Flexible Reality
Saturday, August 14, 2004
Estate Tax Repeal? No Stick = No Carrot?
NEW CBO STUDY FINDS THAT ESTATE TAX REPEALWOULD SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE CHARITABLE GIVING
by David Kamin
A new Congressional Budget Office study on the effect of the estate tax on charitable giving finds that elimination of the estate tax would cause charitable contributions to fall by large amounts.[1] CBO estimates that if estate-tax repeal had been in effect in 2000, charitable donations would have been reduced by $13 billion to $25 billion that year.[2] The amount by which CBO finds that charitable donations would fall exceeds the total amount of corporate charitable donations in the United States, which equaled $11 billion in 2000. The amount by which charitable donations would shrink also approaches the total amount that foundations contribute for charitable causes each year.
Moreover, with the growth in wealth over time and the coming increases in the size of the elderly population — and, subsequently, in the number of people who die — the loss in charitable donations that would result from repeal of the estate tax would be even larger in the future.
As the CBO report explains, the estate tax leads affluent individuals to donate more than they otherwise would, since estate tax liability is reduced through donations made both during life and at death. CBO divides the effect of the estate tax on charitable giving between two types of donations:
* Charitable contributions made during life. CBO finds that, as of 2000, repeal of the estate tax would have reduced charitable contributions made during life by between 6 percent and 11 percent. While a 6 percent to 11 percent reduction may not sound large, substantial amounts of donations are involved. CBO reports that charitable contributions from individuals totaled $196 billion in 2000. A reduction of 6 percent to 11 percent would shrink charitable contributions by approximately $11 billion to $21 billion.
* Bequests at death. CBO reports that estate tax repeal would have an even larger effect, in percentage terms, on bequests. Repeal of the estate tax in 2000 would have led to a reduction in charitable bequests of 16 percent to 28 percent, CBO estimates.
Although the percentage reduction in bequests is larger than the percentage reduction in charitable contributions made during life, smaller dollar amounts are involved. In 2000, there were $16 billion in charitable bequests (as compared to $196 billion in charitable contributions made during life).[3] A reduction in bequests of 16 percent to 28 percent would amount to a loss in charitable donations through bequests of about $3 billion to $4 billion.[4]
The total reduction in charitable giving due to estate tax repeal — from both charitable contributions made during life and bequests — would have equaled about $13 billion to $25 billion in 2000, the study concluded. This is a substantial drop. As noted above, the decrease in contributions from repeal of the estate tax would exceed total corporate giving in the United States. According to the American Association of Fundraising Counsel’s Trust for Philanthropy, total corporate contributions to charitable services equaled approximately $11 billion in 2000.
The drop in contributions that CBO projects also would approach the total amount of giving by foundations. Total foundation giving equaled $25 billion in 2000.[5]
As these CBO findings document, the estate tax acts as a powerful incentive in encouraging affluent Americans to donate more to charity than they otherwise would. The estate tax makes charitable giving considerably less expensive than it otherwise would be.
An example may help illustrate this concept. If the assets in an estate above a certain level are subject to a 55 percent estate-tax rate, a charitable bequest of $100 reduces the tax bill that the estate must pay by $55, since bequests are exempt from taxation. The charitable bequest of $100 thus costs the estate only $45. Without the estate tax, however, a charitable bequest of $100 would reduce bequests to other beneficiaries of an estate by the full $100, as there would be no tax saving from the contribution. In this way, the estate tax makes charitable bequests much less expensive and encourages wealthy individuals to donate more.
The issuance of the CBO study comes at a time when the federal estate tax faces an uncertain future. The 2001 tax-cut legislation provided for the gradual phase-down of the estate tax, and its elimination in 2010. Prior to passage of the 2001 tax law, the exemption from the estate tax was scheduled to increase gradually from $675,000 for an individual in 2001 ($1.35 million for a married couple) to $1 million by 2006 ($2 million for a couple). The top estate tax rate stood at 55 percent. Under the 2001 law, the estate-tax exemption level will increase by considerably larger amounts through 2009, and the top tax rate is being reduced. In 2009, the year before repeal of the estate tax, the exemption will be $3.5 million ($7 million for a married couple), and the top estate-tax rate will be 45 percent. The estate tax will then be eliminated in 2010.
The repeal of the estate tax currently is scheduled to last only one year and to expire after 2010, along with all of the other tax cuts included in the 2001 tax-reduction legislation. After 2010, the estate tax is slated to revert to prior law (i.e., to the law as it stood before enactment of the 2001 legislation), with a $1 million individual exemption ($2 million for a married couple) and a top tax rate of 55 percent.
Yet few observers expect this to occur. The 2001 tax cut was made temporary not for reasons of policy, but as a budget gimmick to hold down the official cost of the 2001 tax-cut package. In its current budget, the Administration proposes making permanent the 2001 tax cut, including repeal of the estate tax. Many in Congress also favor permanent elimination of the estate tax. The likely alternative is to reform the estate tax rather than to repeal it — for instance, by making permanent the estate-tax policy that will be in place in 2009, with an exemption of $3.5 million for individuals and $7 million for couples and a top rate of 45 percent.
