Privilege Down the Drain

Whenever I write something here, I bother to formulate my ideas and choose my words carefully. It's important to me both not to waste my creative abilities, and to respect whatever time you, the reader, are giving me. Thank you for spending a few moments considering my words.

So I find it sad and, frankly, somewhat immoral, when an actual editor of a printed publication mistakes the privilege of the editorial position for a casual soapbox from which to blab more or less thoughtlessly in the style of morning radio banter. It's really a shame.

What got me going on this was reading an editorial this morning in the Boston Business Journal. I can't believe the editor, George Donnelly, spent more than 10-minutes writing it up. But even if he had spent hours, I doubt the quality of the ideas in his piece would have been much improved. How depressing that such incurious, uncritical ideas come from the pen of an editor!

If you don't want to read the whole BBJ editorial, in a nutshell, it asserts that it is wrong to allow the Occupy Boston protest to continue in public because it may lead to "politically less desirable" groups subsequently also being allowed to protest both in public, and at length. It displays a terrible ignorance of the 1st Amendment (the law of our land), a fearsome dose of Fake Patriotism (my own, personal nemesis), and an unfortunate amount of misinformation about the roots of the protest itself (the least worrisome part of this editorial).

It's embarrassing that the Boston Business Journal publishes editorials that make it so clear that its leadership doesn't support the fundamental rights of the U.S. Constitution for *all* citizens--not just the ones who agree with the BBJ editor's personal outlook on life. When one has the great, personal fortune of publishing an opinion-based editorial to be read by thousands, it's really a shame to squander it on silly rhetoric. Editor Donnelly isn't Howie Carr, for heaven's sake [note: Carr is something like Boston's print version of Rush Limbaugh]. Doesn't Donnelly feel any responsibility at all to his readers, or even to his own intellect, to craft an editorial based on factual assessments, critical thinking, and some understanding of our laws, rights, and the actual players involved in the suit at hand, rather than slap down some trite hyperbole about "utopians" and "rent-free" living?

It's not even possible to know if Donnelly is, in his words, "perplexed" and literally doesn't understand the judge's ruling, or if he's just irritated that the judge used legal precedent and the Constitution as the basis for the ruling, rather than Donnelly's own subjective, personal opinion that the Occupy protesters are bothersome to him, and thus not entitled to their Constitutional rights. It seems he was just being rhetorical, but his commentary on the situation is so basic, and his use of the phrase "protected speech" (which is not really the protected right at issue in this case) makes me think that in fact, he actually doesn't get what happened.

Donnelly says "the problem with Judge McIntyre's ruling is it sets a broad precedent for other, and perhaps less politically desirable, occupations of public space." That's spurious (and creepy!). The right of assembly is established in the 1st Amendment. It is granted to all Americans and it does not matter one iota whether they are "less politically desirable." To imply otherwise is deeply un-American and unpatriotic.  Furthermore, Judge McIntyre did not create or reinterpret the right of assembly this week. In fact, the judge was *following*, not *creating*, legal precedent established a few days earlier.

The decision in the case of Occupy Wall Street (a few days in advance of the Boston decision) established two precedents for adjudicating any Occupy protest location: (1) Such a protest *is* protected by the 1st Amendment (by the way, for those who are thinking "free speech," you don't know your whole 1st Amendment. Grab your copy of the Constitution--what, you don't have one? why not? I thought you were a big patriot--and re-read the last line); (2) Because the location of the New York City protest is on private property, the 5th and 9th Amendment rights of the property owner are not trumped by an unmitigated protection of the protesters' 1st Amendment rights.

So here in Boston, where the protest is not on private property whose owner wishes the protest to cease, the legal precedent seems to establish that the Occupy Boston protesters are protected by the 1st Amendment, and there is no other condition strong enough to outweigh the right of the protesters to remain.

Look, I'm not a Constitutional scholar. I'm not even a lawyer. But I'm a Constitution-loving American who has a brain, a copy of said document, and a  belief that it is a moral obligation of every American to defend our rights for *everyone*, and not just for the people we happen to agree with. For me, personally, part of defending our rights means actually bothering to give some considered thought to the issues of the day, not to just blindly accept the sound bites at face value, and to speak up when someone--especially someone who should care more, like the editor of a popular publication--wastes the privilege of his position with unconsidered talk that is contrary to our democracy.

