Ralph Nader's Blog, page 55
January 18, 2012
Congress Needs to Get to Work
The editor of The Hill, a newspaper exclusively covering Congress, said that Congress was not going to do very much in 2012, except for "the big bill" which is extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment compensation, which expire in late February. That two month extension will likely reignite the fight between Democrats and Republicans that flared last month.
Continue reading "Congress Needs to Get to Work"
Continue reading "Congress Needs to Get to Work"
January 11, 2012
Iran: The Neocons Are At It Again
The same neocons who persuaded George W. Bush and crew to, in Ron Paul's inimitable words, "lie their way into invading Iraq" in 2003, are beating the drums of war more loudly these days to attack Iran. It is remarkable how many of these war-mongers are former draft dodgers who wanted other Americans to fight the war in Vietnam.
Continue reading "Iran: The Neocons Are At It Again"
Continue reading "Iran: The Neocons Are At It Again"
January 10, 2012
Third Parties Are Not Spoilers
Open Letter to the Wall Street Journal
By Ralph Nader
How unbecoming it is for the self-styled freedom-loving Wall Street Journal ("Ron Paul Nader?" Dec. 21) to use the politically bigoted word "spoiler" to describe a hypothetical Ron Paul-Libertarian party presidential run.
Why is a third-party candidate called a "spoiler" when the nominees of the Republican and Democratic parties, that have given us a spoiled political system (corrupted by the highest bidder) are never referred to in such a pejorative way? These two decaying parties do not own the voters in this country, though they act that way through their many state laws obstructing outside competition.
Since all candidates are supposed to have the equal right to run for election, then they are either all spoilers of one another in seeking votes or none of them deserve to be called "spoilers." Candidates from smaller parties are not second-class citizens. After all, either of the major party candidates "takes away" far more votes from the other than any third party candidate does.
By Ralph Nader
How unbecoming it is for the self-styled freedom-loving Wall Street Journal ("Ron Paul Nader?" Dec. 21) to use the politically bigoted word "spoiler" to describe a hypothetical Ron Paul-Libertarian party presidential run.
Why is a third-party candidate called a "spoiler" when the nominees of the Republican and Democratic parties, that have given us a spoiled political system (corrupted by the highest bidder) are never referred to in such a pejorative way? These two decaying parties do not own the voters in this country, though they act that way through their many state laws obstructing outside competition.
Since all candidates are supposed to have the equal right to run for election, then they are either all spoilers of one another in seeking votes or none of them deserve to be called "spoilers." Candidates from smaller parties are not second-class citizens. After all, either of the major party candidates "takes away" far more votes from the other than any third party candidate does.
Ballot Access Concerns
Open Letter to the New York Times
By Ralph Nader
Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. followed his declaration in the New York Times in late December that ballot access for voters "must be viewed not only as a legal issue but as a moral imperative" with a lawsuit to block an allegedly discriminatory South Carolina law. Too bad he does not feel the same way about state ballot laws that obstruct access for candidates who are not members of the Republican-Democratic Party duopoly.
Decade after decade, state laws have erected many barriers against the rights of Third Party and Independent candidates to achieve ballot status, challenge this duopoly and give voters more choices.
Neither a smug Congress nor the federal executive and judicial branches have advanced any comparable rights for candidates as they belatedly have with voter rights. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress have repulsed efforts to seek federal relief from draconian state ballot hurdles.
At the least, Congress should replace the 50 different state requirements for candidates seeking federal office with one uniform federal ballot access law closer to the far more accessible standards for candidates in all other western nations. The value of candidate rights and voter rights are mutually reinforcing.
By Ralph Nader
Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. followed his declaration in the New York Times in late December that ballot access for voters "must be viewed not only as a legal issue but as a moral imperative" with a lawsuit to block an allegedly discriminatory South Carolina law. Too bad he does not feel the same way about state ballot laws that obstruct access for candidates who are not members of the Republican-Democratic Party duopoly.
Decade after decade, state laws have erected many barriers against the rights of Third Party and Independent candidates to achieve ballot status, challenge this duopoly and give voters more choices.
Neither a smug Congress nor the federal executive and judicial branches have advanced any comparable rights for candidates as they belatedly have with voter rights. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress have repulsed efforts to seek federal relief from draconian state ballot hurdles.
