Chain, Chain, Chain …
Posted: July 13, 2011 Filed under: Economy | Tags: Chained CPI, inflation impacting the elderly 19 CommentsSo I thought I’d write a brief post on one of the topics that has come up with social security reform. That would be switching the Social Security COLA (Cost Of Living Adjustment) from the CPI-W to the Chained CPI. E
conomists widely agree that the CPI-W overstates the rate of inflation. However, there are some other considerations to look at when undertaking any change. Kevin Drum from MoJo explains the problems with the CPI-W which is an inflation index based on a fixed basket of goods and is widely criticized for having a bunch of problems including substitution bias.
The reason is something called “upper level substitution bias,” which means that instead of always buying a standard basket of goods and services, people change their buying habits over time as prices change. When the price of hamburger goes up, they eat more chicken. When the price of chicken goes up, they switch back to hamburger. A version of CPI that takes this into account is called chained CPI, and overall it’s considered a more accurate reflection of actual inflation. But technical merits aside, there are always winners and losers when you make changes to statistics like this. One big loser would be Social Security beneficiaries. Initial Social Security benefits upon retirement are calculated based on wage levels, so they’d be unaffected by a switch to chained CPI. But annual COLA increases would be affected, and they’d be lower than they are now.
Menzie Chinn at Econbrowser has a nifty graph showing the differences in three measures of inflation. The blue line is the traditional CPI that’s now the basis of the Social Security COLA. The Green line is the PCE Deflator which is a more general measure of consumer inflation that’s not attached to a fixed basket of goods. This is the measure that the Fed tends to follow. The red line is the Chained CPI.
Chinn has a general discussion of each of these indices too. The CPI basket which is used to weight price changes updates every two years now. The chained CPI uses weights that are constantly changing and more realistically reflect changes in consumer buying habits. This avoids the substitution bias.
The BLS collects the buying habits and prices of typical urban consumers monthly and provides the data in the form of the inflation indices. You can read about the chained CPI and the methodology used to calculate it here. It’s been in use since 2002. The most basic explanation of the differences is explained at the FAQ provided by the BLS.
In its final form, the C-CPI-U is a monthly chained price index with the expenditure weights varying each month. The CPI-U and CPI-W, on the other hand, are biennial chained price indexes where their expenditure weights are updated every two years. Within the two-year span, these indexes are fixed-weight series, where the changes in these indexes reflect only changes in prices, and not expenditure shares, which are held constant.
Dean Baker has some information worth considering before we suggest that the change to the chained index is the best move. Using the Chained CPI may reduce overall costs while still providing a COLA, but the index may not reflect price changes that specifically impact the elderly population in the US.
It is not clear that the Chained CPI is more accurate than the current measure. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has found that an experimental elderly index (CPI-E), that tracks the consumption patterns of people over age 62, actually shows a higher rate of inflation for the elderly than the CPI currently used for adjusting Social Security benefits.
While the CPI-E is not a full index since it does not look at the specific items bought by the elderly and the specific outlets they use for their shopping, there is no reason why BLS could not construct a full CPI-E. If the concern is having an accurate cost of living adjustment then it would seem that you should support having Congress instruct BLS to construct a full CPI-E. For my part, I don’t know whether this measure would show a higher or lower rate of inflation than the current CPI used for indexing benefits, but it would be a more accurate measure.
As it stands, switching to a Chained CPI would undoubtedly mean a cut in scheduled benefits, regardless of whether or not it involves a more accurate cost of living adjustment. Using this measure of the CPI would reduce benefits for retirees by 3 percent in 10 years, 6 percent in 20 years and 9 percent in 30 years. We know that the vast majority of retirees are struggling to make ends meet already. Retirees are not the people responsible for wrecking the country’s economy. Social Security benefit cuts of this magnitude seem like a major step in the wrong direction.
