Michael Dell’s ambitious $67 billion plan to take over storage giant EMC may face a big tax burden that could complicate or derail the deal entirely.
Dell insiders are worried the company could end up being on the hook for a tax bill of up to $9 billion following a regulatory review, sources familiar with the matter told Re/code. The worries stem from Dell’s unusual proposal to use a new type of stock share to help pay for the acquisition. Their concerns are also rooted in EMC’s wildly successful investment in the software company VMware, the value of which has risen by tens of billions of dollars since EMC acquired it in 2003.
The combination of factors has some Dell execs concerned, sources said, that certain key aspects of the deal may not qualify for the sort of tax treatment they consider essential for the transaction — the biggest tech acquisition ever proposed — to succeed.
That remarkable intimacy had survived Marty’s bout with cancer in law school, and RBG’s two diagnoses, a decade apart. Cancer had left them alone long enough to be together for the nearly sixty years they had been best friends. But it came back. In 2010, doctors said Marty had metastatic cancer.
The recent merger talks between New York-based Pfizer and Dublin-based Allergan are the latest signal that America’s approach to taxing international profits is luring U.S. companies to relocate abroad, or merge with foreign companies. Unfortunately, the situation is about to get significantly worse.
The U.S. corporate tax rate, 35%, is the highest in the industrialized world. That’s a significant blow to America’s competitiveness. And many countries combine lower corporate rates with other incentives to lure companies to their shores.
One such incentive is known as the “innovation box,” under which income earned from a company’s intellectual property (such as patents) is taxed at a lower rate—typically between 5% and 15%. Several countries have enacted innovation boxes (aka patent boxes), including the United Kingdom, France, China, Spain, the Netherlands, Italy and Belgium. ...
[T]he U.S. Congress needs to create an innovation box in this country.
It’s been more than two years since allegations surfaced that the Internal Revenue Service targeted tea party groups seeking tax-exempt status with extra scrutiny. Now the Justice Department has closed the case without any criminal charges. But the controversy seems unlikely to end anytime soon.
And that’s too bad, because the problem at the heart of the IRS’ effort – the widespread abuse of tax-exempt status – hasn’t gone away.
How can international disputes be resolved in the courtroom rather than on the battlefield? All Rise brings this complex question into sharp and personalized focus through the journeys of seven passionate students of law from India, Israel, Jamaica, Palestine, Russia, Singapore, and Uganda to compete in the world championships in Washington, DC, of the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition (the “Jessup”), the world’s largest simulated court competition. The “court” is the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”), the judicial arm of the United Nations. Against this backdrop, this moving film lays bare the struggles, triumphs and transformations they experience alone and together.
In November of 2014, hundreds of advanced tax agreement (ATAs) issued by Luxembourg’s Administration des Contributions Directes (Luxembourg’s Inland Revenue, or LACD) to multinational corporate taxpayers (MNCs) were made public. Using an original dataset generated from a hand-coded sample of 172 leaked documents, the Article explores LACD administrative practices in issuing ATAs. The analysis demonstrates how a jurisdiction can be made a tax-haven by administrative practices, rather than by state law. LACD cannot be reasonably viewed – as some have suggested in LACD’s defense – a passive player in MNCs’ tax avoidance schemes. Rather, LACD is best described as a manufacturer of tax arbitrage opportunities. Specifically, even when the tax laws of the jurisdictions of residence (i.e., investors) and source (i.e., investment) are harmonized, LACD produced regulatory instruments that were intended to artificially create legal differences between the tax laws of the source and residence jurisdictions. MNCs could then exploit the manufactured tax differences to their advantage. LACD collected a fee that was functionally linked to the amount of taxes avoided by MNCs in the other jurisdictions.
Seven former IRS Commissioners have written this joint letter to the leaders of Congress’s appropriations committees urging them to reconsider proposed cuts in the IRS's budget:
The appropriations reductions for the IRS over the last five years total $1.2 billion, more than a 17% cut from the IRS appropriation for 2010. None of us ever experienced, nor are we aware of, any IRS appropriations reductions of this magnitude over such a prolonged period of time.
Contrary to common expectations, legal enforcement may increase subsequent corporate misbehavior. Using Internal Revenue Service and financial statement data, we find that corporations gradually increase their tax aggressiveness for a few years following an audit and then reduce it sharply. We show that this U-shaped impact is consistent with strategic responses on the part of firms and with Bayesian updating of audit risk. This adverse effect on corporate behavior calls for a reexamination of both the theory and policy of legal enforcement.