Posse Comitatus / Sovereign Citizen / Right Wing Extremist Assassinates American Citizens Engaged in Democracy

UPDATE: ABC News is covering the "sovereign citizen" movement tonight, 3/8/12 on Nightline.

Read on for more information about "sovereign citizens" or scroll down for collected links, videos, stories, and other examples of propaganda intended to incite violent rhetoric against progressives.

Saturday, January 8, 2011 - Everyone is by now aware of the vicious terrorist attack on Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, her staff, her constituents, and even their children at a public event called "Congress on Your Corner," designed to make the democratic process accessible to any civic-minded citizen of Tucson.

The suspected shooter in today's terrorist attack on American citizens in Tucson, AZ is Jared Lee Loughner.

Although Loughner was willing to use a gun on a child to tell the world what he thought, he is now tight-lipped and not speaking to investigators. I imagine that Loughner was not expecting to survive the attack he carried out, and is now mute in the face of the irony that those present at his onslaught showed him mercy even amidst the chaos--subduing him until police arrived and he could be delivered to the hands of lawful American justice--rather than tearing him limb from limb on the spot. He had just attempted to assassinate a U.S. Congresswoman, and had succeeded in executing a 9-year-old child, a federal judge, and many others.

[at left, James Corcoran's excellent book detailing the violent beliefs and actions of the posse comitatus sovereign citizen movement]

Jared Loughner may not be talking this evening, but the words he left on his social media profiles make it plain as day that he was a member of a small, yet growing, vocal, and extremely dangerous subculture of native-born Americans who believe the government has little legitimate authority, and the police none.

They call themselves "sovereign citizens" and Loughner's YouTube writings echo their usual talking points:

"Every police officer in the United States as of now is unconstitutionally working. Pima Community College police are police in the United States. Therefore, Pima Community College police are unconstitutionally working. The police are unconstitutionally working!"

Jared Lee Loughner, December 6, 2010

While the sovereign citizen movement supports neither the Republican nor Democratic party, they are an extremist branch of the American political right wing. They are preoccupied with the idea that the US government has so overstepped its Constitutional limits so as to have become an illegitimate governing authority. They believe the government has no right to levy any taxes on them or to require drivers of cars to be licensed. They do not believe in any alternate system of organized justice or government, however, and so instead of proposing that those they view as acting illegally be tried in some other "sovereign court," their first reaction is often violence.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has for years been warning about the dangers posed to all democracy-loving Americans by these extreme right wing militants who even before today had murdered and assassinated over 30 American public officials and law enforcement officers in the past 15 years.

[at left, David Neiwart's The Eliminationists, laying out the timeline and the case for how hateful rhetoric has effectively radicalized hundreds of thousands of formerly normal and patriotic Republicans]

Sovereign citizens claim to believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In their ignorant and twisted vision of "true patriotism," a private citizen who engages in his 1st Amendment protected right to free speech can be assassinated if the person he is freely speaking with happens to be a public servant.

Because so much of their ideology pertains to a government they view as too large and too intrusive, there is unavoidable overlap between the Tea Party and the Sovereign Citizen movement. And as the Tea Party has gathered steam, and right wing radio hosts have learned to pander to their fears, the Sovereign Citizen movement has also expanded and been able to expose even more people to its poisonous and treasonous perversion of American nationalism.

The Republican party is entirely aware of these connections, and outside of law enforcement, who abhor the "sovereign" movement because they have learned first hand what it's really all about, they are happy to spout elements of the "sovereign's" extremist ideology in order to inflame their base and provoke deep and visceral hatred of President Obama and the Democratic platform.

As sovereign citizen expert Alex Seitz-Wald at Think Progress noted fully 6-months before the deadly Tuscon rampage:

"While the sovereign citizen movement has existed for some time, its popularity appears to be growing in a climate where the anti-government rhetoric of the tea party movement has become commonplace."

 It is because of these connections, and the obvious and prescient danger they encourage, that I am collecting the various and related examples of Republican vitriol that I feel are, if not causal, still strongly related to today's domestic terror attack in Arizona.