Inflation has not been much of a problem for this country since the mid 1980s. Since we are aware that too much money chasing too few goods is the basis of inflation and the FED is committed to not letting inflation get out of hand, it’s unlikely that we’ll see problems with inflation. The only thing that would lead–at this point in my mind–to major price disruptions would be a politicized FED that abused monetary policy or some brand of gold bug craziness that put us back on a hard currency. The last problem would cause incredible, destabilizing deflation since a fixed medium of exchange in a growing economy causes the opposite problem. That would be too little money chasing lots of goods.
Probably the best thing to do at this point would be to ask the CBO to study which index realistically represents changes to the cost of living, then seeing if the savings is worth it at the aggregate level. Dean Baker has this suggestion.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Experimental Price Index for the Elderly has consistently shown a somewhat higher rate of inflation for the elderly population.
If the concern is accuracy, then the route should be to have the BLS construct a full elderly index that could take account of actual purchase substitution patterns among elderly consumers. Simply switching to the C-CPI-U without undertaking this research is consistent with a desire to cut Social Security, not to make the COLA more accurate.
This is probably a better idea since the elderly are more likely to spend more on health care where costs have been rising astronomically. They are also less likely to buy other kinds of consumer goods. A CPI based on a senior basket of goods may be more appropriate.
Betty Ford’s Memorial: A wonderful tribute to a Women’s Rights Advocate
Posted: July 12, 2011 Filed under: Women's Rights | Tags: Betty Ford Memorial, Cokie Roberts 8 Comments
If you haven’t had a chance to read Cokie Roberts’ Eulogy for Former First Lady Betty Ford, you really should.
Over the years, as she spoke out more forcefully for women’s rights, Mrs. Ford strongly defended the housewife’s role: “Downgrading this work has been part of the pattern in our society that downgrades individual women’s talents in all areas.”
No wonder women all over the country have spent this past weekend loving her anew.
One talent political wives were expected to cultivate that they didn’t share with most women was that of first rate campaigner, especially wives of House members – the House wives – who faced an election every two years. By the time he ran for president, Ford supporters sported “Elect Betty’s Husband” buttons, but people in Michigan had been doing that for decades. It was another activity that brought political wives together – even if they were on different sides, they had the same complaints – and forged tightly joined connections that extended ot the men as well. They would bring the men together, serve them some drinks and a good meal, listen to their stories and make them behave. And some of that good behavior carried over to the corridors of Congress. It was a role political wives had played since the beginning of the republic and it worked.
Former First Lady Rosalynm Carter delivered the other eulogy. Mrs Ford requested this of both women.
Delivering the first eulogy, former first lady Rosalynn Carter said she had “an excellent role model and a hard act to follow.”
“Millions are forever in her debt today because she was never afraid to tell the truth,” Carter said. “Betty was my friend.”
Others paid tribute to the woman who was embraced by a generation of women who were just coming into their own. A social pioneer, Ford spoke openly about sex, cancer and addiction.
The service played on CSPAN 2 today and will undoubtedly be available for viewing this week. I’d just like to 
remember Mrs. Ford as a woman who was a tireless fighter for the ERA and women’s health at a time when both abortion rights and support for the ERA were solid parts of the Republican platform as well as the Democratic party platform. It’s difficult to remember that many Republican women were committed to women’s rights in this day of Republican women that stand against these rights.
Can you charge the country’s top elected officials with Treason?
Posted: July 12, 2011 Filed under: Federal Budget, Federal Budget and Budget deficit | Tags: Federal Deficit, game of chicken. 27 CommentsIt seems as though our nation’s “leaders” are looking to bring down our country. It’s the only explanation that I have. 
Also, I’m at the point where I think Joe Biden is the only sane one in the room. Pinch me! Please!
Headlines of note to prove my case:
Boehner Says The Debt Limit Increase Is Obama’s Problem
Speaker of the House John Boehner introduced a new argument to the debt ceiling and deficit reduction talks Tuesday, saying raising the borrowing limit is Republicans’ concession in the negotiations.”This debt limit increase is [Obama’s] problem,” he said.
