Tom Donohue, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, last week said higher taxes and a “flood of new regulations” will damage an already subpar economy. “In many ways, we’re going backwards,” he said.
Such complaints, echoed by corporate executives throughout President Barack Obama’s first term, obscure one fact: American business has never had it so good.

U.S. corporations’ after-tax profits have grown by 171 percent under Obama, more than under any president since World War II, and are now at their highest level relative to the size of the economy since the government began keeping records in 1947, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Business leaders say a prolonged political showdown could dent consumer confidence or unsettle equity investors. In 2011, the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) fell almost 17 percent in the 11 trading sessions following the breakdown of debt-reduction talks between the White House and congressional Republicans. The Conference Board’s consumer confidence reading dropped to its lowest level in more than two years.
Washington dysfunction threatens to scuttle a period of high profitability and rising share prices. Across the economy, corporations in their third-quarter earnings reports posted stellar profits. Caterpillar Inc. (CAT)’s earnings-per-share rose more than 32 percent from the same period the previous year while Yahoo Inc.’s grew 67 percent.
The S&P 500 index has risen more than 80 percent since Obama was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009, as of yesterday. That’s the biggest gain under any president since at least World War II.

Youseff wrote:Chris Hayes just tweeted a link to Joey Bada$$' mix tape

As Tim Lee explains, the whole "plea bargain" system is a farce, allowing prosecutors to effectively bring forth these massive "possible" punishments to effectively force someone into pleading guilty without ever going to trial. Going to trial is dangerous, because the prosecutors effectively make sure that anyone who does exercise a right to a trial is likely to get much more time in jail:

If Ortiz thought Swartz only deserved to spend 6 months in jail, why did she charge him with crimes carrying a maximum penalty of 50 years? It’s a common way of gaining leverage during plea bargaining. Had Swartz chosen to plead not guilty, the offer of six months in jail would have evaporated. Upon conviction, prosecutors likely would have sought the maximum penalty available under the law. And while the judge would have been unlikely to sentence him to the full 50 years, it’s not hard to imagine him being sentenced to 10 years. In this hypothetical scenario, those 10 years in prison would, practically speaking, have consisted of six months for his original crime (the sentence Ortiz actually thought he deserved) plus a nine-and-a-half-year prison term for exercising his constitutional right to a trial.

As he further notes, no judge would impose a harsher sentence on someone for exercising other rights -- such as taking the Fifth, hiring a lawyer or confronting an accuser. Yet, if you demand your right to a trial, the US Attorneys have effectively rigged the system so that defendants are punished. And that gives them immense power.

Thanks in part to this kind of coercion, more than 90 percent of defendants waive their right to a jury trial. For the majority of defendants, then, the plea bargaining process is the justice system. As a result, prosecutors wield an immense amount of power with very little accountability.

It’s not surprising that Ortiz doesn’t see anything wrong with this system. Powerful people rarely see their own power as problematic. But the rest of us should be outraged—not just by Ortiz’s conduct, but by a system that treats thousands of defendants less famous than Swartz the same way.

This is not a new problem. A year and a half ago, the NY Times had a feature article highlighting this very problem, which it calls "the trial penalty."

ROSES to Wal-Mart for setting an example other businesses can follow, making a commitment to hire veterans and to sell more merchandise made in the U.S. Wal-Mart on Tuesday announced a pledge to hire more than 100,000 veterans in the next five years. The hiring pledge was announced as part of a three-part plan, including spending $50 billion to buy more American-made merchandise in the next 10 years and helping part-time workers move into full-time positions. American businesses are the first to benefit from a healthy U.S. economy but are not always the first to support steps that can lead to more employment and more spending. We hope others follow this example.

pacino wrote:Walmart wants to hire veterans:

ROSES to Wal-Mart for setting an example other businesses can follow, making a commitment to hire veterans and to sell more merchandise made in the U.S. Wal-Mart on Tuesday announced a pledge to hire more than 100,000 veterans in the next five years. The hiring pledge was announced as part of a three-part plan, including spending $50 billion to buy more American-made merchandise in the next 10 years and helping part-time workers move into full-time positions. American businesses are the first to benefit from a healthy U.S. economy but are not always the first to support steps that can lead to more employment and more spending. We hope others follow this example.

Yeah...hope they enjoy those $9/hr jobs with no healthcare or pension. And wow, $5 billion a year for a company which makes $400 billion+ a year. Yippee? The Pottstown Mercury, folks.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Walmart is a weird company. they have some admirable initiatives like supporting local food economies, community development, and support for the arts, but for some reason they really insist on treating their own floor employees like shit. I don't get it

Barry Jive wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Walmart is a weird company. they have some admirable initiatives like supporting local food economies, community development, and support for the arts, but for some reason they really insist on treating their own floor employees like #$!&@. I don't get it

I've read they pretty much strongarm local food distributors into giving them bargain basement deals.

dajafi wrote:Outside the government building where I work, the striking schoolbus drivers are picking and chanting for "job protection."

We spend more on transporting kids to school than anywhere else in the country, and it's not close. I don't have "job protection"; I'm accountable for my work. Granted I'm more employable, hopefully, than most bus drivers. But as both a taxpayer and government worker, this sits really poorly.

Last weekend I realized to my horror that, while I probably couldn't bring myself to vote for the Giuliani disciple who's likely to be the Republican nominee for mayor, if it's between him and any of the hack Democrats--all of them other than Chris Quinn, basically-- just aching to bend over and present for our public unions, my preference might be for the right-wing asshat.

TenuredVulture wrote:I avoid shopping at Wal-Mart because it sucks to shop there. But I doubt front line employees at Target or any other huge retailer are treated all that much better.