The new CBO study finds that a reformed estate tax would still serve as an important tool in encouraging charitable giving. In the study, CBO analyzed the effect on charitable giving of raising the estate-tax exemption. CBO found that in 2000, raising the estate-tax exemption to either $2 million or $3.5 million (with the exemption being double these amounts for a married couple) would have reduced total charitable giving by about $1 billion to $6 billion. This is a modest fraction of the loss of $13 billion to $25 billion in charitable donations that CBO estimates will occur if the estate tax is eliminated.
What America is Saying...About Wal-Mart
American Progress Org ReportAugust 9, 2004
On June 22, U.S. District Judge Martin J. Jenkins' ruled to allow a sex-discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. proceed to trial as a class action suit, which may escalate into the largest private employer civil rights case in American history. The case has reignited debate about Wal-Mart's employment and labor practices. The issues being discussed go beyond criticism of pay disparity between men and women – they include disapproval of Wal-Mart's discriminatory hiring practices, low wages, and poor benefits. Here is a sample of what America is saying about Wal-Mart.
Muncie, Ind. – The Star Press
August 5, 2004 – Letter to the editor
"Communities across the nation are saying "no" to Wal-Mart. Here are some facts to consider. Wal-Mart drives out businesses owned and operated by your neighbors, while paying its employees near minimum wage with only token benefits. It is common for some of these workers to further drain the community via welfare, free school lunches, etc.
San Gabriel, Calif. – San Gabriel Valley Tribune
July 13, 2004 – Letter to the editor – link unavailable
"According to this report [by the U.S. House of Representatives Democratic staff of the Committee on Education and the Workplace], the average hourly wage of Wal-Mart employees is $8.23, and only 41-46 percent of these workers get any health coverage from Wal-Mart.
"Those workers that do get health benefits still end up bearing 42 percent of health- care costs themselves [the national average for large-firm employees is 16 percent.] The report also details other labor abuses by Wal-Mart such as forcing employees to work overtime with no compensation and firing workers who try to organize.
Rock Hill, S.C. – The Herald
July 13, 2004 – Editorial – link unavailable
"Wal-Mart officials say much of the opposition stems from unfair and inaccurate criticism. Opponents, however, point to the well-documented results of Wal-Mart's entry into some communities. Most notably, they complain that Wal-Mart drives smaller, local retailers out of business and that the giant retailer doesn't invest in the community like local business owners do.
'The foremost consideration in favor of giving Wal-Mart the green light would be the local tax base. Local governments can't rely on residential taxpayers alone to support a thriving community. They need commercial development - businesses such as Wal-Mart - to support schools and other local needs without greatly increasing the demand on services.
"We hope local residents will look carefully at both sides of this proposal before jumping to conclusions."
Buffalo, N.Y. – Speakupwny.com
July 22, 2004 – Letter to the editor
'Wal-Mart refuses to be denied and seems over time to "win over" municipal government agencies that reach office and favor their predator business policies that adversely impact the socio-economic status of a community.
"Wal-Mart, good neighbor – NOT!"
New York, N.Y. – New York Times
July 25, 2004 – Editorial
"This could be the central battle of the 21st century: Earth people versus the
Wal-Martians.
"By 2000, measures of mere size – bigger than General Motors! richer than Switzerland! – no longer told the whole story. It's the velocity of growth that you need to measure now: two new stores opening and $1 billion worth of U.S. real estate bought up every week; almost 600,000 American employees churned through in a year (that's a 44% turnover rate).
"Some stores encourage their employees to apply for food stamps and welfare; many take second jobs. Critics point out that Wal-Mart has consumed $1 billion in public subsidies, but that doesn't count the expenditures required to keep its associates alive.
"Wal-Mart is facing class-action suits for sex discrimination and nonpayment for overtime work (meaning no payment at all), as well as accusations that employees have been locked in stores overnight, unable to get help even in medical emergencies.
"These are the kind of conditions we associate with third-world sweatshops, and in fact, Wal-Mart fails at least five out of ten criteria set by Worker Rights Consortium, which monitors universities' sources of logoed apparel – making it the worlds largest sweatshop.
"Earth to Wal-mars, or wherever you come from: Live with us or go back to the mother ship."
New York, N.Y. - The New York Times
August 1, 2004 - Letter to the editor
"While Wal-Mart proudly purports to exemplify the entrepreneurial spirit that made this country great, it engages in the wholesale exploitation of its work force; the 44 percent turnover rate…speaks for itself.
"The much-ballyhooed business values of this megacompany are not tempered by human values, like fairness and justice, nor by the dignity of a living wage.
"Now faced with class-action suits for sex discrimination and nonpayment for overtime work, management may be contemplating a more employee-friendly workplace. Consumers and investors can further encourage this change of heart by leveraging buying power and not doing business at stores that don't respect the rights of workers, supporting instead companies that practice sound labor and environmental practices."