At the least, Congress should replace the 50 different state requirements for candidates seeking federal office with one uniform federal ballot access law closer to the far more accessible standards for candidates in all other western nations. The value of candidate rights and voter rights are mutually reinforcing.
January 3, 2012
The Politics of Lowered Expectations
By Ralph Nader
Ezra Klein, the bright, young, economic policy columnist for the "Washington Post" believes that Obama came out ahead last year in the "administration's bitter, high-stakes negotiations with the Republicans in Congress."
He cites four major negotiations in 2011 with the Republicans that Obama won. Obama won the game of chicken played in February by the House Speaker John Boehner and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell to avoid a government shutdown. He won the battle to raise the customarily supported debt ceiling on government borrowing. He avoided an embarrassment after he had to concur in the formation of a "Supercommittee" on deficit reduction when Congress couldn't come to an agreement. And he won all of a two-month extension of the social security payroll tax cut and extension of unemployment compensation benefits.
Continue reading "The Politics of Lowered Expectations"
Ezra Klein, the bright, young, economic policy columnist for the "Washington Post" believes that Obama came out ahead last year in the "administration's bitter, high-stakes negotiations with the Republicans in Congress."
He cites four major negotiations in 2011 with the Republicans that Obama won. Obama won the game of chicken played in February by the House Speaker John Boehner and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell to avoid a government shutdown. He won the battle to raise the customarily supported debt ceiling on government borrowing. He avoided an embarrassment after he had to concur in the formation of a "Supercommittee" on deficit reduction when Congress couldn't come to an agreement. And he won all of a two-month extension of the social security payroll tax cut and extension of unemployment compensation benefits.
Continue reading "The Politics of Lowered Expectations"
December 28, 2011
Stop the Public University Tuition Spiral
By Ralph Nader
Students of California, arise, you have nothing to lose but a crushing debt!
The corporate state of California, ever ready to seize its ideological and commercial hour during a recession, has a chokehold on California's public universities. With its tax-coddled plutocracy and a nod to further corporatization, the state government has taken the lid off tuition increases big time.
Students of the University of California at Berkeley may pay a proposed $23,000 in tuition by the 2015-2016 school year, up from $11,160 this year (2011) that in turn is up from $2,716 in the academic year 2001-2002. In short, tuition for resident undergraduates has more than quadrupled in ten years.
Continue reading "Stop the Public University Tuition Spiral"
Students of California, arise, you have nothing to lose but a crushing debt!
The corporate state of California, ever ready to seize its ideological and commercial hour during a recession, has a chokehold on California's public universities. With its tax-coddled plutocracy and a nod to further corporatization, the state government has taken the lid off tuition increases big time.
Students of the University of California at Berkeley may pay a proposed $23,000 in tuition by the 2015-2016 school year, up from $11,160 this year (2011) that in turn is up from $2,716 in the academic year 2001-2002. In short, tuition for resident undergraduates has more than quadrupled in ten years.
Continue reading "Stop the Public University Tuition Spiral"
December 22, 2011
Recommended Holiday Reading for the Caring, Agitated Mind
1. America Beyond Capitalism by Gar Alperovitz (Democracy Collaborative Press and Dollars and Sense, 2011). If you want to see how community economies are spreading to displace the sales and influence of companies such as Bank of America, ExxonMobil, Aetna, ADM and McDonalds, this is your book. Democratic credit unions, local renewable and efficient energy, community health clinics and farmer-to-consumer markets are some of the possibilities outlined in this optimistic book.
2. Retirement Heist: How Companies Plunder and Profit from the Nest Eggs of American Workers by Ellen E. Schultz (Portfolio/Penguin Hardcover, 2011), award-winning reporter for The Wall Street Journal. This book meticulously documents how big business and their attorneys avariciously turned pension plans into piggy banks, tax shelters and profit centers, at the expense of millions of trusting, loyal workers. This is the searing story of corporate greed on steroids.
3. This Changes Everything: Occupy Wall Street and the 99% Movement ed. by Sarah van Gelder of YES! Magazine. (Berrett-Koehler Publisher, Inc. San Francisco, 2011). Sixteen short essays viewing the Occupy initiatives around the country from a variety of perspectives. Very lively, forward-looking, and filled with interesting insights.
