D&S @ Left Forum

by Dollars and Sense

Come visit the D&S exhibit table at the 2010 Left Forum, Pace University, New York City, this weekend—March 19-21. Meet D&S blogger extraordinaire Larry Peterson and D&S co-editor Chris Sturr; former book editor and D&S stalwart Amy Offner will be helping staff the table.

Visit the conference website to find out what other excitement awaits you at this year's event, which will feature the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Noam Chomsky as plenary speakers.

Labels: Amy Offner, Chris Sturr, Jesse Jackson, Larry Peterson, Left Forum, Noam Chomsky

 

Please consider donating to Dollars & Sense and/or subscribing to the magazine (both print and e-subscriptions now available!).
3/18/2010 09:42:00 PM 0 comments

 

The SEC and Investor Suffrage

by Dollars and Sense

Floyd Norris has an article in today's New York Times about a proposed rule-making that the SEC just opened up comment on that "would make it easier for institutional shareholders to propose board candidates to be listed on the proxies that every public company sends to its shareholders." Norris worries about potential mischief that shareholders with ulterior motives could create if the rule-making goes through. But the lack of shareholder democracy is pretty egregious; some kind of reform allowing shareholders to have a say in board elections seems in order.

Below is a message we got a couple of days ago (after the SEC hearing on proxy access) from shareholder democracy proponent Jim McRitchie of CorpGov.net. We've been in touch with one of the other co-filers of the brief mentioned below, Glyn Holton of the Investor Suffrage Movement, and we hope to be covering this issue in the pages of Dollars & Sense very soon. —cs

[From James McRitchie:] This morning, the SEC held a hearing on proxy access. By a three to two vote, Commissioners voted for proxy access. Democracy in corporate governance will dramatically improve with our right to nominate and elect directors, even if limited to 25% of the board. Directors may actually begin to feel dependent on the will of shareowners.

While waiting to see the actual language of the rule proposal, please take a few minutes to read and submit comments on a rulemaking petition that a group of ten filed with the SEC on Friday, May 15th, to amend Rule 14a-4(b)(1). The petition seeks to correct a problem brought to our attention by John Chevedden. See petition File 4-583. Send comments to rule-comments@sec.gov with "File 4-583" in the subject line. And please let others in your network know of the petition.

The problem is that when retail shareowners vote but leave items on their proxy blank, those items are routinely voted by their bank or broker as the subject company's soliciting committee recommends. Current SEC rules grant them discretion to do so. As shareowners who believe in democracy, we have filed suggested amendments to take away that discretionary authority to change blank votes, or non-votes, as they might be termed. We believe that when voting fields are left blank on the proxy by the shareowner, they should be counted as abstentions.

This problem is not the same as "broker voting," which has already been repealed on "non-routine" matters and, we hope, will soon be repealed for so-called "routine" matters, such as the election of directors. For example, even though "broker voting" has been repealed for shareowner resolutions, if a shareowner votes one item on their proxy and leaves shareowner resolutions blank, unvoted, those blank votes are routinely changed to be voted as recommended by the company's soliciting committee.

See two examples. At Interface, I voted only to abstain on ratification of the auditors. Yet, you can see ProxyVote automatically fills in my blank votes with votes as recommended by the soliciting committee. A second example, at Staples, shows much the same. You can see blank votes that are changed also include the shareowner proposal to reincorporate to North Dakota, even though such proposals are not considered routine and are not subject to "broker voting." (example attached below)

Just as broker votes should be eliminated so that votes counted reflect the true sentiment of shareowners, the practice of converting blank votes to votes for management should also end.

In our petition, we also highlight a secondary concern. When shareowners utilizing the ProxyVoteplatform of Broadridge vote at least one item and leave others blank, the subsequent screen warns them that their blank votes well be voted as recommended by the soliciting committee. This provides an opportunity to the shareowner to change their blank vote before final submission, if they don't want it to be voted as recommended.

Of course, if we are going to have a system that allows the votes of shareowners to be changed, it is salutary of Broadridge to provide advanced notice. We applaud them for that effort. However, we note that it may fall short of what the SEC requires. Rule 14a-4(b)(1) requires that when a choice is not specified by the security holder, a proxy may confer discretionary authority "provided that the form of proxy states in bold-face type how it is intended to vote the shares represented by the proxy in each such case." (my emphasis)

Broadridge says that shareowners using ProxyVote are communicating "voting instructions" to their bank/broker. They are not voting a proxy. Since Rule 14a-4(b)(1) pertains to "forms of proxy," not the "voting instruction form," there is no violation. However, subdivision (1) refers to the "person solicited" and the need to afford them opportunity to specify their choices. The person being solicited is the beneficial shareowner. Therefore, unless the subdivision applies both to a voting instruction and a proxy, the requirements to indicate with bold-face type how each field left blank will be voted loses meaning.

