Blogs

Though other states receive generous shares of revenues they generate by allowing production of goods on federal lands within their borders, Louisiana gets almost nothing. Louisiana produces 25% of the nation's natural gas and 30% of the nation's oi, yet it has nothing to show for it. Well, not quite nothing: the laying in of pipelines has seriously eroded the state's coastline, making it much more vulnerable to hurricanes.

For years, Louisiana's Congressional delegation has tried to get help to restore Louisiana's coastline, but there has been none. About six months ago, the White House agreed to help Louisiana, but only under the condition that the state scrap its well thought out, long-term plan to preserve its coastline. In its place, the Bush administration substituted a cheaper, short-term plan. The state, desperate to get help, reluctantly agreed. Shortly after, the White House announced that the Louisiana wetlands were no longer a priority, and that the state might not get any money at all.

Back to revenue-sharing. In 1953, President Eisenhower promised Louisiana 50% of the tax revenue earned from its oil and gas production. One person, Leander Perez, who controlled Plaquemines Parish, didn't think half of the revenues was good enough, and demanded 100%. No one could get him to back off, and as a punishment, Louisiana got nothing at all.

The state filed a suit in an attempt to get its share of the revenues, and this suit was tied up in court for about twenty years. In the early 70's, the court finally ruled that because Louisiana's oil and gas production did not occur within the state's boundaries, the state could not claim any revenue from it. This is, of course, an absurd conclusion: Without Louisiana, no one could build the platforms and rigs or lay the pipelines. Offshore workers depend on Louisiana for everything from employees to supplies to the education of their children. Yet even today, lawmakers like Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico claim that because Louisiana's oil and gas business is conducted in the water, the sate does not have a right to any money.

Had Louisiana been permitted its fair share of revenues over the decades, the state would not be in the financial shape it is in today. With no oil and gas revenue and a government that both refuses to help restore its coastline and to keep its promise about rebuilding after Katrina and Rita, Louisiana has little recourse. There is talk of filing suit against the Army Corps of Engineers, whose incompetence was largely responsible for the levee breeches during Katrina. Technically, the Corps is immune from lawsuits, but Congress can amend the immunity to exclude criminal acts, and make the amendment retroactive. Alternatively, the state could file for damages in the U.S. Court of Claims, then hope that Congress would pay the judgment. In this case, some of the blame would go to the Orleans Parish Levee Board, which was negligent in inspecting the levee system.

Some of Louisiana's coastal parishes are also considering filing a suit against the federal government in order to get the state's share of oil and gas revenues. With a wrecked economy, bills coming in from FEMA, and the "We'll do whatever it takes" promise already tossed in the trash, the state has to do something fast to find the billions of dollars its needs.

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

Via Ezra Klein, who has a lot of interesting things to say about this, here's the progressive case for Wal-Mart, by Jason Furman. The paper makes some solid points, though as Max Sawicky points out, it's unlikely that the effect of Wal-Mart's low prices can compensate for rock-bottom wages for the lowest income groups. But set that aside. The weakest part of the paper, I think, is that Furman seems to believe that just because Wal-Mart has some positive and progressive effects on the economy, it can also be a progressive company.

If Wal-Mart were committed to the welfare of its more than 1.3 million "associates," as it calls its workers, then it would push to expand these public programs. Instead, Wal-Mart and the Walton family have generally worked against the progressive issues that would benefit its employees, including funding campaigns advocating the repeal of the estate tax. Recently, Wal-Mart has come around to endorsing a higher minimum wage, but this limited step is outweighed by its consistent funding for attempts to roll back progressive priorities that would benefit its workers.

This seems almost willfully naïve. Of course Wal-Mart works "against the progressive issues that would benefit its employees." Why wouldn't it? In as much as Wal-Mart can be said to be an entity that "wants" and lobbies for things, it will want a) lower corporate taxes, b) lower taxes for its managers and owners, c) lax corporate and workplace regulation, and d) a governing party that can distract the working class with cultural issues. Now which party delivers that?

Ezra seems to think that Wal-Mart can somehow be convinced to become a progressive ally and support universal health care in order to lower its labor costs. Nonsense, I say. If Wal-Mart's worried about its health care costs it will stump for a Republican health care plan that leaves workers at the mercy of the sharks in the open insurance market and ensures that Wal-Mart, along with its managers and shareholders, pay as little as possible for the scheme. Back to Furman:

Finally, Wal-Mart should obey labor laws that bar gender discrimination, unpaid overtime and environmental laws like the Clean Air Act. I do not know whether or not Wal-Mart has systematically broken these laws; to the degree it has, the remedy is through the legal system, not through restricting the expansion of Wal-Mart into new areas or applying new mandates to a single company.

Aargh. That ignores the fact that Wal-Mart, along with other corporate interests, gets involved in politics precisely to neuter the legal system that's supposed to act as a "remedy"—trying to limit its liability from class-action lawsuits through tort "reform," and trying to weaken workplace regulations, and so on. More to the point, the legal system as currently structured is inadequate for dealing with corporations like Wal-Mart. The company has shown no remorse for anything it has done, any of the workers it has mistreated, any of the laws it has broken, and considers paying fines simply a cost of doing business.