Kansas City, Kan. – The Kansas City Star
August 4, 2004 – Letters to the editor – link unavailable
"My family has boycotted Wal-Mart for two generations. My mother started her boycott after she looked at Wal-Mart for her investment club. I started my boycott after I heard about their employment practices. Timemagazine recently reported on the Wal-Mart discrimination lawsuit (over) paying women considerably less than male employees. As a health care provider, I am concerned about the employees of Wal-Mart who cannot afford their health insurance because of low wages and purposely high premiums. Uninsured employees utilize the county- and state-funded medical and mental health care in any community that has a Wal-Mart, draining local resources.
Las Vegas, Nev. – Las Vegas Review-Journal
August 4, 2004 – Letter to the editor
"His [syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell] July 25 column clearly betrays how misinformed he is about the general status of working women in this country, and the status of female employees at Wal-Mart in particular.
"First, someone should inform Mr. Sowell that in 2004 women are not only interested in doing work traditionally done by men, we are actually doing work traditionally done by men. The women in the class-action suit against Wal-Mart want to get paid the same as their male counterparts for the work that women already do at Wal-mart.
"Richard Drogen, a professor emeritus of statistics at the University of California, Hayward found that full-time female Wal-Mart employees make $1,150 less per year than men in similar jobs, a 6.2 percent gap. Women store managers make an average of $89,280 a year, $16,400 less than men.
"Second, someone should explain to Mr. Sowell that 65 percent of Wal-Mart staff are women, yet they earn an average of 37 cents less than men. Wal-Mart is, in fact, hiring women instead of men to keep costs down. How do you think Wal-Mart keeps its prices so low?
"In my voting district, nearly 25 percent of all households are headed by single women with children. These women need to put bread on the table; they need to save for their children's college tuition. I imagine many women who have taken part in the class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart are similar to the women in my voting district. These women are not selfish money-grubbers, as Mr. Sowell implied. They simply want compensation commiserate with what their male counterparts, and their male counterparts' families, receive."
San Francisco, Calif. – The San Francisco Chronicle
August 4, 2004 – Letter to the editor
"A recent study by UC Berkeley's Institute for Industrial Relations concluded that Wal-Mart underpays its employees so much, the taxpayers must take up the slack. California taxpayers pay an average of $1,952 per Wal-Mart worker. The average public-assistance cost per worker at other large retailers with at least 1,000 employees is $1,401. The difference between the Big Retailer and the little retailer is that the Big Guy makes billions in profits, and the little guy struggles just to keep his business from dying when a Wal-Mart-like mega- store moves into town.
"If we taxpayers are going to pay welfare payments to the largest corporations on the planet, we may as well throw in the towel on promoting capitalism as a way to self-reliance."
Akron, Ohio – Akron Beacon Journal
August 6, 2004 – Letter to the editor
"If the residents of Brimfield and surrounding communities object to a new Wal-Mart, I say, good. But don't just be opposed to it quietly -- speak out. Call or write Wal-Mart headquarters in Bentonville, Ark. Tell your local council and state representatives.
"A Wal-Mart Supercenter, which is the size of 17 football fields, requires 1.2 million square feet of pavement. That has the potential to cause huge drainage problems. In fact, this May, Wal-Mart agreed to pay a settlement of $3.1 million for violating the Clean Water Act, the result of poor construction of 24 stores in nine states.
"As for the promise of bringing new jobs and tax revenue, I suggest you call council members in Streetsboro, where it's not clear whether Wal-Mart has paid its share of taxes or abided by the abatement agreement it was granted when it came to town years ago."
<------------------------------------->
Note: Wal-Mart has two things going for it: a) it offers a lot of stuff under one roof, and 2) it sells many products for less than it's competitors. What it has against it are: a) a huge parking lot and store that takes an inordinate amount of time to navigate; 2) usually a long line at checkouts; 3) employees who have no stake or interest in, or respect for the company or management; 4) a very high rate of employee churn; 5) a terrible record of bullying behavior, with regulators, employees, unions, vendors, government agencies, and women; 6) an undeniable record of sucking the economic life out of long established rural, suburban, and city centers; 7) a race-to-the-bottom business plan where the main objective is to enter, engulf, enlarge, and extract from sellers and buyers alike; 8) a corporate structure with an overwhelming preference for "market" concerns combined with an almost palatable disdain for it's customers and employees; and 9) a massive appetite for retail sales that seeks to dominate every landscape by it's clout, and gives almost no consideration whatever to its footprint on communities, or accepts any social responsibility for physical plant beautification, environmental degradation of land, water, or air near its stores.
Sam Walton sold stuff to the middle 60% of American society, knowing that as long as the stuff was new, and cheaper than they could find elsewhere, they would buy from him. Nothing else really mattered to him...or to those who are choosing to send their money to Arkansas rather than keep it in their hometown. Small businesses earn and spend their money locally including any profit they make from their work which helps support the local community. Wal-Mart stores sole purpose is to feed the Walton Empire, and woe to any store manager who fails to meet the corporate financial expectations.
President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief
American Progress ReportJuly 7, 2004
From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: "I think credibility is important.It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations." But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says.