However the SEC interprets the current rule, we hope they move forward with a rulemaking to remove discretion to change blank votes and to require blank votes to be counted as abstentions. While the petition is being considered for action, we hope Broadridge will modify its system to clearly indicate in red bold-face type how votes will be cast for each item where a blank vote will be changed.

A few months ago, The Millstein Center for Corporate Governance and Performance released Voting Integrity: Practices for Investors and the Global Proxy Advisory Industry. While this important briefing was primarily focused at the proxy process for institutional investors, the need for integrity applies equally to the votes of retail investors:

At the heart of any discussion about proxy voting is the humble shareholder ballot. In its simplest interpretation, the ballot is arguably the principal method by which a company's shareholders can, while remaining investors in the company, affect its governance, communicate preferences and signal confidence or lack of confidence in its management and oversight. The ballot is the shareholder's voice at the boardroom table. Shareholders can elect directors (and, in several jurisdictions, have the right to remove them), register approval of transactions, supply advisory opinions and (increasingly) authorize executive pay packages, all through the medium of the ballot. It is one of the most basic and important tools in the shareholder's toolbox... Safeguarding the intention of a voting instruction is of paramount importance to system integrity.

Co-filing with James McRitchie, Publisher of CorpGov.net, are:

• John Chevedden, Rule 14a-8 proposal proponent since 1996
  
• Glyn Holton, Executive Director, United States Proxy Exchange
  
• Mark Latham, Ph.D., VoterMedia.org
  
• Eric M. Jackson, Ph.D., Managing Member, Ironfire Capital LLC
  
• James P. Hawley, Ph.D., Professor and Co-Director, Elfenworks Center for the Study of Fiduciary Capitalism, Saint Mary's College of California
  
• Andrew Williams, Ph.D., Professor and Co-Director, Elfenworks Center for the Study of Fiduciary Capitalism, Saint Mary's College of California
  
• Andrew Eggers, President, Proxy Democracy
  
• Bradley Coleman and Erez Maharshak, Proxy Democracy
  

Again, please submit comments on the petition to rule-comments@sec.gov with "File 4-583" in the subject line.

Labels: Chris Sturr, Glyn Holton, investor suffrage, James McRitchie, SEC, shareholder democracy

 

Please consider donating to Dollars & Sense and/or subscribing to the magazine (both print and e-subscriptions now available!).
5/22/2009 05:00:00 PM 0 comments

 

American Empire Foreclosed? (Mark Engler)

by Dollars and Sense

One of the people that we (D&S collective member and blogger Larry Peterson and I) got to hang out with while we were in New York for this year's Left Forum was Mark Engler (author of this review that we published online a couple of months ago).

Mark has a great skewering of Niall Ferguson in the Spring issue of Dissent (it looks like that article is not (yet?) online; and there was a nice review of Mark's book How to Rule the World in the Winter issue of Dissent. (Our table at the Left Forum book exhibit was next to Dissent's, and we enjoyed chatting with Maxine, Neil, and David.)

Mark has an interesting new piece on U.S. imperialism, recently posted to the website of Foreign Policy in Focus, where Mark is a senior analyst.

Empire Foreclosed?
Mark Engler | April 17, 2009

Not long ago, excitement over American imperialism reached levels not seen in a century. "People are coming out of the closet on the word 'empire,'" the right-wing columnist Charles Krauthammer told The New York Times in early 2002. Neoconservatives were on the rise in Washington, and their leading propagandists were not shy in making the case for aggressive expansionism.

Wall Street Journal editor Max Boot, for instance, took issue with Pat Buchanan's belief that the United States should be a "republic, not an empire." "This analysis is exactly backward," Boot wrote. "[T]he Sept. 11 attack was a result of insufficient American involvement and ambition; the solution is to be more expansive in our goals and more assertive in their implementation." He added, "troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets."

