"You're not making an impact if you're not pissing someone off"

Tag Archives: Roosevelt Institute

Out of sight and out of mind by too many Americans are our fellow citizens who often find themselves on the other side of a legal system that our school children proclaim affords “justice and liberty for all”.  The government that Lincoln lifted up after a major battle to preserve the union at Gettysburg is not so much these day one that is “of, by and for the people” as much as it seems to becoming one almost exclusively for those  who have prioritized capital accumulation above common decency.

Debtor’s prison is something out of our history that was declared unconstitutional in the early part of the 19th century.  But there is evidence it is making its return in today’s tough economic times.  A report in the Wall Street Journal shows that some courts are bending the laws that prohibit debtors from being jailed

… the number of borrowers threatened with arrest … has surged since the financial crisis began.  The backlash is a reaction to sloppy, incomplete or even false documentation that can result in borrowers having no idea before being locked up that they were sued to collect an outstanding debt.

More than a third of all U.S. states allow borrowers who can’t or won’t pay to be jailed. Judges have signed off on more than 5,000 such warrants since the start of 2010 in nine counties with a total population of 13.6 million people …    SOURCE

 

The fact that some people can be thrown in prison today for failure to repay what they borrowed seems to be lost on some in our system of justice when it comes to wealthy financiers.  In his now popular outing of Wall Street and their abuses that caused our financial collapse in 2008, Matt Taibbi points out an obvious fact that seems to go unnoticed by too many who focus on “government overreach” and a “liberal, socialist agenda”

Nobody goes to jail. This is the mantra of the financial-crisis era, one that saw virtually every major bank and financial company on Wall Street embroiled in obscene criminal scandals that impoverished millions and collectively destroyed hundreds of billions, in fact, trillions of dollars of the world’s wealth — and nobody went to jail. Nobody, that is, except Bernie Madoff, a flamboyant and pathological celebrity con artist, whose victims happened to be other rich and famous people.

The rest of them, all of them, got off. Not a single executive who ran the companies that cooked up and cashed in on the phony financial boom — an industrywide scam that involved the mass sale of mismarked, fraudulent mortgage-backed securities — has ever been convicted.   SOURCE

Many of those executives worked for big banks like Citibank and Bank of America who were just two of those institutions “too big to fail” and that had to be saved by taxpayer bailouts after misappropriating the money they held for millions of savers and investors.  These are also some of the culprits who are now engaged in debt collection practices that wound up throwing some of their victims in jail for their failure to come up with their own bailout to cover the losses.

Matt Stoller, the former Senior Policy Advisor to Rep. Alan Grayson and a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute tells us in a post of his over at naked capitalism that though consumer debt is declining, delinquency rates with those who do remain in debt are increasing.

… ten years ago, one in fourteen Americans were pursued by debt collectors.  Today it’s one in seven.  I suspect this number will keep going up.  And though debt collection is a highly competitive field, it’s also a growth industry.


Debt collectors have been known to threaten borrowers and they do so fearlessly because there is no consequential oversight to punish these people who abuse laws that forbid them to intimidate debtors.  Many victims of this practice feel helpless in dealing with such abuse.

Back in 2007 ABC News did some investigative reporting on this subject and “found [that] many unscrupulous collectors routinely ignored the law.”   Taped conversations validated that abusive phone calls from collectors were being made late at night, using abusive language and threatening “to have people fired from work or thrown in jail.”

Debt collection has become a growth industry because of the vast numbers who found themselves jobless after they had already made large purchases and maxed out their credit cards and lines of credit.  This is a deplorable state many people have often put themselves in but the boom in numbers following the recession where more became jobless and their prospects for finding work less likely has created a need for lenders to “farm out” their debt collecting services.   The misfortunes of millions seems to have generated “job opportunities” for a certain breed within society

A large sector of this outstanding debt is property taxes.  People who have unpaid property taxes are likely targets for these predators in the debt collection field.  If you have lost your job then what financial resources you have at your disposal are more likely going to the immediate needs of food, gasoline, clothing and utilities.  Property taxes take a back seat under these tough economic conditions and this is where our modern day publicani swoop in for the kill.