Here is part of yesterday's advance announcement of Rep. Gifford's "Congress on Your Corner" event:

U.S. REP. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS TO HOST FIRST "CONGRESS ON YOUR CORNER" OF THE YEAR ON SATURDAY
TUCSON - U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords will host her first "Congress on Your Corner" of the year on Saturday, Jan. 8 at a supermarket in northwest Tucson.
"Congress on Your Corner" allows residents of Arizona's 8th Congressional District to meet their congresswoman one-on-one and discuss with her any issue, concern or problem involving the federal government.
Giffords has hosted numerous "Congress on Your Corner" events since taking office in January 2007. As in the past, the congresswoman's staff will be available to assist constituents.
Among the congresswoman's first official acts this week was a vote for Speaker of the House and theintroduction of legislation to cut congressional salaries by 5 percent. Giffords was interviewed about her bill this morning on Fox news.
WHAT: "Congress on Your Corner" with U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
WHEN: 10-11:30 a.m., Saturday, January 8, 2011
WHERE: Safeway, 7110 N. Oracle Road (southeast corner of Oracle and Ina)

This is Sarah Palin's infamous "target sighting" poster, in which Representative Gabrielle Gifford's location is targeted with rifle cross hairs. As of 6:00PM ET 1/8/11, the poster is still live on Palin's Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/dont-get-demoralized-get-organized-take-back-the-20/373854973434: 

Here are quotes from articles that discuss the right-wing death threats made against Judge John Roll, Chief Justice of the United States District Court for Arizona, and incited by right-wing radio hosts. 

"In 2009, Judge Roll faced death threats after presiding over a $32 million civil-rights lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by illegal immigrants against an Arizona rancher. After Judge Roll ruled that the case would be certified, threats came from talk-radio shows which fueled controversy and spurred audiences into making threats against the judge.
After one radio talk show, Judge Roll's name logged more than 200 phone calls as some callers threatened the judge and his family. This resulted in the judge and his wife being placed under a full-time protective detail for one month."      ~http://judgepedia.org/index.php/John_Roll#cite_note-potential-2

"...when U.S. District Judge John Roll presided over a $32 million civil-rights lawsuit filed by illegal immigrants against an Arizona rancher, the Marshals Service was anticipating the fallout. When Roll ruled the case could go forward, [U.S. Marshal David] Gonzales said talk-radio shows cranked up the controversy and spurred audiences into making threats. In one afternoon, Roll logged more than 200 phone calls. Callers threatened the judge and his family. They posted personal information about Roll online. "They said, 'We should kill him. He should be dead,'" Gonzales said." ~http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/07/09/20090709threats0709.html

Republicans falsely assert that had the mass killing not occurred, nobody would have cared about Sarah Palin's violence-tinged rhetoric. That's not the case. Democrats have been asking Palin to stop using such ads since the moment she started. Here is a TV interview from almost a year ago, in which Congresswoman Giffords predicts the violence to follow, saying:

"Sarah Palin has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they've got to realize there are consequences to that action."

~Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [D-Ariz.]

This is an add run by the Republican party against Gabrielle Giffords in 2010:

This is Sarah Palin's exhortation to her followers to "reload," not retreat. Democrats had long-requested that Palin avoid this type of incendiary messaging, but Palin refused. Within 2-hours of the terror attack on Rep. Giffords and her citizen constituents, Palin began removing her message (as well as the "rifle sights" poster above) from her various web pages:

This is an article published many months ago that describes the fears that the staff of Rep. Giffords already had for her safety, based on threats and intimidating behavior exhibited by Tea Party supporters and other right wing extremists:

This is Jared Lee Loughner's YouTube channel, where he uploaded 5 semi-coherent, anti-government videos during December 2010:

This is from an interesting article published today that addresses dangers of legal, but very inflammatory, political speech:

"If you're worried that violent video games may make kids prone to bad behavior; if you think that mysogenic and homophobic rap lyrics are dangerous to society; if you believe that a nipple in a Superbowl halftime show is a threat to our moral fabric - then surely you should also fear that the way public and media figures have framed political participation with shooting gallery imagery is just as potentially lethal."