Continue reading "Recommended Holiday Reading for the Caring, Agitated Mind"
2. Retirement Heist: How Companies Plunder and Profit from the Nest Eggs of American Workers by Ellen E. Schultz (Portfolio/Penguin Hardcover, 2011), award-winning reporter for The Wall Street Journal. This book meticulously documents how big business and their attorneys avariciously turned pension plans into piggy banks, tax shelters and profit centers, at the expense of millions of trusting, loyal workers. This is the searing story of corporate greed on steroids.
3. This Changes Everything: Occupy Wall Street and the 99% Movement ed. by Sarah van Gelder of YES! Magazine. (Berrett-Koehler Publisher, Inc. San Francisco, 2011). Sixteen short essays viewing the Occupy initiatives around the country from a variety of perspectives. Very lively, forward-looking, and filled with interesting insights.
Continue reading "Recommended Holiday Reading for the Caring, Agitated Mind"
December 21, 2011
Letter to Airline CEOs
Dear Mr. CEO,
Most airlines treat unused non-refundable tickets with the fine print dictate of monetary confiscation after one year of issuance. That is, if a passenger buys a non-refundable ticket to somewhere and for some reason does not use that ticket to fly on the prescheduled date, she/he has one year to use it, adjust for any price changes and pay a $100-150 or so ticket change fee. After a year if the ticket is not used the dollar value of the ticket is kept by the airline. No refund.
Over the many years, during and after the paper ticket era, customers would throw their unused tickets in their drawer and either miss the one year deadline because they had no need to travel or forget about what and when they purchased their tickets.
The confiscated sum of monies retained by the airline industry because of this one year dictate must amount over time to billions of dollars.
Would you reveal how much you have kept or retained from these unused, non-refundable tickets for the years 2007, 2008, 2009? If you agree to do so publicly, it will have an added benefit to nudge your customers into being more time-sensitive with the ticket money they entrust to you.
If you do not agree to pull away the curtain of secrecy over these data, would you reveal these dollar amounts if significant shareholders, both institutional and individual, in your company were to make this request?
Thank you for your response.
Sincerely yours,
Ralph Nader
Most airlines treat unused non-refundable tickets with the fine print dictate of monetary confiscation after one year of issuance. That is, if a passenger buys a non-refundable ticket to somewhere and for some reason does not use that ticket to fly on the prescheduled date, she/he has one year to use it, adjust for any price changes and pay a $100-150 or so ticket change fee. After a year if the ticket is not used the dollar value of the ticket is kept by the airline. No refund.
Over the many years, during and after the paper ticket era, customers would throw their unused tickets in their drawer and either miss the one year deadline because they had no need to travel or forget about what and when they purchased their tickets.
The confiscated sum of monies retained by the airline industry because of this one year dictate must amount over time to billions of dollars.
Would you reveal how much you have kept or retained from these unused, non-refundable tickets for the years 2007, 2008, 2009? If you agree to do so publicly, it will have an added benefit to nudge your customers into being more time-sensitive with the ticket money they entrust to you.
If you do not agree to pull away the curtain of secrecy over these data, would you reveal these dollar amounts if significant shareholders, both institutional and individual, in your company were to make this request?
Thank you for your response.
Sincerely yours,
Ralph Nader
December 14, 2011
Congressional Tyranny, White House Surrender
Paraphrasing Shakespeare, something is rotten in the state of Capitol Hill. A majority of Congress is just about to put the finishing touches on an amendment to the military budget authorization legislation that will finish off some critical American rights under our Constitution.
Continue reading "Congressional Tyranny, White House Surrender"
Continue reading "Congressional Tyranny, White House Surrender"
December 12, 2011
Update Report #4 to
Our two representatives at the annual Cisco shareholders' meeting (December 7, 2011) at San Jose, California filed with this report:
CEO John Chambers declined to announce any increase in dividends or special dividends. He conditioned any consideration of dividend increases on the Congress and the President approving a tax holiday for the repatriation of Cisco profits parked overseas. He added that until they "get an answer on repatriation, it's hard to answer" what is the proper balance between acquisitions, buybacks, dividends and cash accumulation.
Continue reading "Update Report #4 to "
CEO John Chambers declined to announce any increase in dividends or special dividends. He conditioned any consideration of dividend increases on the Congress and the President approving a tax holiday for the repatriation of Cisco profits parked overseas. He added that until they "get an answer on repatriation, it's hard to answer" what is the proper balance between acquisitions, buybacks, dividends and cash accumulation.
Continue reading "Update Report #4 to "
Ralph Nader's Blog
- Ralph Nader's profile
- 260 followers
Ralph Nader isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