It's hard to believe those sentiments, hallmarks of George W. Bush's first term, were features of our very recent history. The debate they were a part of now seems distinctly strange and foreign. Since then, the world has experienced a catastrophic occupation in Iraq, and voters have ousted the Republican vanguard of the "War on Terror." Overt defenders of imperialism have found good reason to creep back into their wardrobes.

And that, of course, is to say nothing of the bursting of the housing bubble, the fall of Lehman, and the end of the hedge fund era. With unemployment rising and Wall Street shamed, we have entered a period of economic downturn acute enough to raise serious questions about the viability of U.S. power. The pressing issue today is: How will the economic crisis affect our country's role in the world? Or, more bluntly: Is America's empire facing foreclosure?

The answer involves more than just quibbles over the semantics of U.S. dominance. Together, the fallout from the imperial hubris of the Bush administration and the discrediting of the deregulated market fundamentalism that thrived even under Bill Clinton have opened new possibilities for reshaping the global order in the Obama years.

Read the rest of the article.

--cs

Labels: Chris Sturr, empire, imperialism, Mark Engler, Niall Ferguson

 

Please consider donating to Dollars & Sense and/or subscribing to the magazine (both print and e-subscriptions now available!).
4/21/2009 12:26:00 PM 0 comments

 

Obama *Does* Take on Entrenched Interests

by Dollars and Sense

I missed a noteworthy item in Saturday's New York Times because I was down in New York for this year's Left Forum (which was terrific, by the way; I hope to be blogging about it here and there in the next couple of days, time permitting). Julia Willebrand, who was tabling next to us for the Union of Radical Political Economics, pointed us to an article about how Obama has failed to take on entrenched interests as he promised to do in the campaign, and to one ridiculous paragraph in it:

Despite Major Plans, Obama Taking Softer Stands

President Obama is well known for bold proposals that have raised expectations, but his administration has shown a tendency for compromise and caution, and even a willingness to capitulate on some early initiatives.

It was inevitable that Mr. Obama's lofty pledge to change the ways of Washington would crash into the realities of governing, including lawmakers anxious to protect their constituents and an army of special-interest lobbyists.

Mr. Obama has not conceded on any major priority. His advisers argue that the concessions to date--on budget items, for instance--are intended to help win the bigger policy fights ahead. But his early willingness to deal or fold has left commentators, and some loyal Democrats, wondering: where's the fight?

And here's how his aides respond:

Mr. Obama's top aides dismiss suggestions that he has shied from confrontation, saying they ignore his achievements, the need to move quickly to address economic woes and the fights he has picked against some big interest groups in Washington, including components of the Democratic base, like organized labor.

See, he has taken on entrenched interests—like organized labor. This response is supposed to satisfy "left commentators and loyal Democrats"? Hmmm...
—cs

Labels: Barack Obama, Chris Sturr, labor, Left Forum

 

Please consider donating to Dollars & Sense and/or subscribing to the magazine (both print and e-subscriptions now available!).
4/20/2009 06:19:00 PM 0 comments

 

Fox *Outraged* by Frat-Boy Tea Humor

by Dollars and Sense

Ok, so I am not sure we have ever linked to Fox News, and this is a little juvenile, but hey, Doug Henwood posted it at lbo-talk. My three favorite bits: (1) The author sniggers about "teabagging," but then expresses fake scorn for "frat house humor." Meanwhile, I know about teabagging from a highly reputable source: John Waters' fabulous movie Pecker (a must see--Edward Furlong, Christina Ricci, Mary Kay Place, Lili Taylor, Mink Stole, Patricia Hearst, etc.). (2)This quote: "I think what that reveals is how worried they are that this might actually be something serious. You make fun of things you're afraid of, I'd say." (3) The spectacle of Anderson Cooper talking about teabagging with a straight face.

Incidentally, I saw some of the teabagger folks on the Blue Line in Boston on Wednesday (I was on my way back to East Boston; they were, I'm guessing, coming back from Fanieuil Hall or the U.S.S. Constitution or something). They looked like nice folks.

Anyhow, here's the whole article; or you can read it below. (N.B.: the link below, Click here to join a discussion on teabagging, was actually part of the FoxNews.com story. If you click on it, you will go to their site, which you might not want to. The comments in the "forum" on teabagging are actually pretty amusing, though.)

Cable Anchors, Guests Use Tea Parties as Platform for Frat House Humor

For thousands of Americans, Tax Day was a moment to protest what they see as bloated budgets and a pile of debt being passed on to their children.