This is what Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik had to say about the relationship of this crime to the political environment of our times:

"There's reason to believe this individual has a mental issue and I think that people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol," he said.
"Vitriol" in public debate was a recurring theme in Dupnik's remarks as he blasted the media for "the vitriolic rhetoric" heard on television and radio.
"This has not become the nice United States of America that most of us grew up in and I think its time we do the soul-searching," he said.
"The anger, the hatred the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous and unfortunately, Arizona has become the capitol. We have become the mecca of prejudice and bigotry." Reported on CNN.com

"The New York Post spoke with Rep. Giffords' father:

The congresswoman’s father Spencer Gifford, 75, was rushing to the hospital when asked if his 40-year-old daughter had any enemies.
'Yeah,' he told The Post. 'The whole Tea Party.'"

~http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/ariz_congresswoman_shot_in_head_YFTvsurRHy5OWGSRKnuK8J#ixzz1AVxF6SBe

"The New York Times' Paul Krugman said:

“You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead.” But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47252.html#ixzz1AVyFjReV

Conservative talk show hosts and politicians are busy denying they have ever used language that could be easily misconstrued as threatening. But they've been doing it, and profiting from it, for years. Here's what Glen Beck said nearly 6-years ago about filmmaker Michael Moore:

"I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore…I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it,…No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out."
~Glenn Beck, May 17, 2005

In the wake of the murders, Fox News' Glenn Beck claims that he has never used violent rhetoric or done anything that could be construed as encouraging armed response. Ironically, he has done just that so often that his website actually shows him "in action" with a gun on the same page where he claims to love peaceful, non-incendiary means. The photo shows Beck posing with a pistol, as if ready for action, while wearing a business suit. He is not depicted as hunting, participating in a militia for the defense of the nation, or has having joined the military or a police force:

Responding to critics who called out her use of violent imagery and rhetoric, Sarah Palin ups the ante and claims that a "blood libel" has been created against her. She seems to have no knowledge of the meaning of "blood libel." Across America, Jews and non-Jews are outraged and offended:

"J Street is saddened by Governor Palin's use of the term 'blood libel.'...We hope that Governor Palin will recognize, when it is brought to her attention, that the term 'blood libel' brings back painful echoes of a very dark time in our communal history when Jews were falsely accused of committing heinous deeds. When Governor Palin learns that many Jews are pained by and take offense at the use of the term, we are sure that she will choose to retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words."

~Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street (DC-based Jewish advocacy group)

"Instead of dialing down the rhetoric at this difficult moment, Sarah Palin chose to accuse others trying to sort out the meaning of this tragedy of somehow engaging in a 'blood libel' against her and others...Perhaps Sarah Palin honestly does not know what a blood libel is, or does not know of their horrific history; that is perhaps the most charitable explanation we can arrive at in explaining her rhetoric today...[her] invocation of a 'blood libel' charge against her perceived enemies is hardly a step in the right direction."

~David A. Harris, President, National Jewish Democratic Council

Right wing radio host Rush Limbaugh claims that Democrats support the heinous murderer, Jared Loughner, who assassinated a federal judge, attempted to assassinate a Congresswoman, and executed 5 others, including a little girl and 3 septuagenarians at a Democratic-hosted event:

"What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country.

~Rush Limbaugh

A democrat who used similarly vile and violent rhetoric is called out by a left-wing publication. It's stark contrast to the total support for violent rhetoric that right-wing publications give to right-wing politicians and pundits:

"it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation."

~Former Congressman Paul Kanjorski [D-Penn.]

In response, the Huffington post writes, "a valid plea, [but Kankorski] had produced some extreme violent rhetoric of his own."

~http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/paul-kanjorski-rick-scott-shot_n_807608.html

...by which they were referring to Kanjorski having called for the arrest, trial, and execution of Rick Scott [R-Fla., now Governor], whom Kanjorski believes stole billions of tax dollars through a complex, long-term Medicare fraud:

"they ought to have [Rick Scott] and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government...He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."

~Paul Kanjorski

Since When Does Our Police Department Do Free Enforcement for Private Companies?

I have been meaning to write about this for ages--this and the myriad other ways that various entities--local, national, private and public--extract every possible penny they can from me and my neighbors, family, and friends.

As far as I can tell, all of these practices are immoral, and most of them are either illegal or would not stand up in court, were someone with as much money as a wealthy corporation to provide a challenge.

The photo at right shows a metered parking lot, located at approximately 399 Main Street, Malden, Massachusetts.

Like most drivers, when I see a parking spot with a parking meter, beside a big, blue public parking icon ("P"), I take it that I'm looking at public parking--whether it's on-street or in a lot.