Boehner is trying to force a deficit reduction package entirely based on spending cuts, saying Obama’s demands for new revenues would only be considered if Obama accepted deep cuts to entitlements.
My guess is that Boehner has absolutely no control over the Republicans in the House. Some one from Wall Street needs to take a few of them to the wood shed. Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell appears to be interested in nothing but political play. Some senate Republicans would obviously join the president but it appears that will happen over McConnell’s dead mind and conscious. McConnell still refuses to admit the Republicans lost the White House 3 years ago. He’s become some kind of Captain Queeg who gets in front of the press then rattles ball bearings in his fist while muttering “one term president, strawberries, one term president, it’s the strawberries, I tell you …” repeatedly.
McConnell: Obama can’t deliver major deficit-reduction deal
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) on Tuesday said a comprehensive deficit-reduction deal is not attainable as long as Barack Obama is president.
McConnell declared that deficit-reduction talks have come to an unsolvable deadlock.
“After years of discussions and months of negotiations, I have little question that as long as this president is in the Oval Office, a real solution is unattainable,” he said.McConnell has called for reforms to curb the future growth of Social Security and Medicare since taking over as Republican leader at the end of 2006.
So, what’s the response of the leader of the free world? Would you call this riling up or scaring seniors?
Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3
President Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3 if Democrats and Republicans in Washington do not reach an agreement on reducing the deficit in the coming weeks.
“I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.
The Obama administration and many economists have warned of economic catastrophe if the United States does not raise the amount it is legally allowed to borrow by August 2.
This is insane. No one’s made any sense in this discussion since Joe Biden told his gang of six to get real. Meanwhile, we’re beginning to see financial economists question this game of chicken.This extremely good analysis is written by Jeffrey Frankel the James W. Harpel Professor of Capital Formation and Growth at Harvard’s Kennedy School.
In the 1955 movie Rebel Without a Cause, James Dean and a teenage rival race two cars to the edge of a cliff in a game of chicken. Both intend to jump out at the last moment. But the other guy miscalculates, and goes over the cliff with the car.
This is the game that is being played out in Washington this month over the debt ceiling. The chance is at least 1/4 that the result will be similarly disastrous.
It is amazing that the financial markets continue to view the standoff with equanimity. Interest rates on US treasury bonds remain very low, barely above 3% at the ten-year maturity. Evidently it is still considered a sign of sophistication to say “This is just politics as usual. They will come to an agreement in the end.” Probably they will. But maybe not. (I’d put a ½ probability on an agreement that raises the debt limit, but just muddles through in terms of the genuine long term fiscal problem. That leaves at most a ¼ probability of a genuine long-term solution of the sort that President Obama apparently proposed last week – described as worth $4 trillion over ten years.)
My advice to investors is to shift immediately out of US treasuries and into high-rated corporate bonds. If the worst happens, you will probably save yourself from a big capital loss within the next month. If not, there is no harm done.
The game is not symmetric. The Republicans are the ones who are miscalculating. Evidently they are confident of prevailing: they rejected the President’s offer, even though he was willing to cut entitlement programs.
The situation is complicated because there are a number of different people crammed into the Republican car. There is one guy who is obsessed with the theory that, come August 3, the federal government could retain its top credit rating if it continued to service its debt by ceasing payment on its other bills. But this would mean failing to honor legal obligations that have already been incurred (paying suppliers for paper clips that have already been bought, paying soldiers their wages for last month’s service, sending social security recipients their checks, etc.). This is like observing that the cliff is not a 90 degree drop-off, but only 110 degrees. It doesn’t matter: the car would still go crashing into the ocean far below. The government’s credit would still be downgraded and global investors would still demand higher interest rates to hold US treasuries, probably on a long-term basis.