1. Social Security Surplus
BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]
...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]
2. Patient's Right to Sue
GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]
...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]
...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]
3. Tobacco Buyout
BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]
4. North Korea
BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]
5. Abortion
BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]
...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]
6. OPEC
BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]
...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]
7. Iraq Funding
BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]
...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]
8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony
BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]
...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]
9. Science
BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]
10. Ahmed Chalabi
BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]
...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]
11. Department of Homeland Security
BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]
12. Weapons of Mass Destruction
BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]
...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]
13. Free Trade
BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]
14. Osama Bin Laden
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]
...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]
15. The Environment
BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]
...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]
16. WMD Commission
BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]
17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]
18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]
19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony
BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]
...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]
20. Gay Marriage
BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]
21. Nation Building
BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]
22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link
BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]
...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]
23. U.N. Resolution
BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]
...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]
24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict
BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]
25. Campaign Finance
BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]
...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]
Group to Propose New High-Speed Wireless Format
Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:46 PM ET
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A group of technology companies including Texas Instruments Inc. (TXN.N: Quote, Profile, Research) , STMicroelectronics (STM.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) and Broadcom Corp. (BRCM.O: Quote, Profile, Research) , on Thursday said they will propose a new wireless networking standard up to 10 times the speed of the current generation.
The group says they are submitting a plan for a new standard for a popular short range wireless networking technology known as Wi-Fi -- which is used in airports, hotels and coffee shops to access the Web without wires.
The group, calling itself "WWiSE," said their version of an 802.11n standard would be compatible with the technology currently in use, known by various code names such as 802.11b and 802.11g. Their technology could operate at speeds up to 540 megabits per second.
The group said they planned to submit their proposal to the task force at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers charged with developing an 802.11n standard.
The group's proposed version of the standard would peak at a speed of 540 Mbps, requiring using a larger communications channel for the signal than most jurisdictions allow. Using the more standard channel size, their 802.11n proposal would peak at 135 Mbps.
They also said they would license their patents necessary to implement their version of 802.11n on a royalty-free basis.
Other companies taking part in the WWiSE group are Airgo Networks, Bermai, and Conexant Systems Inc. (CNXT.O: Quote, Profile, Research) .
Friday, August 13, 2004
Congressional Budget Office Report:
Bush Tax Cuts Tilted to Rich
Fri Aug 13, 2004 08:30 PM ET
By Vicki Allen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One-third of President Bush's tax cuts have gone to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, shifting more burden to middle-income taxpayers, congressional analysts said on Friday.
The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and calculations by congressional Democrats based on the CBO findings fueled the debate over the cuts between Bush and his Democratic challenger in November, Sen. John Kerry.
Using the CBO's figures, Democrats in Congress said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average tax cut of $78,460 this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent.
In contrast, the report showed that households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of $1,090 while their share of the tax burden would move to 10.5 percent from 10.4 percent.
The CBO report said about two-thirds of the benefits from the cuts went to households in the top 20 percent, with an average income of $203,740.
People with earnings in the lowest 20 percent, which averaged $16,620, saw their effective tax rate fall to 5.2 percent from 6.7 percent, the CBO said. But Democrats said that meant their average tax cut was only $250.
Democrats said the CBO calculations, which they requested, confirm the view of independent tax analysts that the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 have heavily favored the wealthiest taxpayers.
"It is bad enough that George Bush has no plan to help middle-class families squeezed by declining wages and skyrocketing costs for healthcare, energy and college tuition," Kerry said in a statement.
"Now we find that he is deliberately stacking the deck against them. This is the straw that will break the back of middle-class families."
But Republicans said the CBO numbers showed Bush has provided tax relief for people of all income levels.
Rep. Bill Thomas of California, chairman of the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee, said the report showed Bush's tax cuts "have made the tax code more progressive and taxpayers across the income spectrum will be saddled with higher tax burdens if the tax cuts are not made permanent."
Bush has said the cuts provided crucial support to the U.S. economy after the Sept. 11 attacks and the three-year decline in U.S. stocks.
But Kerry, who wants to roll back the cuts for households whose incomes top $200,000 a year, has said the cuts did little for the economy, and helped cause the federal budget to swing from a more than $100 billion surplus in 2001 to a projected deficit exceeding $400 billion this year.
Bush's Own Goal
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times Op-Ed
Published: August 13, 2004
A new Bush campaign ad pushes the theme of an "ownership society," and concludes with President Bush declaring, "I understand if you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of America."
Call me naïve, but I thought all Americans have a vital stake in the nation's future, regardless of how much property they own. (Should we go back to the days when states, arguing that only men of sufficient substance could be trusted, imposed property qualifications for voting?) Even if Mr. Bush is talking only about the economic future, don't workers have as much stake as property owners in the economy's success?
But there's a political imperative behind the "ownership society" theme: the need to provide pseudopopulist cover to policies that are, in reality, highly elitist.
The Bush tax cuts have, of course, heavily favored the very, very well off. But they have also, more specifically, favored unearned income over earned income - or, if you prefer, investment returns over wages. Last year Daniel Altman pointed out in The New York Times that Mr. Bush's proposals, if fully adopted, "could eliminate almost all taxes on investment income and wealth for almost all Americans." Mr. Bush hasn't yet gotten all he wants, but he has taken a large step toward a system in which only labor income is taxed.
