>Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 10:47:33 -0500 (EST) >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Rachel #680: MONEY RULES >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >=======================Electronic Edition======================== >. . >. RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #680 . >. ---December 16, 1999--- . >. HEADLINES: . >. MONEY RULES . >. ========== . >. Environmental Research Foundation . >. P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 . >. Fax (410) 263-8944; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . >. ========== . >. All back issues are available by E-mail: send E-mail to . >. [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the single word HELP in the message. . >. Back issues are also available from http://www.rachel.org. . >. To start your own free subscription, send E-mail to . >. [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words . >. SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-WEEKLY YOUR NAME in the message. . >. The Rachel newsletter is now also available in Spanish; . >. to learn how to subscribe, send the word AYUDA in an . >. E-mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . >================================================================= > > >[Rachel's will publish again January 5.] > > >MAKING THE MOVEMENT VISIBLE > >The grass-roots environmental movement is largely invisible. >Thousands of groups are working at the local level but they have >no way to learn about each other's existence, and therefore no >easy way to communicate. A journalist looking for a grass-roots >perspective on environmental problems or job safety may not know >who to call. Someone concerned about policy at the state or >federal level may not be able to find anyone who can provide a >community-based perspective on environment-and-health problems. > >The RACHEL'S staff has begun a project to identify local groups >working on any aspect of "environment and health," including, of >course, occupational safety and health. We call it, Making the >Movement Visible. > >Groups that are working on any aspect of "environment and health" >at the community level are invited to add themselves to our >public database of grass-roots environmental groups on the >world-wide web (www.rachel.org). Naturally, organizations that >service the needs of grass-roots community groups or job-safety >groups are also welcome. To list your group (or some other group >that you admire), just go to the "organizations" section of our >web site (www.rachel.org) and add your group to the list. (Note: >Your listing will not become public immediately, so you may not >see it for a few days. We review all entries, to prevent fake >groups from being added to the list.) No matter where you are >working -- in Iowa, Ixtapa, or Istanbul -- if you have a >community or workplace perspective on health and environment, >please add your group to the database. Let's all do ourselves a >big favor and Make the Movement Visible! Check yourself in at >www.rachel.org. > > >MONEY RULES > >Here we begin our traditional year-end review of significant >events and trends. > >One of the most important trends of the last half of the >twentieth century was the spread of democracy into many countries >that had never enjoyed it before. At the same time, democracy >within the U.S. continued to shrivel as a wealthy elite gained >increasing control. All three branches of government actively >encouraged this shift of power from "the rest of us" to the >wealthy. > >In April, the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for the wealthy >to curry favor with government officials. The court ruled that >substantial gifts to a government official are legal unless the >official performs a "specific official act" in return for the >gift. The matter came before the court because Sun-Diamond >Growers of California gave gifts worth $5900 to Mike Espy when he >was Secretary of Agriculture. Since Espy did not perform any >specific official act on behalf of Sun-Diamond in return for the >gifts, the gifts were legal, the court ruled. The American League >of Lobbyists, expressed relief at the court's ruling. Lobbyists >now know they can shower Congress with gifts without running >afoul of the law.[1] One favorite tactic is to give money to >Congressional staffers, rather than directly to members of >Congress. Another favorite is to pay for lavish vacations for >members of Congress, disguised as "fact-finding trips." > >By November, it was clear that the Supreme Court's April ruling >would deepen the level of corruption in Congress. Federal >prosecutors dropped almost all charges against Ann Eppard, former >legislative chief of staff for Congressman Bud Shuster, a >Republican from Pennsylvania. Between 1989 and 1993, while she >was Schuster's chief of staff, Ms. Eppard accepted $230,000 in >gifts from a lobbyist. She was subsequently indicted on seven >counts. In November she pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge >of taking illegal compensation and agreed to pay a fine of $5000. >The other six charges were dropped. Federal prosecutors defended >their plea bargain saying the Supreme Court ruling made it >impossible to expect a conviction. Ms. Eppard now runs her own >lobbying firm, Ann Eppard Associates.[2] > >The NEW YORK TIMES reported December 5 that state governor's >offices are now thoroughly soaked in money, just as federal >offices have been for more than a decade. "The 'permanent >campaign' that has become a fixture of races for the presidency >and the Senate has now descended upon the 50 state capitals," the >TIMES reported.[3] > >It now routinely costs $10 million or more to run for the office >of governor, so incumbent governors must raise at least $50,000 >per week while they are in office. The TIMES commented, "Mr. >Celucci [Governor of Massachusetts] and other incumbents are >following one of the oldest political axioms, the golden rule: he >who has the most gold, rules." > >All of this private money in our elections has had a corrosive >effect on our democracy, according to the NEW YORK TIMES. The >distinction between Republicans and Democrats has been erased by >money. "In fact," says the TIMES, "the public sector has >increasingly become the champion of private enterprise.... The >degree to which left and right have unified to become the >champion of corporate priorities was on full display in the >Congressional session that just ended. ...Look at the legislation >business got killed," the TIMES says: there was no increase in >the minimum wage, no new limits on "soft money" in elections, no >ban on agricultural mergers. But Congress exempted corporations >from any liability for Y2K computer failures, and legalized the >merging of banks, insurance companies and stock brokerages.