This paper explores the rise of the fiscal state in the early modern period and its impact on legal capacity. To measure legal capacity, we establish that witchcraft trials were more likely to take place where the central state had weak legal institutions. Combining data on the geographic distribution of witchcraft trials with unique panel data on tax receipts across 21 French regions, we nd that the rise of the tax state can account for much of the decline in witch trials during this period. Further historical evidence supports our hypothesis that higher taxes led to better legal institutions.
Republican presidential candidates are competing to propose dramatic changes to tax policy that go well beyond the party’s previous platforms and all but ensure the issue will play a central role in the general election.
Driven by a desire to stand out in a crowded field and spark economic growth, the GOP contenders no longer just say they want to lower rates and expand the tax base. Their new ideas, once the province of right-leaning think tanks, make previous Republican plans look timid.
One well established feature of tax law is that, oftentimes, substance prevails over form. In other words, the substance of a transaction will determine the transaction’s tax consequences. For instance, tax consequences will not depend solely on the label that a taxpayer assigns to a given transaction. Instead, the IRS can examine the transaction’s economic features to more accurately characterize it for tax purposes.
Prerequisite: The Economics Institute is carefully designed for those who possess little or no previous formal economics education. It covers basic price theory, with emphasis on the allocative effects of alternative property rights regimes, transaction cost economics, and the application of basic economic theory to a variety of legal issues. As such, there is no prerequisite for this Institute.
Sign the petition to Impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen for:
Failing to comply with a subpoena for evidence resulting in the destruction of 24,000 Lois Lerner emails.
Failing to testify truthfully and providing false and misleading information to the Congress.
Failing to notify Congress that key evidence had gone missing.
John Koskinen has done everything in his power to protect the IRS from its outrageous targeting scandal. Now, the Obama Justice Department has announced it will not press charges. So, it's time for Congress finally to stand up for the American people.
House Republicans have introduced a resolution to impeach Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen, about which, a simple thought — it’s about damn time. ...
Remember, it was the IRS that was used as a political weapon to target citizens who were deemed opponents of this Administration. My organization and many affiliated with it have been on the receiving end of this political weapon and I would not wish it upon any American--including my worst political adversaries.
Not surprisingly, it was announced last month that the Obama Justice Department would not press charges against the person at the center of this scandal – former IRS Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner. So, just when will the American people receive justice?
A start would be to impeach and convict the man who continued the cover-up and denied justice for the American people, and I truly give House Republicans credit for seeming to understand this. Will Congress step up and do something meaningful to defend the American people? Help make your voice heard by adding your voice to the national petition at ImpeachJohn.com.
Our investigation into law school admissions practices and trends has sent shock waves through the legal profession. Some law school deans remain in denial, but more (at least privately) want a minority of law schools to stop damaging legal education’s reputation. With no united front among law schools, influential members of Congress waiting to pounce, and the ABA primed to act, it seems the bets some schools made on regulatory inaction were misplaced.
One reason these bets may prove lethal is that law schools charge higher prices to those who are more likely to struggle.
This is one particularly egregious artifact of the U.S. News rankings methodology, which affects how law schools allocate scholarship money. Scholarships are predominately provided in exchange for relatively higher LSAT scores and, to a lesser extent, GPAs. While these resources decisions have always been questionable, they become even more ethically dubious as price discrimination shifts even more dramatically towards discounting tuition for those most likely to complete school, pass the bar, and obtain a legal job.
This Article proceeds as follows. In Part II, I review the Affordable Care Act and income-driven student loan repayment, describing how each program operates as a substitute for direct public spending. In Part III, I briefly sketch out some of the reasons for high and growing government budgets, since the political ceiling on the size of government is a key motivator for policymakers to take advantage of quasi-public spending. Part IV discusses the structure of quasi-public spending in more detail and contrasts it with some similar forms of government intervention. Part V examines in detail the unique features of quasipublic spending as compared to direct public spending. Here I focus in particular on the fact that much of the spending is off-budget, and also on the fact that a quasi-public spending program is likely to be complex. While both of these features have given some commentators pause, I provide a qualified defense of each. In Part VI, I use the analysis in the earlier Parts to derive a framework for helping policymakers to determine whether quasi-public spending is feasible and reasonable. Because of its particular features, quasipublic spending will not be suitable to all settings, even where policymakers might have worthwhile goals. Part VII applies that framework preliminarily to several other policy areas. Part VIII concludes.