For CNN, MSNBC and other media outlets, it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to use the word "teabagging" in a sentence.

Teabagging, for those who don't live in a frat house, refers to a sexual act involving part of the male genitalia and a second person's face or mouth.

So when the anti-tax "tea party" protests were held Wednesday across the country, cable anchors and guests—who for weeks had all but ignored the story—covered the protests by cracking a litany of barely concealed sexual references.

CNN anchor Anderson Cooper interspersed "teabagging" references with analyst David Gergen's more staid commentary on how Republicans are still "searching for their voice."

"It's hard to talk when you're teabagging," Cooper explained. Gergen laughed, but Cooper kept a straight face.

MSNBC's David Shuster weaved a tapestry of "Animal House" humor Monday as he filled in for Countdown host Keith Olbermann.

The protests, he explained, amount to "Teabagging day for the right wing and they are going nuts for it."

He described the parties as simultaneously "full-throated" and "toothless," and continued: "They want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending." Shuster also noted how the protesters "whipped out" the demonstrations this past weekend.

Click here to join a discussion on teabagging.

Tea Party participants were not amused. The events were held in dozens of cities across the country, and while some demonstrators were criticized for wielding off-topic and sometimes insensitive protest signs, most took to the streets to speak out against government spending.

Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center, said the media coverage was "insulting," reacting specifically to CNN reporter Susan Roesgen's combative interviews with Illinois demonstrators in which she declared that the protests were "anti-CNN" and supported by FOX News. She left the teabagging jokes to her colleagues, though.

"I've never seen anything like it," Bozell said. "The oral sex jokes on (CNN) and particularly MSNBC on teabagging ... they had them by the dozens. That's how insulting they were toward people who believe they're being taxed too highly."

Max Pappas, public policy vice president at FreedomWorks—a small-government group which promoted the tea parties—said it's a "shame" media outlets cracked jokes at a genuine "grassroots uprising."

"I think what that reveals is how worried they are that this might actually be something serious. You make fun of things you're afraid of, I'd say," Pappas said.

If anyone thinks the orally charged remarks on mainstream cable were just a coincidence, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow's segments over the past week with guest, Air America's Ana Marie Cox, would dissolve all doubt. Their on-air gymnastics, dancing around the double entendre of the week, looked like live-action Beavis and Butthead.

By one count, the two of them used the word "teabag" more than 50 times on one show. And on Monday, Cox even let the viewers in on their joke—referencing Urbandictionary.com, a site which offers a number of colorful definitions for the term "teabagging."

"Well, there is a lot of love in teabagging," Cox said. "It is curious, though, as you point out, they do not use the verb 'teabag.' It might be because they're less enthusiastic about teabagging than some of the more corporate conservatives who seem to have taken to it quite easily."

Jenny Beth Martin, a Republican activist who helped organize one protest in Atlanta, said she's not too worried about the protests being dismissed by some media outlets. She estimated 750,000 people attended more than 800 protests in all 50 states, and that at the very least the local media and community newspapers documented it.

"Our message definitely got out where it needed to get," she said.

--CS

Labels: Anderson Cooper, bailout, Chris Sturr, financial crisis, Fox News, taxes

 

Please consider donating to Dollars & Sense and/or subscribing to the magazine (both print and e-subscriptions now available!).
4/16/2009 10:55:00 PM 0 comments

 

Most Positive View of Income Taxes Since 1956

by Dollars and Sense

A recent Gallop poll shows Americans have a more positive view of income taxes than they have had in recent years (and the general view is more positive than you might have thought).

In response to the question, "Do you consider the amount of federal income tax you have to pay as too high, about right, or too low?", a majority (51%) thought it was either too low or about right (with 48% saying that it was about right):



Meanwhile, in response to the question, "Do you regard the income tax you will have to pay this year as fair?", a solid majority continued to say that it was fair:



I am not quite sure what to make of the fact that the percentage of people saying that their taxes are "fair" is ten to twelve points higher than the percentage of people saying that the amount they pay is "about right." Gallop claims that people are more likely to think that their taxes are "fair" during wartime. Go figure.
--CS

Labels: Chris Sturr, Gallop, income inequality, income tax, taxes, war

 

Please consider donating to Dollars & Sense and/or subscribing to the magazine (both print and e-subscriptions now available!).
4/15/2009 08:43:00 PM 0 comments