[4] No >doubt about it, money talks. > >With the wealthy legally empowered to pour money into government, >one might expect the government to return the favor. Late in 1999 >the NEW YORK TIMES reported that "...the Internal Revenue Service >[the nation's tax collection agency] is reducing its efforts to >find cheating by businesses and high-income individuals, and >stepping up investigations into two forms of cheating that are >more likely to involve the working poor than the affluent."[5] > >"For wealthy individuals with gross income of $100,000 or more, >fewer than an estimated one in 150 returns will be audited this >year compared to one in 33 in 1992," the TIMES reported. "Please >don't call us tax collectors in the newspaper," one longtime >revenue officer in New York told the TIMES. "We don't collect >taxes anymore. We aren't allowed to." > >Instead of collecting taxes, I.R.S. auditors are answering >phones, according to the TIMES: "Highly trained I.R.S. auditors >who are paid up to $77,000 annually to examine corporate tax >returns have been detailed to answer telephones and greet people >at I.R.S. offices, even though their years of specialized work >have left them ill equipped to handle mundane questions from the >public."[5] > >Because of Congressional budget reductions, the I.R.S. has had to >prune 82,000 staff positions (a 14% cut) in the last 4 years. >However, the agency's workload has increased during the same >period as Congress has made the tax laws more complex. Because of >1260 changes in the tax laws that Congress approved in 1997 and >1998, the I.R.S. has effectively had its total resources reduced >by 29% during the past 4 years, the NEW YORK TIMES reported. > >Despite these resource cuts, the I.R.S. is now conducting an >aggressive campaign to ferret out abuses of the Earned Income Tax >Credit, which allows the working poor to collect up to $323 for a >single person and $3,556 for a family of four. > >In 1999, a study by the liberal Center for Budget and Policy >Priorities (CBPP) found that the "welfare reform" law passed by >Congress three years ago has had the effect of making the poor >poorer. The Congressional Committee that wrote the "welfare >reform" law said the conclusions of the CBPP study were valid.[6] > >Since 1995 the poorest 20% of families have seen their annual >incomes reduced by $577, falling to $8,047 annually. The >situation was worse for the poorest 10% who lost $814 per year. >Children were hardest hit. In 1995, 88% of poor children were >helped by food stamps. By 1998, only 70% of poor children were >being helped. "There are people at the bottom who are worse off," >said Ron Haskins, staff director of the Congressional >subcommittee that wrote the "welfare reform" law. "We need to do >something about that," he said in August,[6] but by December, >nothing had been done. > >Meanwhile 20% of American households have more debt than assets >-- which is to say, they have a negative net worth. When real >estate is factored out, 40% of American families have more debt >than assets, according to the NEW YORK TIMES. A survey in early >1999 found that half of Americans had life savings of $3000 or >less and another 40% said it would be "a big problem" if they had >to deal with an unexpected bill for $1000,[7] the TIMES reported. >In early 1999, 35 million Americans (13.3%) were living in >poverty. > >The number of poor people would be considerably larger if >prisoners were counted. The prison population of the U.S. will >officially reach 2 million about six weeks from now, on February >15th.[8] Two-thirds of prisoners are serving sentences for >non-violent offenses. America's federal "drug czar," General >Barry McCaffrey refers to the U.S. prison system as "America's >internal gulag."[9] > >The prison industry in the U.S. has now taken on a life of its >own. We build 50,000 new prison cells each year. Congress has >taken steps to privatize the prison industry. The stock price of >the Corrections Corporation of America, the nation's largest >private jailer, has increased 10-fold since 1994, making prisons >a killer investment. Nearly 60% of all federal prisoners are >guilty of drug-related crimes. Americans do not use more drugs, >on average, than citizens of other countries, and drug use has >not declined for the past 10 years despite the ballooning prison >population. > >Worldwide, there are 8 million people in prison, so the U.S., >with 4% of world population, holds 25% of all the world's >prisoners.[8] For an American born this year, the chance of >spending some part of their life in prison is one in 20; for >black Americans, it is one in 4.[9] > >Prisoners are not counted in unemployment statistics, poverty >statistics, or welfare statistics -- so all these measures of >national well-being are improved each time another person goes to >prison. Furthermore, prisoners do not attend "Million Man >Marches" or other political demonstrations. Most importantly, >prisoners cannot vote; persons convicted of felonies lose their >right to vote permanently. > >A poll taken in February, 1999, revealed that 47% of Americans >believe that the courts do not treat racial or ethnic minorities >fairly. And a stunning 90% of respondents said they believe >affluent individuals and corporations have an unfair advantage in >court.[10] The fix is in, 90% believe. > >Where will these trends lead us in the new millennium? In any >case, We wish our readers a happy New Year. > >Descriptor terms: money in politics; corruption; Congress; racism; >judiciary; > >################################################################ > NOTICE >In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 this material is >distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior >interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. >Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic >version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge >even though it costs the organization considerable time and money >to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service >free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution >(anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send >your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research >Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do >not send credit card information via E-mail. For further >information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F. >by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or at >(410) 263-1584, or fax us at (410) 263-8944. > --Peter Montague, Editor >################################################################ >
