Corporate influence

A recent article in The New York Times about proposed ethics rules on federal employees gave opponents of the rules the run of the article, without ever probing their claims. In this Story Repair, the voices of opponents of the regulation continue to be heard, but they are situated in a firmer and broader news context.

A recent article in The New York Times about proposed ethics rules on federal employees gave opponents of the rules the run of the article, without ever probing their claims. In this Story Repair, the voices of opponents of the regulation continue to be heard, but they are situated in a firmer and broader news context.

Two recent NYT articles ignore altogether the need for a critical approach. In one, a front-pager billed as a news article, the reporter could easily be mistaken for a member of BlackRock's PR team. In the other, the reporter treated with contempt the idea that workers deserve to have bargained-for pensions benefits honored.

It's the corporate tax reform mantra these days — at least on the Democratic side of the aisle. But serious questions have been raised about the underlying premises, fiscal prudence, and ultimate revenue neutrality of proceeding concurrently.

An important benefit to one class of litigants is deeply baked into the current system. The tax code provides that businesses may deduct all of their legal expenses (lawyer and expert fees, and discovery costs) in all cases — win or lose, meritorious or non-meritorious, plaintiff or defendant.

In attempting to promote “insourcing” by American companies, the Obama Administration has embraced the report of a private consulting firm that asserts that gains in “competitiveness” can only be maintained with policies that have yielded lower wages and weak unions. The President praised business leaders who have brought jobs home for their patriotism, but experts suggested that businesses were simply looking at their bottom line.