There are other guys (and gals) in the car who are even more delusional. They are dead set on a policy of immediately eliminating the budget deficit (e.g., those opposed to raising the debt ceiling no matter what, or those campaigning for a balanced budget amendment), and doing it primarily by cutting nondefense discretionary spending. This is literally impossible, arithmetically. But they honestly don’t know this. It is as if they were insisting that the car can fly. Sometimes it can be a good bargaining position to adopt a very extreme position. But if you are demanding that the car flies, you are not going to get your way no matter how determined you are.
What we have here are a group of rebels with self-serving causes. Again, the President should just invoke the 14th amendment,pay the bills, and send the DOJ after the many folks here that appear to be willing to tank our country for their personal political gain. Threatening seniors’ social security is not leadership. It’s just a matter of time before the financial markets start noticing these folks are not acting in the best interest of our country, our economy, or our ability to deal with our economic challenges. We’re lucky that they still think this is the chicken dance right now instead of a chicken race. It’s going to be a lot harder to pay off the debt with the interest rates that go along with junk bonds. This is not the place for political grandstanding.
update: Okay, this is weird … what’s McConnell up to now?
The Big Blink? McConnell Proposes Giving Obama Authority To Raise Debt Limit Alone
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has proposed a sort of escape hatch for Congressional Republicans, who have threatened not to raise the national debt limit — and trigger a default — if Democrats don’t agree to trillions of dollars in cuts to popular social programs.
The plan is designed to give President Obama the power to raise the debt limit through the end of his first term on his own, but to force Democrats to take a series of votes on the debt limit vote in the months leading up to the election.
This still leaves me wondering if Boehner can deliver enough Republican votes to actually head off a purposeful debt default.
Monday Reads
Posted: July 11, 2011 Filed under: abortion rights, Federal Budget and Budget deficit, GLBT Rights, morning reads, We are so F'd | Tags: abortion provision in Kansas 22 Comments
Good Morning!
Well, the Deficit Dance continues and the President has scheduled a presser for 11 am today. The President would like to resolve the debt ceiling issue within 10 days. What exactly is on the table and what will the obsession with austerity mean for those of us in the working and middle classes and those of us that are poor or living on our old age benefits from social security and medicare?
According to a Republican familiar with the discussions, taxes and entitlement issues were stumbling blocks in the negotiations. Boehner said any deal must result in spending changes and cuts that are larger than the amount of an increased debt limit.
During today’s session, Obama will try to break a partisan impasse over whether to include cuts in entitlement programs and tax increases in a deal.
Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said Democrats “never said we will hold the United States’s full faith and credit hostage in the discussions.”
Senator Mitch McConnell is willing to take hostages as indicated by his appearances on Fox talk shows yesterday. McConnell, of course, made no mention of having no problems with raising the debt ceiling 7 times during George Dubya Bush’s war spending and tax cutting spree.
Senate Minority Leader Republican Mitch McConnell discussed the debt ceiling negotiations with Bret Baier on Fox News Sunday. McConnell was in agreement with Speaker John Boehner’s decision not to support a large deficit deal, yet also made a curious assertion that none of his Republican colleagues have ever claimed they will not be in support of raising the debt ceiling.
Baier, filling in for Chris Wallace, pressed McConnell on what would happen if no deal could be worked out and whether he was concerned with the consequences of what might happen if the debt ceiling is not raised. McConnell confidently responded, “nobody is talking about not raising the debt ceiling. I haven’t heard that discussed by anybody.” Yet Baier informed him that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, among others, have explicitly said just that. Baier even quoted Bachmann saying “don’t let them fool you that the economy is going to collapse” if the debt ceiling isn’t raised.
McConnell however apparently didn’t want to address such comments and preferred to stay focused on his opinion of how serious it is to actually raising the debt ceiling. Maybe the fact that some Republicans in Congress actually are determined not to raise the debt ceiling was news to McConnell, but if he doesn’t want to acknowledge the views of some of his colleagues then he might want to avoid making broad pronouncements about them in future interviews.