U.S. international tax policy is at a crossroads, say those who urge the United States to adopt what common parlance would call a territorial system. They argue that one of the two ways forward they identify – trying to fortify the current U.S. system – would lead to ever-costlier outlier status for our tax system, and ever-declining competitiveness for U.S. multinationals. They therefore urge U.S. policymakers to embrace what they identify as the other way forward: conforming to global norms by adopting a territorial system.
Among government agencies, the IRS likely has the surest legal claim to the most information about the most Americans: their hobbies, religious affiliations, reading activities, travel, and medical information are all potentially tax relevant. Privacy scholars have studied the arrival of Big Data, the internet-of-things, and the cooperation of private companies with the government in surveillance, but neither privacy nor tax scholars have considered how these technological advances should impact the U.S. tax system. As government agencies and private companies increasingly pursue what has been described as the “growing gush of data,” the use of these technologies in tax administration will become increasingly important to consider.
In this Article I discuss the impact on legal education of a recent study conducted at Princeton University and UCLA, which compared the levels of comprehension and retention of class lectures by those students who handwrote their class notes with those students who typed their notes onto their laptops. The study involved three separate experiments. In each test, the subjects using laptops had no access to the Internet, and were only permitted to use their laptops for taking class notes. Thus all possible laptop distractions were eliminated. In all three experiments, those students who handwrote their notes outperformed their counterparts who typed their notes on assessments administered between 30 minutes and one week after the lectures.
This study thus raises another chapter in the continuing debate regarding whether students should be permitted to use their laptops in class. Prior to the Princeton/UCLA study, the debate primarily centered around the distractive effects which laptops had on both laptop users who were engaged in activities unrelated to what was being discussed in class, and on their classmates who were sitting nearby and were distracted by the visuals and sounds emanating from the laptops. Such distractions included surfing the Internet, playing video games, and emailing others in the class.
The Price We Pay is inspired by Brigitte Alepin’s book La Crise fiscale qui vient[Pay Your Fair Share of Taxes...Like We Do]. Director Harold Crooks (who co-directed Surviving Progress with Mathieu Roy) blows the lid off the dirty world of corporate malfeasance with this incendiary documentary about the dark history and dire present-day reality of big-business tax avoidance, which has seen multinationals depriving governments of trillions of dollars in tax revenues by harboring profits in offshore havens. Tax havens, originally created by London bankers in the 50s, today put over half the world’s stock of money beyond reach of public treasuries.
Nation states are being reshaped by this offshoring of the world’s wealth. Tax avoidance by big corporations and the wealthy – citizens of nowhere for tax purposes – is paving the way to historic levels of inequality and placing the tax burden on the middle class and the poor. Crusading journalists, tax justice campaigners and former finance and technology industry insiders speak frankly about the accelerating trends that are carrying the Western world to an unsustainable future.
The one reliable longitudinal study that has been conducted does not support the view of lawyers as miserable and debt-ridden. The After the JD study followed a representative cohort of law school graduates from the class of 2000 and found that the vast majority were satisfied with their decisions to become lawyers. Debt load had no effect on career satisfaction, and nearly half of the lawyers in the cohort paid off all of their debt by 2012.
Of course, the class of 2000 graduated into a better economy and paid less tuition than more recent classes. Nevertheless, while more rigorous longitudinal research is needed, the recession appears to have not impeded attorneys' long-term prospects.
The State Bar of Texas conducts an income survey of its nearly 100,000 members. The most recent survey was conducted in 2013 and provides median incomes for full-time lawyers by the number of years they have been licensed. The median income for lawyers in private practice who have been licensed for two years or less is $69,238. This figure rises to $99,152 for lawyers licensed for three to six years.
International tax law is rarely discussed amongst public international lawyers. Tax policy is highly technical and perceived as one of the last bastions of Westphalian sovereignty. Cross-border tax cooperation is difficult, as it is inevitably distributional: tax revenues, the “lifeblood of the state,” are split among countries. With origins in work undertaken by the League of Nations in the 1920s, international tax law is centered on a network of more than 3,800 bilateral tax treaties. Little progress had been made towards a multilateral tax regime, until recently.
Call for Papers: The 12th International Conference on Tax Administration at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, Coogee, Sydney on 31st March & 1st April 2016. The theme of the conference will be Global trends and developments in tax administration service delivery. Those interested in presenting a paper at this conference are encouraged to submit a proposal that accords with this theme (for example, digitalisation, simplification, benchmarking, alternative tax dispute resolution, citizen-focused tax administration, fostering voluntary compliance, tax administrative responses to BEPS, etc).