The political problem with a policy favoring investment returns over wages is that a vast majority of Americans derive their income primarily from wages, and that the bulk of investment income goes to a small elite. How, then, can such a policy be sold? By promising that everyone can join the elite.
Right now, the ownership of stocks and bonds is highly concentrated. Conservatives like to point out that a majority of American families now own stock, but that's a misleading statistic because most of those "investors" have only a small stake in the market. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that more than half of corporate profits ultimately accrue to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers, while only about 8 percent go to the bottom 60 percent. If the "ownership society" means anything, it means spreading investment income more widely - a laudable goal, if achievable.
But does Mr. Bush have a way to get us there?
There's a section on his campaign blog about the ownership society, but it's short on specifics. Much of the space is devoted to new types of tax-sheltered savings accounts. People who have looked into plans for such accounts know, however, that they would provide more tax shelters for the wealthy, but would be irrelevant to most families, who already have access to 401(k)'s. Their ability to invest more is limited not by taxes but by the fact that they aren't earning enough to save more.
The one seemingly substantive proposal is a blast from the past: a renewed call for the partial privatization of Social Security, which would divert payroll taxes into personal accounts. Mr. Bush campaigned on that issue in 2000, but he never acted on it. And there was a reason the idea went nowhere: it didn't make sense.
Social Security is, basically, a system in which each generation pays for the previous generation's retirement. If the payroll taxes of younger workers are diverted into private accounts, there will be a gaping financial hole: who will pay benefits to older Americans, who have spent their working lives paying into the current system? Unless you have a way to fill that multitrillion-dollar hole, privatization is an empty slogan, not a real proposal.
In 2001, Mr. Bush's handpicked commission on Social Security was unable to agree on a plan to create private accounts because there was no way to make the arithmetic work. Undaunted, this year the Bush campaign once again insists that privatization will lead to a "permanently strengthened Social Security system, without changing benefits for those now in or near retirement, and without raising payroll taxes on workers." In other words, 2 - 1 = 4.
Four years ago, Mr. Bush got a free pass from the press on his Social Security "plan," either because reporters didn't understand the arithmetic, or because they assumed that after the election he would come up with a plan that actually added up. Will the same thing happen again? Let's hope not.
As Mr. Bush has said: "Fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - can't get fooled again."
IBM tells employees not to install Windows XP update
Big Blue internal memo warns users of compatibility issues with SP2
By Joris Evers, IDG News Service August 09, 2004
While developers at Microsoft Corp. may be celebrating that they finished work on Service Pack 2 (SP2) for Windows XP, IT departments around the world now face the question on whether they should update their systems, or not.
IBM Corp., for one, is holding off on installing the security-focused update for Windows XP. In a note headlined "To patch -- or not to patch" posted Friday on its corporate intranet, IBM tells its employees not to download SP2 when it becomes available because of compatibility issues. A copy of the note was obtained by IDG News Service.
"While this patch may be good news for other Microsoft Windows XP owners, IBM is directing XP users not to install SP2," the note states. With close to 400,000 desktops, IBM is a very large Microsoft customer.
"IBM's large number of Web applications will need to be tested and some modified to work correctly with SP2. Currently, some high profile, business-critical applications are also known to conflict with SP2," IBM tells its employees in the note. "When the current issues and concerns have been addressed, IBM will deploy a customized version of SP2."
An IBM spokeswoman declined to comment on the company's internal IT issues.
IBM alerted its users on the same day Microsoft started the process of delivering SP2 to end users by announcing release to manufacturing (RTM) of the service pack. The Windows XP update will be available soon through downloads, retail distribution and free CDs, as well as on new PCs. A network installation package will be available for enterprise users.
SP2 for Windows XP is more than the usual roll-up of bug fixes and updates. Microsoft has made something of a trade-off, focusing on security at the expense of compatibility. As a result, SP2 can render existing applications inoperable. Microsoft has urged developers and IT professionals to test the update.
Not only IBM is showing evidence of compatibility issues with XP SP2. Microsoft's own software is also affected. Earlier this week the software vendor released an update for Microsoft CRM (Customer Relationship Management) 1.2 because SP2 will prevent the original application from running correctly.
Because of the broad changes, analysts have compared the XP service pack to a Windows upgrade instead of a simple update. Business users typically take much longer to install a new version of Windows than a service pack because of compatibility testing.
Thomas Smith, manager of desktop engineering at a large Houston-based company, hopes to be able to equip his 5,000 desktops with a customized version of the service pack before Microsoft pushes it out on Windows Update, he said.
Many of the desktops Smith manages are scattered throughout North America and connected using common high-speed Internet connections such as DSL (digital subscriber line) or cable. While the company uses a remote management tool supplied by Altiris Inc., Smith said he relies on Windows Update for patching. If the standard Windows XP SP2 distribution is applied to his machines, it will block access to several corporate Web applications, Smith said.
Microsoft will help users in Smith's position, said Barry Goffe, a group manager in Microsoft's Windows group. The software maker plans to offer simple ways to set a unique registry key on XP desktops that will instruct the systems to skip Service Pack 2, but still download other critical updates through Windows Update and Automatic Update, Goffe said. "We want to give customers some breathing room," he said.