Newly appointed IMF Head Christine Lagarde is can’t believe that the US would deliberately default on its debt. She was interviewed yesterday by Christine Amanapour.
As the White House continues negotiations with congressional leaders over a budget deal this weekend, newly elected head of the International Monetary Fund Christine Lagarde says that she “can’t imagine for a second” that the United States would default on its debt obligations, saying it would be “a real shock” to the global economy if no agreement is reached.
“I can’t imagine for a second that the United States would default,” Lagarde told “This Week” anchor Christiane Amanpour in an exclusive interview. “But, clearly, this issue of the debt ceiling has to be resolved.”
“It would be a real shock, and it would be bad news for the U.S. economy,” Lagarde added on the threat of the U.S. not raising the debt ceiling. “So I would hope that there is enough bipartisan intelligence and understanding of the challenge that is ahead of the United States, but also of the rest of the world.”
Among the Republican economic dunces advocating deliberately not paying our bills is the infamous Quiteralla.
Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has issued a stern warning to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) as Boehner sits down with President Obama Sunday night to negotiate a raising of the debt ceiling: don’t do it.
Palin, in an interview appearing in Newsweek, “made it clear that she’s against any deal that raises the debt ceiling and would hold House Speaker John Boehner’s feet to the fire if he agreed to one” according to the magazine.
Not only do Republicans seem to be deliberately ignorant of economics, they continue to spread lies with no scientific basis on Meet the Press concerning GLBTs. Remember, T-Paw is supposedly one of the more ‘moderate’ candidates for president too. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty continues to spread the falsehood that there is no science supporting the biological nature of sexuality or for that matter climate change and evolution. (Check out the evolution link for a fun Doonesbury and a sad statement about what Bobby Jindal continues to hoist on Louisiana.) From which century did these folks get their educations?
GREGORY: Is being gay a choice?
PAWLENTY: Well, the science in that regard is in dispute. I mean, scientists work on that and try to figure out if it’s behavioral or if it’s partly genetic –
GREGORY: What do you think?
PAWLENTY: Well, I defer to the scientists in that regard.
GREGORY: So you think it’s not a choice? That you are, as Lady Gaga says, you’re born that way.
PAWLENTY: There’s no scientific conclusion that it’s genetic. We don’t know that.
In fact, there is no dispute among health professionals. All major medicalprofessional organizations agree that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, from gay to straight or otherwise. The American Psychological Association, the world’s largest association of psychological professionals, describes sexual orientation as “a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors.” There is considerable evidence to suggest that biology, “including genetic or inborn hormonal factors,” plays a significant role in a person’s sexuality.
Pawlenty’s comments underscore the reality that promoting ex-gay therapy and the idea that homosexuality can be changed or denied (which it cannot) are at the root of all anti-gay perspectives. The broad consensus of scientists have condemned such notions — and the kinds of discrimination Pawlenty has protected — for decades.
Pawlenty has previously said that “the science is bad” on whether human activity has had any impact on global warming. When it comes to Pawlenty’s unfamiliarity with science, perhaps he was just “born this way.”
“I like Congresswoman Bachmann. I’ve campaigned for her. I respect her. But her record of accomplishment in Congress is non-existent,” Pawlenty said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Pawlenty said the three-term lawmaker didn’t have the necessary experience, accusing her of doing little more than delivering good speeches.
“We’re not looking for folks who just have speech capabilities,” he said. “We’re looking for people who can lead a large enterprise in a public setting and drive it to conclusion. I have done that, she hasn’t.”
The NYT’s Catherine Rampbell writes a compelling piece on the invisibility of our country’s unemployed.
Fourteen million, in round numbers — that is how many Americans are now officially out of work.
Word came Friday from the Labor Department that, despite all the optimistic talk of an economic recovery, unemployment is going up, not down. The jobless rate rose to 9.2 percent in June.