Your proposal should include the following details:
Given the outrage that Republicans have expressed about the “targetting” of the Tea Party by the IRS, you would think that they would be slow to advocate IRS political targetting. Apparently it is more a matter of who’s ox is being gored.
When the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called for Ben Carson to step out of the Presidential race, he countered by demanding that the IRS immediately revoke its exemption. Then this week Reince Priebus, Chair of the Republican National Committee, wrote to Commissioner Koskinen about a grave matter concerning the Clinton Health Access Initiative. ...
It has become an article of faith in some circles that the delays and intrusive inquiries involving Tea Party exemption application was politically motivated. The main evidence of that motivation is Democratic lawmakers complaining about dark money organizations and Lois Lerner and President Obama bemoaning the Citizens United decision. Everybody agrees that the IRS shouldn’t oughta have targetted the Tea Party, whether it did or not. So why should the IRS now target the Clintons? And launching an audit in response to a clerical error would clearly be political targetting.
Over the past few years, a revolutionary new tax structure, known as the Up-C, has been increasingly utilized, particularly in instances where an LLC is being taken public. In such an Up-C IPO, a newly formed C corporation is placed on top of the existing LLC, which continues to operate the business. Shares of the C corporation are sold to new investors, and the proceeds are used by the C corporation to buy an interest in the LLC. Meanwhile, the original owners of the LLC (typically, founders and private investment funds) retain their interests in the LLC, while receiving exchange rights that allow them to swap their LLC interests for equivalent-value shares of the C corporation. In addition, the original owners often receive the benefit of tax receivables agreements (TRAs), which provide that the owners will receive a specified percentage (usually 85 percent) of the tax benefits to the C corporation resulting from future exchanges. In combination, these features seem to provide a near-nirvana of tax efficiency. It is therefore unsurprising that the use of Up-Cs is growing at an exponential rate.
Today, many working parents are caught in a “childcare squeeze”: while they require two incomes just to make ends meet, they end up spending a striking-ly large percentage of their income on childcare so that they can work outside the home. Worse still, some parents find themselves “squeezed out” of the market entirely, unable to earn the additional income their families require because they cannot find jobs that pay enough to offset soaring childcare ex-penses. This Article argues that the tax laws have played an important role in aggravating these hardships. Currently, the Internal Revenue Code treats the childcare costs incurred by working parents as personal expenses, subject to various dollar limitations, percentage limits, and phaseouts. Once these limitations are applied, working parents will receive tax relief for only a small fraction of the childcare costs they actually incur.
Pfizer told investors it had a 25.5% global tax rate in 2014. The company could have cut that rate to 7.5% if it reported its foreign earnings the way most U.S. corporations do.
The pharmaceutical company, which is exploring a merger with Allergan that could put the combined company’s legal address outside the U.S., has been complaining that the U.S. tax system hobbles its ability to compete globally. But Pfizer’s accounting methods raise its reported tax rate, without increasing the actual taxes the company pays. More than two-thirds of the company’s 2014 tax expense—$2.2 billion out of $3.1 billion—was money the company will actually pay only if and when it chooses to repatriate foreign profits.
“It gives a distorted picture of how much tax they’re paying,” said Marty Sullivan, chief economist at Tax Analysts, the nonprofit publisher of Tax Notes. “Their tax situation is one of the most advantageous of any major U.S. corporation.” ...
Pfizer’s case shows how the effective tax rates reported to investors can be of limited use in analyzing what a company actually pays to governments. It also complicates the company’s claim that it is suffering under the U.S. tax system. ...
Microsoft and the Internal Revenue Service sparred in court Friday over the agency’s power to investigate taxpayers.
Microsoft, seeking a court order to overturn a portion of an IRS probe into its books, says the tax agency’s reliance on outside lawyers in the investigation sets a dangerous precedent for taxpayer confidentiality, and could embolden the agency to use powers Congress never intended to it have.
The government’s lawyers counter that a ruling in favor of Microsoft may curtail the IRS’s ability to bring in outside experts to help make sense of complex tax matters, sabotaging the system the government relies on to make sure companies pay the appropriate amount of tax. ...
The IRS issues different types of guidance to taxpayers, and the extent to which taxpayers can rely on IRS guidance depends on the form in which it was offered. For instance, taxpayers generally cannot rely on oral advice provided over the phone but can rely on more formal types of advice. The current state of the law harms unsophisticated taxpayers who disproportionately obtain informal advice -- the least reliable type of IRS guidance.