In the case of the parking lot in question, if you parked here and your meter did in fact expire, so that you returned to your car to find a City of Malden parking ticket on your windshield, you might be aggravated to have been ticketed, but it likely wouldn't occur to you to question whether the city had a right to ticket you in the first place. Right?

Well, I'm telling you that in this lot, the city should not be ticketing you or anybody else.

Here's why. This parking lot is not a public lot. That's right; it's a privately owned lot, and all the money deposited in its meters is destined not for the City Treasury, but for a private company. I am not sure which company is the owner. I believe it's either LAZ or Fitz who, between them, have a good stranglehold on area parking. Let's say it's Fitz. In any case, it ain't the city.

So, tell me why you should be required to pay the city $15 if you are late feeding Fitz's parking meter. What city rule or ordinance have you violated? What jurisdiction could the city possibly have over parking time limits in a privately-owned parking area? What right might the Registry of Motor Vehicles possibly claim to put a hold on your ability to renew your license and thus operate a vehicle legally simply because you didn't pay parking citations wrongfully issued to you while you were parked on private property?

And why should my tax dollars be used to pay a policeman to check the meters in a private lot?

I don't know which is worse!

If Fitz wants to monitor its own lots and tow cars away when meters expire, let them. If they want to impose some kind of legal fee structure to deter parkers from not feeding their meters, fine. In that case, they can take the market consequence and see if parkers still want to park there given the extreme enforcement. But it is outrageous that a private company that is too stingy to hire its own parking lot attendants is able to avail itself of free policing on the taxpayers' tab!

And it is indefensible that while residents endure double-digit unemployment and struggle to put decent food on their tables and decent roofs over their heads, that they are once more nickle-and-dimed by their own government--in this case for dollars to which the government ought to have no legal claim whatsoever.

Here's the cherry on top. You know how I found out about this debacle? I was at the Malden police station to get a parking permit, and in the course of speaking with the officer at the window, he began quietly to complain about the wrongs of parking in Malden. It was this officer who told me that the parking lot on Main Street does not even belong to the city, that all the officers know it, and that they resent being made to ticket residents who are parked there.

The officer, who asked not to be named, wondered aloud how many cumulative police hours are wasted patrolling that lot as a freebie for Fitz that could otherwise have been used to do something actually related to public safety or improving, not deteriorating, the quality of life of Malden's residents.

What do you think? Is there any possible justification for the city's issuing public parking tickets to cars parked on private property?

Government Contracts Used as Cash Cows to Nickle and Dime Taxpayers for Private Profit

Let's start this story with the Massachusetts law that prohibits charging extra for credit card transactions

MASSACHUSETTS POSSESSES A "NO SURCHARGE RULE" FOR CONSUMER PURCHASES

"No seller...may impose a surcharge on a cardholder who elects to use a credit card in lieu of payment by cash, check or similar means."

Statute: Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 140D, § 28A(a)(2) (West)

Discounts for Cash Payments are allowed in Massachusetts

Discount offered to induce payment by cash, check or other means not involving a credit card not considered a finance charge if offered to all prospective buyers and disclosed clearly and conspicuously.

Statute: Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 140D, § 28A(b) (West)

Statutes cover: Credit cards only

Statute: (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 140D, § 1 (West))

And yet...

Yesterday I went to City Hall to pay a state excise tax on my car. It turned out that they didn't accept payments for that there, so they referred me to the next town over, whose city hall has an electronic kiosk (a machine) where taxpayers can pay their excise tax.

I drove over to the other town. I didn't have the excise tax bill with me because I had misplaced it. Since it can be easily looked up using my driver's license number, I wasn't concerned.

I found the payment kiosk. It turns out not to be owned and maintained by the Commonwealth, but rather by a private company (Kelley & Ryan Associates) that, it seems, has a contract to collect various payments (like excise tax or parking tickets) owed to the Commonwealth.

I initiated my transaction, following a system of prompts that began by offering me a selection for taxpayers who didn't have their bill right there with them.

I entered my name, date of birth, and license number. Then I had to enter my Social Security number. This rubbed me the wrong way. I do realize that SS numbers are in fact taxpayer ID numbers. However, here in Massachusetts, we specifically have the option of not associating our SS number with our driver's license, and it should be very simple to accept my payment and associate it with my vehicle simply by using my license number.