This is why many people support the death penalty for corporations. In the short term it would be disastrous for many people, not least the company's 1.3 million employees, if Wal-Mart's corporate charter was revoked and its assets auctioned off. But understandably, many people feel that drastic action is necessary to teach corporations that you don't lock workers in the store after hours, you don't treat undocumented workers like indentured servants, and you don't let children operate heavy machinery just so that economists can gush over your "productivity growth." Now there are certainly problems with the corporate death penalty, and personally I have mixed feelings on it, but the idea gets at the general problem here: you can't just ask Wal-Mart to play nice.

That's exactly why, as Matt Yglesias says, unions are so important—so that there is some countervailing power fighting against corporate-friendly changes to the legal system and hideous labor practices. That's why the SEIU wants to unionize the company, so it can tip the balance of power, and Wal-Mart stands in the way. Trying to "get along" won't get the job done.

Now Ezra's totally right to say that there are real problems with simply demanding that Wal-Mart offer its workers health care—employer-based health care is a very flawed system. Better to get a more rational universal health care system. But quite naturally, unions don't think universal health care is ever going to come, and that any such system would inevitably be weakened by corporate lobbyists hired by, among others, Wal-Mart. Ezra's trying to think through what a more rational long-term strategy to get to universal health care would look like. I'd love to see it, and think it's a worthwhile project. But I don't think it does any good expect that Wal-Mart can ever be "persuaded" to fight for the working class and single-payer health care. It's still a war and always will be.

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

Ah, the federal Environmental Protection Agency: often the target for anti-regulation zealots and frequently the bane of restive developers. But now it may open the door for chemical testing on abused, neglected, and orphan children. As surreal as that may sound, the EPA is indeed revising its testing procedures to allow for just that, in response to a Congressional order given in the beginning of this August for the EPA to ban testing on children and pregnant women without exception.

Critics say that the regulation, in defiance of the Congressional mandate, creates allowances for chemical testing on children:

if they "cannot be reasonable consulted"—for example, those who are mentally handicapped or newborn orphans

if their guardians' parental competencies are legally compromised, such those deemed negligent

if the EPA tests are operated outside the U.S., with administrative approval.

The misnamed document, Protections for Subjects in Human Research, filed with the federal register on September 12 of this year, includes the following loopholes (emphasis mine):

The IRB (Independent Review Board) shall determine that adequate provisions are made for soliciting the assent of the children, when in the judgment of the IRB the children are capable of providing assent... If the IRB determines that the capability of some or all of the children is so limited that they cannot reasonably be consulted, the assent of the children is not a necessary condition for proceeding with the research. Even where the IRB determines that the subjects are capable of assenting, the IRB may still waive the assent requirement..."

If the IRB determines that a research protocol is designed for conditions or for a subject population for which parental or guardian permission is not a reasonable requirement to protect the subjects (for example, neglected or abused children), it may waive the consent requirements... "

To What Do These Regulations Apply? It also includes research conducted or supported by EPA outside the United States, but in appropriate circumstances, the Administrator may, under § 26.101(e), waive the applicability of some or all of the requirements of these regulations for research...An invitation for open public comment on this docket will continue from today until December 12. The Organic Consumer's Organization, ever alert to chemical regulation, is leading the fight to erase the offending articles with an urgent action alert. The EPA intends to create a final draft of the rule by the end of January 2006.

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

Laura Rozen has an excellent post on recent reports that the Pentagon has been paying millions of dollars to plant pro-American stories in the Iraqi press, along with even more reports that psychological warfare specialists are influencing international journalists. And, says, Laura, there's more to come. It's an outrage, to be sure, and possibly illegal, but hardly unexpected. For some context here, it's worth revisiting James Bamford's Rolling Stone piece on this very subject:

By law, the Bush administration is expressly prohibited from disseminating government propaganda at home. But in an age of global communications, there is nothing to stop it from planting a phony pro-war story overseas -- knowing with certainty that it will reach American citizens almost instantly. A recent congressional report suggests that the Pentagon may be relying on "covert psychological operations affecting audiences within friendly nations." In a "secret amendment" to Pentagon policy, the report warns, "psyops funds might be used to publish stories favorable to American policies, or hire outside contractors without obvious ties to the Pentagon to organize rallies in support of administration policies."

The report also concludes that military planners are shifting away from the Cold War view that power comes from superior weapons systems. Instead, the Pentagon now believes that "combat power can be enhanced by communications networks and technologies that control access to, and directly manipulate, information. As a result, information itself is now both a tool and a target of warfare."Bamford notes that this sort of thing has been going on for a very long time—the Rendon group, hired by the Pentagon, worked to influence the press both during the invasion of Panama, and as part of its push to "sell" the first Gulf War to the American public—and that it's definitely official policy. His piece is very much worth a read.

• Print
• Email
• Tweet