Existing literature lacks a thorough discussion of why, as a policy matter, we allow taxpayers to rely on some forms of IRS guidance more than others. This Article fills that gap by suggesting and critically evaluating potential justifications for this practice.
Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate Vik Edwin Stoll as a Judge to the United States Tax Court.
Vik has demonstrated unwavering integrity and dedication throughout his career, said President Obama. I am proud to nominate him to serve on the United States Tax Court.
Vik Edwin Stoll, Nominee for Judge, United States Tax Court Vik Edwin Stoll is the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer and Director of Collections for Jackson County, Missouri, positions he has held since 2012 and 2014, respectively. Mr. Stoll also served previously as Jackson County’s Director of Collections from 2009 to 2012. From 1998 to 2009, Mr. Stoll was a Partner at Morrison & Hecker LLP, later known as Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, and he was a member of Hillix, Brewer, Hoffhaus, Whittaker & Wright LLC from 1990 to 1998.
Edward Bell, the new president and managing partner of the embattled Charleston School of Law, made it clear that he’s not afraid to answer tough questions about the school’s future. ...
In response to a student who asked about not being able to find a employment after graduating, Bell said, “We’re going to help you find a job. You can’t find a job, you call me. ... You should know when you come to this law school, you can find a job. I will get on the phone. I will talk to people. If you’ve done a good job in your classwork and you have got skills, you’ll get a job. One day, and it won’t be long in the near future, if you go to the Charleston School of Law, they will be begging you to come work for them. This is going to be the top-tiered school in this area.” ...
The two-year program will train recent USC graduates in cutting-edge legal technologies, project management, and delivery processes to provide high-quality, efficient legal services to corporate legal departments and top law firms. Those selected for the residency program each year will receive rigorous classroom instruction provided by senior attorneys, serve in a supervisory capacity for client engagements, and work directly with clients to deliver legal services in key emerging legal areas including: litigation management, e-discovery, cyber security, contract management, patent licensing, IP management and immigration law. Residents will earn salaries and benefits equivalent to judicial clerkships.
4. Failing to prosecute anyone at the IRS for the 501(c)(4) scandal. That the IRS put its massive bureaucratic thumb on the scales against conservative activist groups is one of the great political scandals in recent U.S. history. When the news first broke, President Obama properly declared that he “will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that it has into all of our lives.” But tolerate it his administration did.
[T]his is the best of Richard’s books, situating the changes facing the legal profession in both the long history of professions generally and the parallel challenges facing other fields such as medicine, accountancy, architecture, journalists, clergy and teaching.
Richard and Daniel begin by describing the implicit “Grand Bargain” between the professions and society, whereby the professions retained many of the protections (including, perhaps most importantly self-regulation) of the medieval guilds. Professions can define the appropriate nature of their service, the credentials needed to offer it, and enjoy reasonably high prestige and income. In exchange, professionals are expected to maintain their expertise, act honestly and in good faith, and put the interests of clients ahead of their own.
How’s Life? describes the essential ingredients that shape people’s well-being in OECD and partner countries. It includes a wide variety of statistics, capturing both material well-being (such as income, jobs and housing) and the broader quality of people’s lives (such as their health, education, work-life balance, environment, social connections, civic engagement, subjective well-being and safety). The report documents the latest evidence on well-being, as well as changes over time, and the distribution of well-being outcomes among different groups of the population.
This third edition of How’s Life? develops our understanding of well-being in new ways. There is a special focus on child well-being, which finds that not all children are getting a good start in life, and those living in less affluent families face more risks to their well-being. The report introduces new measures to capture some of the natural, human, social and economic resources that play a role in supporting well-being over time. A chapter on volunteering suggests that volunteer work can create a virtuous circle: doing good makes people feel good, and brings a variety of other well-being benefits to both volunteers and to society at large. Finally, the report looks at inequalities in well-being across different regions within countries, demonstrating that where people live can shape their opportunities for living well.
For Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the news on Oct. 23 that the Department of Justice had dropped its investigation of the Internal Revenue Service without pressing charges was unwelcome, if unsurprising. His committee had been electrified by the IRS probe under its previous chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, and tensions over whether the IRS actually targeted conservative groups boiled over in public hearings that many criticized as political sideshows.
But Chaffetz has attempted to usher in a new era for the oversight committee, quietly continuing the IRS investigation while broadening the committee's scope. Chaffetz previewed some "juicy" announcements to look out for from his committee in the coming weeks.