I have no particular confidence that this electronic kiosk is managed in a secure-enough fashion to sufficiently protect my identity. That's why this method of requiring input of my SS number bothered me.

The next step was to enter a number printed exactly as shown on my bill. Wait, wasn't I in the processing flow for people who don't have their bill handy? Yes, I was. Anytime I see a system designed that badly, it greatly lowers my confidence in the general care taken to build the system. So at that point, I was certainly regretting having entered my social security number in the previous step.

Needless to say, I couldn't proceed with the transaction.

The kiosk was located right next to the payment window of the city Collector's Office. An employee of that office saw me standing there, and saw that I was leaving the kiosk without finishing. I guess she must see that a lot, because she called me over to the window to tell me that I didn't need to use the kiosk--that she could take my payment in person.

Great! A helpful, friendly civil servant. I gave her my driver's license and credit card, and after a few moments, she handed me a printed receipt. Mission accomplished!

Back home, I took the receipt out of my purse and went to file it in my desk. That's when I noticed that I'd been charged an extra 3% for an "online convenience fee." Huh?! I hadn't paid online. I hadn't even paid at their kiosk. I had paid in person at a city office. Right?

I phoned Kelley & Ryan Associates right away. I told them what had happened, and asked them why I'd been charged extra. The employee of Kelley & Ryan told me, "you have to pay extra to use a credit card. Three percent."

"Umm, that's illegal," I told her. "You know that, right? It's illegal in Massachusetts to charge someone extra for paying with a credit card."

She replied, "well, that's how it is; it's three percent extra."

Now, as I said, the receipt identified this extra charge as an "online convenience fee." When I first read that, I immediately suspected that this was really a charge for using a credit card. I thought it likely that Kelley & Ryan are well-aware of the Massacusetts law, and that they try to skirt it by pretending their credit card fee is some other kind of fee.

But the Kelley & Ryan employee made it clear--explicitly confirming to me that this was in fact an additional charge because I chose to pay with a credit card.

The law does allow a vendor to offer discounts for paying by check or with cash. I attempted to give Kelley & Ryan an out, and I asked the employee, "okay, well is there any way I can get a discount then?"

Not surprisingly, she answered me with a scornful tone. "No! No discounts!"

That about wrapped it up for me. Kelley & Ryan have an exclusive contract to collect government taxes from millions of residents of the Commonwealth, and they are illegally increasing the burden on the taxpayer by 3% for the (I'm guessing) millions of online transactions!

This stuff just infuriates me. It is wrong. It is corrupt. It is theft.

And it is just one more example of how American citizens are nickle-and-dimed by both private companies and public entities to drip 90% of them of every bit of available funds they have.

Companies like Kelley & Ryan profit at the public trough--illegally charging individual taxpayers, and I'll bet cumulatively overcharging the Commonwealth, to perform a service that could, and probably should, be kept in-house by the state.

Why should a private, for-profit company be allowed to collect taxes for the state? That they "enhance" whatever profit they already make through the terms of their contract, by illegally passing on their processing fees to the taxpayer, simply rubs copious amounts of salt where the Commonwealth is already hemorrhaging its treasure to outside vendors.

Imagine the outrage the Chamber of Commerce would express if the Commonwealth announced it was going to increase some tax by 3%. Why, the Chamber just poured all kinds of money into defeating the alcohol sales tax increase in Massachusetts by ballot initiative at last week's election. They wouldn't be able to stop quoting how many jobs would be eliminated by a 3% increase on whatever, and how many businesses would suffer.

Yet not a peep when a huge increase is levied by a private, for-profit company on a public tax obligation!

This blog post is the first step in my attempt to right this wrong--to recoup my 3%, as well as all the three percents that have illegally been levied on my Massachusetts compatriots.

Ideas for Solving the Debt Crisis

I'm going to collect novel ideas for improving the American debt crisis--I'm talking about individual debt, and not the debt crisis of our crazy, national deficit.

First up, a reader comment I saw on the New York Times today:

"There should be a direct debt exchange for consumers based in the Department of Treasury or Fed.

Taxpayers in good standing should be able to cash in high interest debt and pay it off, over time, with their taxs at 5-10%.