Nevertheless, Microsoft urges all users to install SP2 as soon as they can, Goffe said.
"This is not about fun and games. SP2 is about improving the security of our customers' infrastructure. We have spent a lot of time making sure that this delivers a lot of value to all our customers. We're urging all customers to deploy SP2 as soon as possible," he said.
Business users obviously need to test, but Microsoft can't be blamed if users are now unpleasantly surprised by SP2, said Michael Cherry, a lead analyst at Directions on Microsoft Inc., in Kirkland, Washington.
"Microsoft has been more than forthcoming about the number of changes in this service pack and making it available for testing," Cherry said. "I would say to IT departments that they want to get their testing done quickly because there are significant improvements in this service pack and I am not sure you would want to forego those."
A first beta of Windows XP SP2 was released in December, followed by Release Candidate 1 in March and a second release candidate in June. Hundreds of thousands of developers and IT professionals have already tried out the software. The service pack represents one of Microsoft's most broadly tested products to date, the company has said.
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Gee...what a concept !
TV Nudeswomen to Reveal the Bare FactsThu Aug 12, 2004 12:21 PM ET
LONDON (Reuters) - It aims to be, literally, the naked truth.
Starting nightly from Aug. 16, Get Lucky TV will broadcast via satellite to European audiences the daily news read by a series of nubile young women who will gradually -- but tastefully -- remove their clothes on camera.
"We are quite sensitive to certain issues, one of course being death," newsreader Samantha Page told Reuters Television on Wednesday. "We try to be as respectful as we can, and what we tend to do is we leave our clothes on."
Just in case people get the wrong idea, Page pointed out that she has a degree in psychology and zoology and a black belt in karate. Fellow Naked News presenter Lily Kwan exhibited a similar candor. "I got into Naked News very accidentally. I was actually studying to become a dental hygienist. I was attending school when I soon realized that I needed something a bit more creative to cultivate my creativity," she said. She said she had no qualms about stripping in front of a television audience. "I do enjoy wearing clothes. But it is quite liberating to take your clothes off as well -- especially in public," Kwan added.
The phenomenon of nude news reading first started in Russia and spread to Canada where Naked News started in 1999. The Toronto-based firm is now hoping to emulate its North American success this side of the Atlantic.
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Not Quite Half Full...
Cisco Raises Fear of Recovery's StrengthWed Aug 11, 2004 09:14 AM ET
By Ben Klayman
CHICAGO (Reuters) - The resurgence in technology spending may be faltering, judging from cautious comments, rising inventories and a weaker-than-expected sales outlook at Cisco Systems Inc. (CSCO.O: Quote, Profile, Research) , as well as bad news from other technology companies.
Cisco, the world's largest maker of equipment that directs Internet traffic, late Tuesday posted a record quarterly profit on strong sales, but investors fretted about Chief Executive John Chambers' comments about customer caution. Shares of Cisco fell almost 9 percent in trading on INET before the market opened on Wednesday.
Also on Tuesday, National Semiconductor Corp. (NSM.N: Quote, Profile, Research) , a maker of analog semiconductors, reversed its previous outlook by forecasting that sales in its current quarter would fall on lower-than-expected demand.
Chip equipment maker Kulicke & Soffa Industries Inc. (KLIC.O: Quote, Profile, Research) warned that sales in its current quarter would fall short of its prior forecast by as much as 31 percent, citing growing customer caution.
"It was not just Cisco. National Semi preannounced weakness in handsets. We saw in the last month or two, software companies preannounced earnings shortfalls. Generally guidance from a lot of companies are more cautious into the third quarter," Bear Stearns analyst Wojtek Uzdelewicz said.
"There is a major deceleration in technology spending, although (the growth is) still healthy," he added.
Cisco on Tuesday said profits surged 41 percent and sales rose 26 percent. However, the San Jose, California-based company also said sales in the current quarter would be flat to up 2 percent from the prior quarter, below analysts' expectations.
Chambers also raised red flags for some investors with his cautious comments.
"Most of the CEOs that I talk with view the economy as growing at a modest level and are a little more cautious ... than they were a quarter ago," he said on a conference call with analysts.
Cisco also said its inventories rose 9 percent from the previous quarter, more than Wall Street had been expecting. Company officials said they were not concerned, but a rise in inventories was one of the first signs of trouble before the telecom bubble burst in 2001. Cisco took a $2.2 billion charge in 2001 to write off excess inventory.
Investors see Cisco as a benchmark for corporate and government spending because about 75 percent of its revenue comes from those customers. The rest comes from the telecom sector.
Why is this photo so ludicrous?
A Dumb Photo
Note: The extensible purpose of camoflaged clothing is to blend into the background. The extensible purpose of a business-class white shirt is to show integrity and professionalism. The extensible purpose of a turban is to show devotion. Wristwatches, especially with leather bands are an affectation of the wealthy. Put all of this together and you have Osama from a few years ago.
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
"It is precisely when the great democratic nations of the West are in the process of deciding their future peacefully, through the ballot box, they become vulnerable to terror."