[B]ig banks and hedge funds in the U.S. have been quietly collecting taxes on hundreds of thousands of homes. The process, called “tax farming,” is simple: A company goes to a local government and reimburses it for taxes that citizens aren’t paying. In return, the company gets to act like an old-fashioned tax thug — the kind rabbis condemn in the Bible — charging up to 18 percent interest and thousands of dollars in legal fees, simply because it can. As the District of Columbia attorney general told the HuffPost Investigative Fund, there’s “no oversight at all.”   SOURCE

As if this practice aimed at many disenfranchised citizens wasn’t bad enough, there is yet another category of people who are victims of debt collectors where the legal system itself has created the conditions that provide income opportunities for the mercenary debt collection field.

The Brennan Center for Justice released a report in October, 2010 that found many states were “imposing new and often onerous ‘user fees’ on individuals with criminal convictions.”  The user fees were financial obligations “imposed not for any traditional criminal justice purpose such as punishment, deterrence, or rehabilitation but rather to fund tight state budgets.” (emphasis mine)

So it seems that such actions necessary to collect revenue lost to the state through recent spending cuts, cutting personal  and corporate taxes, especially on the wealthiest, and eliminating tax breaks for profitable corporations has given rise to such practices that go after some of the most vulnerable amongst us.  Our legal system it appears is becoming one that reflects more the feudal period of human history than the republican form of government we established for ourselves after severing our allegiance with the British monarchy.

The Brennan Center for Justice report found that:

Across the board, … states are introducing new user fees, raising the dollar amounts of existing fees, and intensifying the collection of fees and other forms of criminal justice debt such as fines and restitution. But in the rush to collect, made all the more intense by the fiscal crises in many states, no one is considering the ways in which the resulting debt can undermine reentry prospects, pave the way back to prison or jail, and result in yet more costs to the public.  SOURCE

Man’s inhumanity to man has always been an issue at some level throughout human history.  We tend to view it occurring on a large scale in those countries where despots and ruthless oligarchies rule.  Our own civilization of course has been guilty of this failure by those who supported the institution of slavery at one time in our history.  But even in today’s society it appears there is still an oppressive, inhumane class of people who find ways to insure that the very wealthy are not encumbered from accumulating wealth while those of  more common means are inhibited to rise above their struggling financial circumstances.

Extending credit in our economy is vital and enables many to achieve a comfortable lifestyle, not only for themselves but for their posterity.  Yet there are risks involved with extending credit and those who do so too easily invite those who would abuse and overuse it.  Using the court system in this country to collect what perhaps should not have been made available in the first place is an abuse of our justice system.  Furthermore, it is tyrannical to devise ways within our system of jurisprudence to lay the burden of financing needed infrastructure and vital public services on the backs of those who can least afford it, giving a pass instead to those few people who hold the vast amount of the nation’s capital.

“Is it not outrageous that society should treat with such rigid precision those of its members who were most poorly endowed in the distribution or wealth that chance had made, and who were, therefore, most worthy of indulgence?”  - Victor Hugo


The image of the business model, personified in the “corporate citizen” which is fostered by the private sector and aided by their like-minded buddies in the courts, the media and the legislatures throughout our history, have masked over their significant disparities and flaws while demonizing government.  Have they succeeded in deluding the voter?

Who’ll be my role-model
Now that my role-model is
Gone Gone
He ducked back down the alley
With some roly-poly little bat-faced girl
All along along
There were incidents and accidents
There were hints and allegations – Paul Simon, You Can Call Me Al

Whenever I hear a would-be politician use business models as an acceptable way to run government I shudder at the prospect because I haven’t bought in to that false comparison and the alleged efficiency factor that businesses are more capable than their government counterparts.  I’m encouraged in this view by University of Denver political scientist Seth Masket who wrote on his blog:

Businesses exist to turn a profit. They provide goods and services to others only insofar as it is profitable to do so, and they will set prices in a way that ends up prohibiting a significant sector of the population from obtaining those goods and services. And that, of course, is fine, because they’re businesses. Governments, conversely, provide public goods and services — things that we have determined are people’s right to possess. This is inherently an unprofitable enterprise. Apple would not last long if it had to provide every American with an iPad.