It makes not sense for American taxpayers/consumers to pay into a government that subsidizes the financial industry a in a dozen different ways (750 Billion TARP, 0% loans from the Fed, access to government bonds to sell) and they have these same taxpayers/consumers borrow from the financial industry at 20-30%.

And then allow fraudsters like the one's described in the article, take another bite out of these consumer/taxpayers.

Set up the direct lending program today. Make it directly accessible or accessible through credit unions which traditionally don't overcharge their customers."

~jo, on the Pacific coast (June 19th, 2010)

A recent adjustment to last year's credit card-regulating legislation has limited the amount of any fee that a credit card issuer can charge the credit card account holder. For example, a fee cannot exceed the amount of an "infraction." So, if you go over your credit card limit by $2.49, your credit card company cannot charge you a $39 fee. They can only charge you a $2.49 fee. And as I understand it, no fee can be greater than $25, but if the customer is a "repeat offender," they may lose some of these protections.

Based on these new rules, here's a 2-part idea of my own:

1. Limit the amount that banks can charge for each incidence of overdraft. If you overdraw your checking account by $10, and those ten dollars represent 3 very small purchases, the bank cannot charge you about $40 per overdraft ($120 in fees for your $10 mistake, which is what my bank, Citizens Bank, does). Instead, regulate in the same way the credit cards are now regulated--limit the fee to no more than the amount of the overdraft ($10 in this example), and cap fees at a reasonable maximum, like $30, or something.

2. Give customers the choice of whether they want their daily transactions to post in order from smallest to largest, or from largest to smallest. This is a small thing that Citizens Bank, and probably other banks as well, do to squeeze as much money as possible out of customers who are really struggling.

Here's an example that illustrates why I want these changes. There was a week during which I made a math error in balancing my checkbook. It was an honest mistake, and it resulted in my thinking I had about a hundred bucks more than I did.

I wrote my rent check, and on the night it posted, there were also about 8 tiny purchases that posted, averaging about $2 each (coffees). The total amount posting was approximately $1,600, and the available balance was, due to my error, approximately $1,500.

Citizens Bank could have cleared all 8 small purchases and overdrawn my account with the 9th purchase--the rent check for $1,575 (by the way, here in Boston, that's not a lot). It would be very easy to run the system in a pro-customer way, as I'm describing. But then Citizen's Bank wouldn't be able to wring every possible cent out of me.

What Citizens actually did was post the rent check first--the largest item--so that it immediately overdrew the account. Then all other 8 items posted as overdrawn, too. My account was approximately negative $100.

I could have remedied this the next day with the cash in my purse, but then Citizens Bank assessed its tremendous fees: $39 for each of the 9 items. $351. Plus the $100 error I'd made, my account was then overdrawn by $451, mostly because of an honest mistake I'd made, and subsequent purchases to the tune of $30 (the 8 tiny purchases responsible for almost all the fees).

Do you think that I was able to come up with $451 before the automated bills set to debit from my account (electric bill, phone bill, student loan etc.) posted? Of course I was not. (Another customer might have then been sucked into payday lending, but at least I did not go down that horrible path). However, I accumulated more fees and more overdrawn items before I finally got my next paycheck, every penny of which was necessary to pay off Citizens Bank's fees, leaving me with no money for food or gas for another 2 weeks, and sinking farther into a hole because of one, tiny honest error. Citizens Bank counts on this. They want this to happen to their customers.

If they wanted it not to happen to their customers, they wouldn't charge $451 for $30 in mistaken over-spending. They would make changes to the way they assess fees, and they would be willing to listen when customers call their customer service line, as I did, to ask for mercy and forgiven fees in an instance like mine. But they are implacable. They truly do not care.

I firmly believe that if there is an afterlife, there is a special place reserved for the people who dream up and implement predatory an abusive structures like the fee scheme at Citizen's Bank. But consumers need and deserve some protections and justice in the here and now.

Why not offer bank customers the same protections from this kind of predatory behavior that are currently being extended to credit customers?

Here's another idea of my own:

If a delinquent credit card debt is sold to a debt collection agency for pennies on the dollar, limit the amount of debt that the collector can attempt to collect to the actual outstanding debt due to purchases and regular instance.

Here's why:

A majority of delinquent credit card debt is on accounts that had predatory credit terms to begin with. Many of these accounts had credit limits as low as $300, but balances of $550 or $700 or in some cases even over $1,000.