Examiner: You have called for Commissioner John Koskinen to resign. Was there any one particular breaking point where you said, "Koskinen has to go?"
Chaffetz: He had a duly-issued subpoena and despite that subpoena, they destroyed documents. Imagine if you did that to the IRS. They would haul you into jail. And rightfully so. So we're going to hold them accountable.
President Obama stated there is not even a smidgen of corruption at the IRS. False. The IRS pled guilty to releasing names and personal information of the National Organization of Marriage to a gay rights group and was ordered to pay $50,000. We deserve the truth and to know who is accountable for either these deliberate actions, obstruction or gross mismanagement.
The debate over law schools can sometimes feel a bit rote. Critics say they scam students by promising high-paying careers that never materialize. Defenders say that, actually, J.D.s do quite a bit better for themselves on the job market than many of the most harrowing stories would suggest.
So give Noah Feldman some points for creativity. In a recent Bloomberg View column, the Harvard Law professor mounted one of the most straightforward and eloquent defenses of ripping off students I have ever encountered. ...
Nancy Staudt, JD, PhD, dean of the School of Law at Washington University in St. Louis, has been installed as the inaugural Howard and Caroline Cayne Professor of Law. A lecture and a reception to celebrate the occasion were held Oct. 22 in the Bryan Cave Moot Courtroom in Anheuser-Busch Hall.
A nationally renowned scholar in tax, tax policy and empirical legal studies, Staudt previously served as professor of law at the university from 2000-06.
Prior to her return to the university, Staudt served as academic director of the newly established Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy at the University of Southern California. She also was the vice dean for faculty and academic affairs at the USC Gould School of Law and the inaugural holder of the Edward G. Lewis Chair in Law and Public Policy. ...
The House Judiciary Committee and the House itself should approve impeachment charges filed against the head of the Internal Revenue Service, John Koskinen on charges of allegedly giving false testimony in the investigation of IRS harassment of conservative political groups. The Justice Department’s whitewashing of Koskinen and the IRS is outrageous
The department said it found “mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia” but no evidence of crime when Lois Lerner was in charge of the section that granted tax-exempt status. (She retired after invoking her privilege against self-incrimination.)
Harassment (through delay and offensive questioning) of conservative applicants before the 2012 elections has been fully documented. Ditto the waving through of applications from liberals, and the “Be On the Lookout” instruction to target groups using certain phrases like “Tea Party,” and the destruction of email backup tapes after they were subpoenaed, and a failure to look for relevant emails — which an inspector general soon found. Koskinen was not in charge while Lerner was active, but was during the investigation by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, whose chairman, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), filed charges on behalf of himself and committee Republicans.
The Justice Department has been inexcusably partisan and, therefore, not trustworthy by the American people.
Law schools are so desperate to fill classrooms that they are drastically lowering standards, according to a recent report by the nonprofit group Law School Transparency. The report says that many students may only pass the bar after numerous attempts—if at all. So America may soon suffer a plague of dumb lawyers who have trouble spelling their own names. Purry Mason. Ben Matchlock. Clarice D’Arrow. That sort of thing.
FiveThirtyEight has a great post noting that "there’s a good chance you scream at your television a lot when coaches sheepishly kick or punt instead of going for it on fourth down. This is particularly true in the 'dead zone' between roughly the 25- and 40-yard lines, where punts accomplish little and field goals are supposedly too long to be good gambles." David Yellen (Dean, Loyola-Chicago) asks Are Law Schools Punting on 4th and Short? as we face long odds and a dwindling clock:
The analysis offered here is not a Neo-Luddite rage against “the machine”. As with the oft-stated reproach about paranoia, there sometimes really are situations in which people are “out to get you”. In our current situation the threat is not from people but from the convergence of a set of technological innovations that are and will increasingly have an enormous impact on the nature of work, economic and social inequality and the existence of the middle classes that are so vital to the durability of Western democracy. The fact is that developed nations’ economies such as found in Western Europe and the US are facing a convergence of technologies that ostensibly fit into Joseph Schumpeter’s idea of “creative destruction” but with the unfortunate caveat that while we are undeniably experiencing Schumpeter’s “destruction” of a generation of economic and institutional forms, for a very significant portion of our population the emerging conditions involve “destructive destruction” without the “creative” phase of economic rebirth. The forces and technologies pushing us in this direction are relentless and in a globalized market economy with authority dispersed across borders with nations holding varying agendas and policy manifested in unaccountable multilateral institutions we simply lack the ability to intervene and impose limits on what is occurring even if we wanted to.