What gives? And where, if anywhere, is the outrage?
The United States is in the grips of its gravest jobs crisis since Franklin D. Roosevelt was in the White House. Lose your job, and it will take roughly nine months to find a new one. That is off the charts. Many Americans have simply given up.
But unless you’re one of those unhappy 14 million, you might not even notice the problem. The budget deficit, not jobs, has been dominating the conversation in Washington. Unlike the hard-pressed in, say, Greece or Spain, the jobless in America seem, well, subdued. The old fire has gone out.
In some ways, this boils down to math, both economic and political. Yes, 9.2 percent of the American work force is unemployed — but 90.8 percent of it is working. To elected officials, the unemployed are a relatively small constituency. And with apologies to Karl Marx, the workers of the world, particularly the unemployed, are also no longer uniting.
A Wichita, Kansas doctor has decided to take on the uphill fight to offer Abortions in what is undoubtedly hostile territory. This brave doctor is holding the ground for women’s health in a state with some of the country’s most extreme anti-choice terrorists including Operation Rescue.
Now a little-known physician has stepped into this tinderbox environment to take the mantle — indeed, the very instruments — of the man many abortion rights advocates regard as a martyr.
But Dr. Means is certainly not the ideological warrior many expected to fill his void. She said her decision to start performing abortions was as much about making money for her struggling practice as about restoring access to a constitutional right.
A second effort to establish an abortion clinic is under way, led by a group of prominent abortion rights advocates. The group has raised money but is still searching for a doctor willing to provide abortions in a city where doing so has in recent years required a bulletproof vest and an armored car.
“It’s about restoring access and standing our ground,” said Julie Burkhart, a former political director for Dr. Tiller who now runs the group Trust Women.
Elizabeth Warren will appear before congress on Thursday. This will be her last appearance before her bureau protecting consumers from bad banking practices becomes reality.
The GOP has made a strong attempt to paint the new bureau as far too powerful and lacking in any sufficient oversight. And Republicans will continue to press Warren Thursday.
“This hearing will give Professor Warren an opportunity to provide clear information – which has so far not been articulated in public statements, budget justification, FOIA responses, or previous congressional testimony – about how the administration intends to go about protecting consumers,” said an Oversight spokesperson.
Meanwhile, the CFPB’s strong (and vocal) backers tout it – and Warren – as a much needed and long overdue government advocate for consumers in the financial system.
The relationship between Warren and the GOP has always been icy at best, given Republicans long-standing opposition to the CFPB, and people that will be watching the hearing closely are expecting more of the same.
“What we’re likely to see is more demonstrations of a Republican Party that’s determined to become a kind of goon squad for Wall Street,” said Richard Eskow, a senior fellow for the left-leaning Campaign for America’s Future, which has repeatedly backed Warren.
For her part, Warren is looking forward to the hearing, according to the CFPB’s spokesperson.
I have one thing that I’d like to recommend you view from Fairewinds if you have about 5o minutes. It’s called “Why Fukushima Can Happen Here: What the NRC and Nuclear Industry Dont Want You to Know”. It’s totally worth the time.
In this video nuclear engineers Arnie Gundersen and David Lochbaum discuss how the US regulators and regulatory process have left Americans unprotected. They walk, step-by-step, through the events of the Japanese meltdowns and consider how the knowledge gained from Fukushima applies to the nuclear industry worldwide. They discuss “points of vulnerability” in American plants, some of which have been unaddressed by the NRC for three decades. Finally, they concluded that an accident with the consequences of Fukushima could happen in the US. With more radioactive Cesium in the Pilgrim Nuclear Plant’s spent fuel pool than was released by Fukushima, Chernobyl, and all nuclear bomb testing combined. Gundersen and Lockbaum ask why there is not a single procedure in place to deal with a crisis in the fuel pool?
Well, that ought to give you a few things to watch on CSPAN this week! Meanwhile, please share what’s your reading and blogging list this morning!!
