Motley Moose – Archive

Progressives and other supporters of women’s health have been disappointed and angered by the politically-motivated decision by the Susan G. Komen Foundation to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening, prevention, and screening services.  In many poor and rural communities, Planned Parenthood is the only option for women to obtain these lifesaving services.

(If you want to support the Breast Health Emergency Fund established by Planned Parenthood in response to these events, here is a secure donation link.)

In a glimmer of good news, it was widely reported yesterday (originating, I think at the Huffington Post), that the Connecticut chapter of Susan G. Komen had broken with the national decision and would continue to fund Planned Parenthood.  The Boston Globe appeared to follow suit.  Perhaps other affiliates would follow this courageous move, women’s health supporters thought.

Only one problem with the courageous move.  It didn’t happen.  Follow me after the jump to see how many good people were fooled.  

Last month, progressives cheered as Al Franken successfully introduced his so-called “Anti-Rape Amendment” as part of the 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill.  The amendment provided that defense contracts would be withheld from any company that forces its employees to agree to mandatory arbitration of claims for sexual assault, battery, or discrimination.  Contractors like Halliburton and KBR had successfully used these arbitration clauses to prevent victims of sexual assault from pursuing a jury trial or even having a day in court at all.

Some people were shocked, and some felt it was just business as usual, when 30 Republicans voted against the Anti-Rape Amendment.  But the majority still rules once in a while in this country, and last I checked the bill, with amendment intact, was making its way through the conference process.

(Cross-posted at TalkLeft, MyDD and C4O Democrats)

The word on the street is that the caps on executive compensation may end up getting removed from the final version of the economic stimulus package.  Rather than abandon the idea altogether, James Kwak has a brilliant suggestion (h/t the Left Coaster):

Why not say that all bank compensation above a baseline amount – say, $150,000 in annual salary – has to be paid in toxic assets off the bank’s balance sheet? Instead of getting a check for $10,000, the employee would get $10,000 in toxic assets, at their current book value. A federal regulator can decide which assets to pay compensation in; if they were all fairly valued, then it wouldn’t matter which ones the regulator chose. That would get the assets off the bank’s balance sheet, and into the hands of the people responsible for putting them there – at the value that they insist they are worth. Of course, the average employee does not get to set the balance sheet value of the assets, and may not have been involved in creating or buying those particular assets. But think about the incentives: talented people will flow to the companies that are valuing their assets the most realistically (since inflated valuations translate directly into lower compensation), which will give companies the incentive to be realistic in their valuations. (Banks could inflate their nominal compensation amounts to compensate for their overvalued assets, but then they would have to take larger losses on their income statements.)