This is what I call "invented debt." The vast majority of the debt is just fees--fees that may not even be legal to impose under current laws. During the time the account was active, the account holder might have purchased a grand total of, let's say, $500 worth of stuff, and paid a total of $800 to the credit card company. But due to the card's predatory and deceptive terms, the account is constantly accruing fees that push it farther and farther over the limit.

Eventually, the downtrodden account holder gives up, and the account is sold to a collector as bad debt.

In reality, the account holder has probably paid for every physical purchase made on the credit card, as well as considerable fees and interest. Still, the account holder is left with this "invented debt" of hundreds and hundreds of dollars.

It seems unreasonable that a third-party debt collector, who does not even represent the original credit card issuer, can purchase an invented debt of $500 for the paltry sum of perhaps $20, then tack on $200 more in "administrative" fees, and begin to put the account holder through hell for an invented debt of $700 when in reality, the account holder has actually paid for all his physical purchases, and the collector has never been harmed or damaged by the account holder, and in fact has only even laid out $20 to gain control of this "debt."

The collector will now relentlessly pursue the account holder for this money, and will quickly move to the civil court system to force collection. The courts are clogged absolutely to the gills with these cases, which are an intolerable, and unjustified strain on the public justice system.

If you doubt this, drop by your local court and witness the collection companies actually doing business from tables in the courthouse lobbies and hallways, with long lines of "invented debtors" missing work and forking over their household's grocery money to avoid going to trial. What misery! What misuse of the American court system. How unconscionable that this abuse persists!

As I've said before, these financial predators are living examples of the ancient Biblical text:

"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Matthew 19:24

But Americans need justice against these people during this lifetime.

Here's one more idea. It's a riff on the New York Times reader's comment at the top of this page. Instead of using the federal government, you do the same thing privately.

What would be really amazing is if a non-profit organization could be formed that would buy up these bad debt bundles, and then instead of doing what the collectors do, simply contact the debtor and give them the chance to "buy back" their debt for whatever the non-profit paid for it, plus something nominal, like 1%, to fund the organization. Or you could even do a 10% fee and use the return to fund additional pro-consumer financial programs.

**************November 18, 2010**************

Here's another idea:

Immediately allow all persons receiving federal or state unemployment compensation to use this compensation in order to start a business.

Allow these entrepreneurs to make sales and grow their new businesses without risk of losing their compensation. Allow compensation claims to run their usual course. Neither impose early terminations, nor allot special extensions.

This is already legal under federal law, but must be approved or implemented on a per-state basis.

Despite our tattered economy, and the number of fabulously qualified and motivated Americans collecting unemployment and unable to find a decent job, only a handful of states (Delaware, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Pennsylvania) are bothering to move in any direction toward programs like these.

What on earth have we got to lose? It's like the state has some vested interest in making sure nobody brings in more than $500 per week after losing a job, and if they do, then we're darned well going to stick it to them! Are we crazy?

Here we have tens of thousands of people who are prepared to create a job for themselves--some of whom will become successful enough to create jobs for others--all at a small fraction of the price that a typical small business pan would be looking for in a start-up bank loan (from all those fat-on-taxpayer-money, non-lending banks, right?).

These entrepreneurs are willing to bootstrap everything, work 18-hours a day, bend over backwards and then some, and generally work harder than they ever have in their lives (as every small business owner knows is true) to lift their little piece of dream off the ground.

And they can do it with the money they're already eligible to receive under unemployment compensation law, if states will just wake up and get with the program.

I'll continue to post more ideas as I come across them.

Obama Is 2nd U.S. President Born in Africa. Really!!!

Today I came across this very funny website, where you can generate a great-looking Kenyan birth certificate for anybody. Here's one that proves George W. was born in the same Kenyan hospital as Obama. Amazing coincidence! You can make your own, genuine Kenyan birth certificate at http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com.


****************************UPDATE: March 21, 2010******************

It's stupefying to realize that months later, the birthers, tea baggers, or whatever you want to call the idiots who believe this bunk, are still alive and in force. Jeeeeeeeez. Comically, the State of Hawaii has now proposed legislation in their State House to give their civil servants the authority to ignore the repetitive, money-sucking, time-wasting paperwork requests from these fools: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/03/17/hawaii-considers-legislation-to-ignore-birthers