We’ve not come Far Enough when it comes to asserting Sexual Assault Claims
Posted: July 9, 2011 Filed under: Violence against women, Women's Rights | Tags: blaming the victim, rape, sexual assault 28 CommentsI first became an advocate for stronger rape laws and prosecution when I was in high school. It was nothing personal for 
me. My neighbor was a member of Junior League of Omaha. The organization had just started one of the country’s first rape victim support lines. She asked me to volunteer and I went through what passed as training back in the mid 70s to spend an evening a week answering the phone. I was prepared for little more than making referrals to a list of approved sources but frequently got a little more than I bargained for. I realized there was a need to change the way we approached sexual assaults. When I got into university, I helped the University Women’s Action Group by teaching young women–mostly in sororities–on how to be safe on campus as well as how to do limited self defense. We also worked hard at moving sex crimes out of the property crimes divisions of local police departments, getting more police women to respond to rape reports, and changing the Nebraska Rape laws so that a perpetrator could be charged with the crime without the women having to come up with two to three witnesses. We also moved to block defense lawyers from putting rape victims on trial by using their personal history against them. I had one friend that was raped on campus that was afraid to report her assault because she had been smoking pot. She felt that the police would think she was asking for it by being stoned and alone in the library. When I look back at those times, I realize that our criminal justice system has made some progress. When I read recent headlines, I realize that we have not yet come far enough.
Three recent high profile sexual assault cases look to end with a very old fashioned problem. It still seems that being a less than perfect human being means that you ask for it. The first of these cases is that of Jamie Leigh Jones who had accused KBR of perpetuating a climate of sexual abuse of women and some of its employees of rape. A Houston jury just decided her sexual assault was ‘consensual’ . The verdict appears mostly based on Jones’ credibility due to a history of depression and her past experiences while her accused rapist’s criminal history of violence against women was suppressed.
Now 26, Jones said she was drugged with the date rape drug Rohypnol and brutally raped in 2005, while working at KBR facility Camp Hope in Iraq. She also told jurors that after the incident, she was imprisoned in a shipping container and prevented from calling family for help, and later had to go through reconstructive surgery on her chest and psychiatric counseling for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
But jurors in the case against the Houston, Texas-based company decided in the end that Jones’s sexual encounter was consentual, rendering other charges moot.
…
An attorney for Jones did not comment on a possible appeal, but said that he respected the jury’s decision considering the evidence they were allowed to see.
“We do think it’s a shame that Jamie’s entire personal history was dragged before the jury,” attorney Todd Kelly told the Chronicle, “when her rapist’s criminal history, including violence against women, was suppressed from them.”
Jamie’s case was championed earlier by Minnesota Senator Al Franken ensuring her right to a jury trial when KBR was trying to force her into arbitration. The details of her assault are particularly disturbing as well as the behavior of KBR to avoid the charges. None of this appeared to impact the jury, however.
With the high-profile victim looking on in the Senate chamber in 2009, Franken won passage of a measure in her name ensuring that military contractors couldn’t force victims of sexual assault into arbitration, as opposed to suing.
Jones got her day in court, and on Friday, a federal jury deciding her civil suit in Houston decided she was not raped, vindicating a company that charged she had exaggerated or made up her story, in part for fame, publicity and a book deal.
The jury also rejected Jones’ claims of fraud against KBR, which she said had failed to enforce its policies against sexual harassment or protect her from the alleged attack by the company’s contract workers in Iraq.
Jones’ suit was aimed at KBR, its former parent company Halliburton, and KBR firefighter Charles Bortz, who she claimed led the attack while she worked for KBR in 2005.
Bortz claimed he had consensual sex with Jones. He was not criminally charged and has filed a countersuit against her, according to the Associated Press.