Mole Row Reveals U.S. Intelligence DisarrayTue Aug 10, 2004 09:55 AM ET
By Jon Boyle
PARIS (Reuters) - The unmasking of an al Qaeda mole after a U.S. security alert points to disarray within U.S. intelligence and could mean President Bush is accused of playing politics with security, the top U.S. election issue.
Washington raised its security alert to high on August 1 and disclosed a man held in secret by Pakistan was the source of information that justified the alert.
U.S. officials next morning confirmed a media report naming the man as Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, a computer expert arrested secretly in July and used by Pakistan to track down al Qaeda militants in Britain and America.
Pakistani intelligence told Reuters that Khan was still working undercover when the U.S. security status was raised to orange and his name appeared in a U.S. newspaper.
Security analysts said the outing of the source was a major blunder that forced Britain to arrest 12 terrorism suspects in a hurry; nine are still in custody. Washington said the arrests, which included an alleged top al Qaeda figure, were a success.
Anthony Glees, director of Brunel University's Center for Intelligence and Security Studies, London, said compared to MI5, Britain's domestic spy agency, U.S. intelligence gathering was "in a state of some disarray."
"America is getting the worst of all possible worlds. On the one hand it needs to show itself alert to the security dangers and as gathering intelligence as fast as it can ... On the other hand, it is doing this against a track record of discord, disharmony and failure," he said.
David Wright-Neville, of the Monash Global Terrorism Research Unit, said that if Khan was still an active al Qaeda mole when his name was leaked, his loss was a serious blow.
"If it's true, at the very least it would suggest a breakdown in communication between the Pakistanis and the Americans," the Melbourne-based security expert said.
"At worst, it smacks of political opportunism and, if that is indeed the case, it suggests that political survival ranks more highly than generating potentially valuable information on the extent of the network."
CAPITOL QUESTIONS
A U.S. senators from both major parties have already demanded the White House explain why Khan's name was leaked to the press. Charles Schumer (Dem. NY) said the outing of Khan may have hurt the war on terror.
Security is the top issue of the U.S. presidential election, and although Democrat challenger John Kerry has stopped short of accusing Bush of playing politics with the issue, critics say Bush is vulnerable to the charge.
A British security source said that even if the raising of the US security status was not political, "they did it in a fairly clumsy way, opening themselves up to such criticism."
Claude Moniquet, head of the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center, said the United States was notoriously bad at cooperating on security, even with allies. But if politicians did sometimes use intelligence for political gain, recent maulings meant they were unlikely to go along with that now.
"They have already had to carry the can for the politicians over preparations for the war in Iraq, so I don't think they would continue to do so," the Brussels-based expert said.
POST 9/11 TRAUMA
Glees said the Khan controversy highlighted the failure of the United States to deal with the trauma of the September 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. landmarks that killed almost 3,000 people.
"9/11 was a seismic catastrophe and the ripples are still being felt. It was a bit like Chernobyl (nuclear reactor explosion in 1986) and Communism -- it threw into stark relief all the problems America faces in the post-Cold War world.
"This is the election of 9/11 and the very fact that Kerry has taken up the challenge that the fight on terror really is the most important issue just shows that America is at the moment tottering.
"It is precisely when the great democratic nations of the West are in the process of deciding their future peacefully, through the ballot box, they become vulnerable to terror."
Poll: Older Americans Unhappy with Medicare Changes
Tue Aug 10, 2004 06:11 PM ET
By Joanne Kenen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Older Americans are confused and unhappy about upcoming changes in the federal Medicare health program, according to a nonpartisan survey released on Tuesday that indicates the issue could help Democrats win the November vote.
The Kaiser Family Foundation-Harvard School of Public Health found that 47 percent of the 1,223 Medicare beneficiaries surveyed had an unfavorable view of Medicare reforms like the prescription drug benefit, 26 percent viewed the reforms favorably, and 25 percent said they didn't know. The drug benefit will be implemented in 2006.
Even Republicans were closely split, with 38 percent in favor of the reforms and 36 against them.
LA Council Backs Anti-Wal-Mart Measure
Tue Aug 10, 2004 06:46 PM ET
By Gina Keating
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday gave preliminary approval to a proposed ordinance that could hamper plans by Wal-Mart Stores Inc.(WMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) to build supercenters within city limits.
The council overwhelmingly endorsed a proposal that would require Wal-Mart and other retailers to show that their nonunion discount stores would not hurt jobs, wages or businesses in the surrounding area, as union leaders and competitors claim.
The vote comes after a nearly five-month strike by unionized grocery workers in Southern California who said the looming threat of Wal-Mart's superstores forced down wages and gutted health benefits at supermarkets. Wal-Mart did prevail in its efforts to stop an outright ban on supercenters.
Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart has prospered by locating its nonunion stores near small towns and suburbs. But plans to expand into urban U.S. markets have met resistance from lawmakers and labor activists who accuse the world's largest retailer of paying poverty-level wages and encouraging its workers to apply for welfare and state health services.
State Controller Steve Westly and other Democrat leaders had urged the Los Angeles council to pass the measure, citing a University of California study that concluded that low-wage Wal-Mart jobs cost the state $86 million a year in social services. In a letter to the council, Westly said he was concerned about "a race to the bottom" as Wal-Mart jobs displace better paying positions at retailers that are forced to cut wages to compete or are put out of business by the superstores.
