps a lid on government, discourages squandering, does not reward idleness, encourages economic risk-taking for gain, and provides incentives for creativity. But being all conservative all the time is extremely dangerous to society. And when conservatism is used to make either government or corporations more powerful, everyone needs to be concerned.
       What will it take to free the media from the bondage it suffers from? How will people come to realize, for example, that the claim of “compassionate conservatism” is purely a slogan and not based in fact? It won’t happen if the media won’t call anyone on it. The press is one of only two businesses enshrined with specific protection in the U.S. Constitution (the other being religion). But unless the media actually use that power to inform rather than dupe the public, we will be in danger, as a society, of going down the tubes. The American experiment can fail if we allow it to.
       Why is this so? It is so because of the nature of the corporation and the lack of oversight corporations enjoy. To whom is the corporate board responsible? To the community? No. To the society? No. To the shareholder? Yes. Only to the shareholder. The corporate raison d’être is the enrichment the shareholder. Period. When a decision has to be made, it is made in light of the bottom line, not in light of what’s best for the ecology or the community or the workers. This is understandable based on for whom the corporate bells ring: They ring for the shareholder – the investor.
       However, when it comes to environmental quality or worker safety, to name just two areas of corporate impact, the bottom-line mentality discounts these because paying attention to them adversely affects profitability. Therefore, regulation by the government is necessary. It is right and just and proper and here’s why: corporations are artificial, privileged entities that exist only through government franchise. They are therefore properly the object of regulation and subject to taxation. Corporations should, sensibly, not enjoy the same rights as natural persons.
       At the founding of the United States, the American people, acting through their elected representatives, created the federal government, delegating to the government certain limited powers, reserving to themselves all powers not delegated. Is it reasonable to imagine that the government could then create an artificial person with the same rights as, or greater rights than, a natural-born citizen? It would be logically impossible: A thing cannot create another thing equal to or more powerful than the thing that created itself. That would be like humans designing a robot more powerful than God. Ludicrous idea. But this is what has been allowed to happen in the corporate world.
       The Supreme Court, making use of the 14th Amendment late in the 19th Century, rendered the opinion that for legal purposes the corporation is a person, albeit an artificial one. This was convenient and solved a legal problem that was getting troublesome, but the court did not delineate any limitations to the concept of the corporation as a person. This left people with the idea that corporations have rights, just like natural persons do. That notion opened the door to the ever widening corporate abuse of power, which now threatens our way of life.
       By definition, the corporation is a privileged entity. Its officers and directors enjoy immunity from prosecution for their mistakes and immunity from personal liability for losses suffered by the company and it shareholders. This amounts to considerable privilege. Such an entity is rightly taxed for the exercise of such privilege. This principle is well established legally. Rights, on the other hand, are not taxable, else they would not be rights since, as the Supreme Court has stated, the power to tax is the power to regulate.
       Therefore, it is the duty of government to regulate and to tax corporate activity. Yet the Congress seen fit to give hundreds of billions in tax breaks to corporations even as the EPA rolls back environmental restrictions on them, even as the tax burden of working citizens is not relieved.
       Because corporations, especially large corporations, are able to amass huge monetary resources, they are able to wield extraordinary power. When that power is used to coerce government, society suffers. As long as corporate money can be used to grease the wheels of government, the notion of government of, by, and for the people is an illusion. Instead, we have government of, by, and for the corporation, which is really nothing less than fascism - with a small f, but fascism nonetheless.
       Harsh words, perhaps, but true. If political power is allowed to reside in entities that have no other driving force than their own bottom lines, there is no hope whatsoever for the citizenry or the environment, since government protection will devolve to the corporation, government’s benefactor. This situation must be redressed.
       How can that be accomplished? Not easily, unless and until that 19th-Century mistake on the part of our Supreme Court is reversed. Even that may not be enough. A constitutional amendment to prohibit corporate lobbying would be a step in the right direction. As the system works now, corporate lobbyists write legislation, something akin to putting the foxes in charge of the henhouse. How could anyone imagine that the product of such an arrangement could be beneficial for any but the corporations themselves and their bought-and-paid-for government toadies?
       A careful look at the drug reimportation issue should provide all the proof anyone needs to recognize the perversion of corporate power that is taking over America: Government wants to prevent granny from buying the identical drugs at half the cost in Canada for no reason other than the protection of corporate profits. When the government cites consumer safety as the overriding concern, such nonsense insults Canadians and Americans both, as if Canadians were suffering from bad pharmaceuticals that were manufactured in the US!
       So, where is a statesman when we need one? Who will sound the alarm? Has everyone gone deaf and dumb? America is only in its adolescence as the oldest constitutional democracy on the planet, but already it is at the crossroads, while the dumbing down of our once-resourceful population of rugged individualists has made it almost a certainty that no one will notice if we take the wrong turn.
       All for greed. Another hundred billion in the pockets of the already-rich. Screw the working stiff. Tax the wage earners! A free ride for those who don’t need one! What a legacy!
       Shhh, shhh, shhh, there’s a new “reality” show coming on!
       No wonder the rest of the world thinks we’re mad. We are.