The other high profile case that seems on the ropes due to past history of the accuser–in this case over possibly lying to get asylum in the U.S. and knowing a few criminals–is that of the maid whose charges brought about the resignation of IMF head Dominic Strauss-Kahn and tanked his chances of being nominated as a candidate for the president of France. Not only is the prosecution’s case said to be falling apart due to her associations and questions about her asylum case, she was held up in a NY Post story as a prostitute with no evidence provided. She is now suing the paper for slander. That case probably hinges on her credibility also.
The hotel maid who accused Dominique Strauss-Kahn of trying to rape her wants her day in court, her lawyer has said.
She still could get it, even if prosecutors decide to drop the criminal case amid what they say are doubts about her trustworthiness.
Regardless of what happens in the criminal case, the woman could pursue her claim in a civil lawsuit, a route taken successfully by some after high-profile criminal cases ended without a conviction. While the housekeeper’s credibility would still be a significant issue, different legal standards for civil and criminal cases could give her claims — which Strauss-Kahn denies — a greater chance of prevailing in civil court.
A civil case can offer the prospect of money and establishing that wrongdoing, if not a crime, was committed. And for some people, bringing their own cases gives them more of a sense of control, instead of putting themselves in prosecutors’ hands.
“The civil suit represents the only avenue for the alleged victim herself to achieve justice,” says L. Lin Wood, an Atlanta-based attorney who represented a woman who accused NBA star Kobe Bryant of raping her in a Colorado hotel room. Bryant said the sex was consensual. The criminal case was dropped after the woman told prosecutors she couldn’t take part in a trial, but she sued Bryant and reached a confidential settlement that bars Wood from talking about the case itself.
What is most interesting in these cases that are considered “he said, she said” is that the women’s personal history is still the overwhelmingly important criteria for witness credibility, while the man’s personal history is not considered as relevant or as important to his credibility as the perpetrator of assault. Ms Jone’s case was particularly violent. You would think that prior history of the accused would be germane. Charles David Bortz was arrested in October 2006 for Battery in Okaloosa County Florida. Dominic Strauss-Kahn is well known as a womanizer and has had at least one woman claim that he sexually assaulted her in the past. One accuser has refiled charges against him.
Does this mean that we’re now back in the day when you have to be the ‘perfect victim’ in order to get fair treatment in a rape case?
Maybe not much has changed after all, despite 30 years of evolving sex crime laws. Lawyers can no longer badger a woman on the stand with questions about what kind of panties she wore or how many times she’d had sex before — questions that were routine in rape trials I covered years ago.
But the personal life of a rape victim is still considered fair game in too many cases, particularly when the issue is whether the sex act was by consent or involved force or threats of violence.
I understand the reluctance of prosecutors in the Strauss-Kahn case to go forward. Their office was stung in May by the unexpected acquittal in a high-profile case of two New York City cops accused of raping a drunken women after helping her into her apartment.
Jurors told the New York Times they didn’t buy the cops’ story that they had done nothing more than “snuggle” with the inebriated woman. But they didn’t feel they could convict on the word of a woman with no DNA evidence and gaps in her liquor-clouded memories.
Yes, that’s the third high profile case. The oh-so-cuddle worthy officers of New York’s finest.
A jury acquitted two New York police officers on Thursday of charges that they raped a drunken woman after helping her into her apartment while on patrol.
The woman had described snippets of a harrowing night in which the officers, called to help her because she was extremely intoxicated, instead abused her. They insisted no rape occurred, with one allowing only that he snuggled with her while she wore nothing but a bra.
Does this also mean that women should be prepared to use the video camera portion of their phones at all times so they have the perfect out cry witness? We have three high profile cases where we see nearly three identical outcomes based on the old idea of she asked for it because she …
Just when you think we’ve solved an issue with the way society treats women, we take some giant leaps backwards again. It’s beyond depressing. This will have what I believe is an intended result of discouraging rape victims of seeking justice against their attackers. Yup, we all ask for it. Beware ladies.
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
dakinikat
ecocatwoman
jjlo
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Recent Comments