Wal-Mart spokeswoman Cynthia Lin called the vote "a huge victory" for consumers and the retailer, which she said had been battling union-backed efforts by to pass an outright ban on supercenters in the city of Los Angeles. "This ordinance ... in no way restricts the sale of groceries at supercenters," she said. "In our opinion, this ordinance, in reality, is redundant."
In April, residents of the blue-collar city of Inglewood rejected a bid by Wal-Mart to locate a sprawling shopping center in the heart of their town without conducting planning studies or public hearings. The Inglewood City Council had opposed the superstore plan on the grounds that it would put local mom-and-pop stores out of business and pay lower wages to its employees.
Microsoft has a 350+ member legal department in Redmond
How Many Lawyers Work For You?
Microsoft Says Japan Battle Hurting ImageBy THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 10, 2004
TOKYO (AP) -- The head of Microsoft Corp.'s Japan unit acknowledged Tuesday that the U.S. software giant's battle with Japanese anti-monopoly authorities over a controversial licensing clause has hurt its corporate image here.
But Michael Rawding, Microsoft Japan's president and chief executive, said the company will continue to oppose a Fair Trade Commission ruling last month ordering Microsoft to retroactively remove the clause from its licensing agreements.
The clause prevents companies from suing Microsoft over patent and copyright infringement if they suspect their own software technology has ended up in the Windows operating system. The Fair Trade Commission has said it suspects the clause helps Microsoft unlawfully infringe patents.
Spin the Payrolls
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times Op-Ed
Published: August 10, 2004
When Friday's dismal job report was released, traders in the Chicago pit began chanting, "Kerry, Kerry." But apologists for President Bush's economic policies are frantically spinning the bad news. Here's a guide to their techniques.
First, they talk about recent increases in the number of jobs, not the fact that payroll employment is still far below its previous peak, and even further below anything one could call full employment. Because job growth has finally turned positive, some economists (who probably know better) claim that prosperity has returned - and some partisans have even claimed that we have the best economy in 20 years.
But job growth, by itself, says nothing about prosperity: growth can be higher in a bad year than a good year, if the bad year follows a terrible year while the good year follows another good year. I've drawn a chart of job growth for the 1930's; there was rapid nonfarm job growth (8.1 percent) in 1934, a year of mass unemployment and widespread misery - but that year was slightly less terrible than 1933.
So have we returned to prosperity? No: jobs are harder to find, by any measure, than they were at any point during Bill Clinton's second term. The job situation might have improved somewhat in the past year, but it's still not good.
Second, the apologists give numbers without context. President Bush boasts about 1.5 million new jobs over the past 11 months. Yet this was barely enough to keep up with population growth, and it's worse than any 11-month stretch during the Clinton years.
Third, they cherry-pick any good numbers they can find.
The shocking news that the economy added only 32,000 jobs in July comes from payroll data. Experts say what Alan Greenspan said in February: "Everything we've looked at suggests that it's the payroll data which are the series which you have to follow." Another measure of employment, from the household survey, fluctuates erratically; for example, it fell by 265,000 in February, a result nobody believes. Yet because July's household number was good, suddenly administration officials were telling reporters to look at that number, not the more reliable payroll data.
By the way, over the longer term all the available data tell the same story: the job situation deteriorated drastically between early 2001 and the summer of 2003, and has, at best, improved modestly since then.
Fourth, apologists try to shift the blame. Officials often claim, falsely, that the 2001 recession began under Bill Clinton, or at least that it was somehow his fault. But even if you attribute the eight-month recession that began in March 2001 to Mr. Clinton - a very dubious proposition - job loss during the recession wasn't exceptionally severe. The reason the employment picture looks so bad now is the unprecedented weakness of job growth in the subsequent recovery.
Nor is it plausible to continue attributing poor economic performance to terrorism, three years after 9/11. Bear in mind that in the 2002 Economic Report of the President, the administration's own economists predicted full recovery by 2004, with payroll employment rising to 138 million, 7 million more than the actual number.
Finally, many apologists have returned to that old standby: the claim that presidents don't control the economy. But that's not what the administration said when selling its tax policies. Last year's tax cut was officially named the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 - and administration economists provided a glowing projection of the job growth that would follow the bill's passage. That projection has, needless to say, proved to be wildly overoptimistic.
What we've just seen is as clear a test of trickledown economics as we're ever likely to get. Twice, in 2001 and in 2003, the administration insisted that a tax cut heavily tilted toward the affluent was just what the economy needed. Officials brushed aside pleas to give relief instead to lower- and middle-income families, who would be more likely to spend the money, and to cash-strapped state and local governments. Given the actual results - huge deficits, but minimal job growth - don't you wish the administration had listened to that advice?
Oh, and on a nonpolitical note: even before Friday's grim report on jobs, I was puzzled by Mr. Greenspan's eagerness to start raising interest rates. Now I don't understand his policy at all.
Two Sets of Statements on This...
Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War RecordFrom Factcheck.org
August 10, 2004
Ad features vets who claim Kerry "lied" to get Vietnam medals. But other witnesses disagree.