I’m also always surprised to hear people tout the efficiency of the private sector. There’s a great deal of inefficiency in the private sector, of course. How many CEOs end up hiring dim, unqualified brothers-in-law or grandkids who are taking time off college? And that’s just not considered a big deal as long as it doesn’t noticeably hurt the bottom line.   SOURCE

Matt Yglesias also supports this thinking, noting that if governments were run like businesses then older workers would be laid off and health insurance benefits for workers and their families would be reduced or eliminated in order to more efficiently turn a profit for shareholders, unlike a state that “is fundamentally an ethical enterprise aimed at promoting human welfare.”   Though Yglesias’ comments refer to the expectations of our founding fathers, in today’s political environment the “ethical enterprise” notion associated with government may raise some eyebrows.

And for those who insist on equating federal and state budgets with household budgets, L.Randall Wray at the Roosevelt Institute will debunk that notion for you.

But there is another reason we need to be concerned about politicians like Mitt Romney who want to run government like a business.  The reason, recently illustrated in an article by data scientist Cathy O’Neil, is that they have no soul and no heart.  In her article entitled How Big Pharma Cooks Data –The Case of Vioxx and Heart Disease we see the type of profit motive-thinking of CEOs and their top executives that literally put more energy into making money for investors than seriously benefitting the public they claim to serve.

You can read the details in Ms. O’Neil’s account for yourself, and I encourage you to do so, but the bottom line here is that deceptive practices and out-right lies were perpetrated at Merck to conceal the flaws with Vioxx, a big seller for the company, in order to boost their bottom line to the fatal detriment of many of Merck’s customers.

Vioxx was a non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drug aimed at alleviating acute or chronic conditions where pain and inflammation are present from such things as rheumatoid arthritis, Osteoarthritis and metastatic bone pain, to name just a few.  Though there are over-the-counter medications like Aleve, Ibuprofin and even aspirin that work equally well (and are much lower in costs), Vioxx was not supposed to have the unfortunate side effects of gastro-intestinal problems that the over-the-counter aids were diagnosed to have.

What it turns out that Vioxx did contribute to however were cardiac, vascular and thoracic events (CVT) that led to death for many users.  Merck, who rushed their product through the clinical trials required by the FDA in record time, was aware before it went on the market that there were problems associated with CVT issues but went out of their way to conceal this.  O’Neil also addresses the FDA’s failure to adequately oversee the process that allowed Vioxx to enter and stay on the market for 5 years.

In a practice familiar to many Americans who saw the Ford Pinto back in the 1960‘s and 70‘s use a cost benefit/analysis method to determine it was cheaper to keep their flawed design than it was to pay out lawsuit awards to the families of victims who were killed by this design flaw, Merck apparently took the same approach and weighed profits over punitive fees.  O’Neil’s article points out that even though Merck lost “one of the largest [lawsuits] resulting in a $5 billion settlement … [it] was essentially a victory for Merck, considering they made a profit of $10 billion on the drug while it was being sold.”

It is this kind of practice that gives corporations its bad reputation.  It is also this kind of practice that gives greater credence for some kind of oversight by state and federal governments to protect a naive, trusting public.  However, it must be an oversight that is not run by crony capitalists in government who are later hired by the industries they regulated and where many later re-enter government to once again effect policy and legislation that is beneficial to their former employers.  This is what is known as Washington’s K Street revolving door. 

I believe free markets are basically a sound approach to addressing our economic needs.  But like any system in the wrong hands there are actions that can be taken merely for the sake of personal gain while having serious consequences for innocent people.  It’s the nature of the business beast as political scientist Masket points out since “businesses exist to turn a profit.”

Let’s hope that enough voters get wise to the specious arguments made by politicians who demonize government while ignoring the deadly flaws in business practices and their government connections that seem to becoming more the rule than the exception.

“Aristotle would say America no longer serves the public good, its government being held hostage by an oligarchy on the verge of becoming a tyranny, by far the worst form of organization or constitution or government.”  - Evaggelos Vallianatos, from his essay, Delusions of the Corporate State

RELATED ARTICLE:

Everything You Need to Know About Wall Street, in One Brief Tale (Matt Taibbi, Common Dreams blog)

Is Modern Capitalism Sustainable?



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers