To raise or not to raise? That is the question when it comes to the minimum wage. The national minimum wage is $7.25, but many states have set their own minimum wages a few dollars higher (see how your state stacks up). A person working at the federal rate would earn about $15,000 a year. When the current rate was set in 2009, a single parent raising a child under the age of 18 would be above the poverty line…though not by much.

According to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), the federal poverty line for a two-person household in 2009 was $14,570. In 2016, the ASPE put the poverty line for a two-person household at $16,240. And while the poverty line has increased, the minimum wage has not, prompting many people to push for a raise in the minimum wage.

But it’s not that simple. Many people fight back against the thought of raising the minimum wage. One argument against raising the minimum wage is that it would hurt low-skilled workers. Companies will not want to pay more to employees for the same work they were getting before the rise in the minimum wage. Thus, they will lay off employees to not lose profits. What’s more, they will not hire as many workers either, now that they “cost” more.

Tim Worstall, a Forbes contributor, raised this exact concern when talking about Seattle raising its minimum wage back in 2016. “A rise in the price of something will lead to people purchasing less of that thing,” he said in an article for Forbes. “So a rise in the price of low-skill labor will lead to employers purchasing less of low-skill labor.” A trend, Worstall said, that was confirmed when Seattle raised its minimum wage and saw a decrease in hiring low-wage workers.

History of the Minimum Wage

The first minimum wage was set in 1938. It was introduced under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the Great Depression. The idea of a minimum wage is to protect workers, and having a minimum wage helps the government, too. If people are working and staying above the poverty line, that is less money that the government has to spend on welfare or other government programs to help the poor. When it was first introduced, the minimum wage was $0.25 an hour. In today’s dollars that would be $4.19.

Since its introduction, Congress has raised the minimum wage 22 times. The most recent raise was in 2009 when it increased from $6.55 to $7.25. There are many reasons why the minimum wage gets raised, including inflation and the changing value of the dollar, as well as an increase in productivity.

The Case for Raising the Minimum Wage

One of the strongest cases for raising the minimum wage is the fact that a single parent, working for the minimum wage and raising a child under the age of 18, is living below the poverty line. If the minimum wage was invented to help and protect workers, this is a clear failure.

Another argument for raising the minimum wage would be the positive effect it might have on the economy. According to a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, increasing the minimum wage by $1.75 an hour would result in an increase of $48 billion in household spending. When people have more money, they will spend more money. If a family is living at or below the poverty line, they are less inclined to spend what little money they have on anything but the essentials. Earning even a little more an hour, households would have more to spend on products that they normally would not have purchased.

In addition, raising the minimum wage could help augment the disparity in wages in the U.S. The disparity between the richest one percent and the rest of the country is staggering. Raising the minimum wage has the potential to move almost 900,000 people (out of 45 million) out of poverty, according to the Congressional Budget Office. While this is a small percentage, it is a step in the right direction. Bringing people out of poverty eases tension on the government, as a less impoverished populace means that the government will spend less on welfare and programs.

Peer pressure is another reason to raise the minimum wage. An article in The Economist explains that the U.S. is an outlier when it comes to other countries’s minimum wage rate. Considering the U.S.’ GDP per person ($53,000), the country’s minimum wage should be about $12 per hour. Converted to U.S. dollars, the minimum wages of many other western countries far surpass America’s. Australia, France, Germany, the U.K., and Canada all have higher minimum wages than we do. However, this is not a case of apples to oranges. Living conditions, local economies, taxes, health care, and a slew of other factors play into this as well. 

The Case Against Raising the Minimum Wage

Now let’s address some of the arguments against raising the minimum wage. While the current minimum wage would put a single parent below the poverty line, it would not put a dual-income household below the poverty line. Furthermore, not all living conditions are equal around the country. Many states have minimum wages that are higher than the federal one in order to compensate for higher living costs within those states.

Next, while decreasing the need for welfare paid by the government sounds positive, the money does have to come from somewhere. While the government is not paying as much for welfare, companies now take on that burden of paying people more. The effect of this is two-fold. Companies, in an effort to save money, may lay off workers, thus putting more people on welfare anyway. Companies may also raise the prices of their products, so the consumers will take a hit for the higher paid employees.

Also, companies may slow hiring employees because they now “cost” more. When it comes down to someone getting paid $7.25 an hour or $0.00 an hour, getting paid something is more beneficial than not earning anything at all. These threats are not just hypothetical. Rising minimum wage rates are happening in certain states and the effects are already starting to show.

In January 2017 some states raised their local minimum wages, causing national chains based in those restaurants to start paying their workers more for the same job they were doing before. Wendy’s CEO Bob Wright expects to spend four percent more on employees’ wages. To offset this, Wright had every store cut 31 hours of labor per week and replaced that lost labor with automated kiosks at some locations.

Some critics also argue that raising the minimum wage hurts lower-skilled workers and younger workers. The Pew Research Center published an article claiming that nearly half of all workers who are earning minimum wage are aged 16 to 24. Young members of the workforce who are trying to break their way in will have a harder time.

Companies might be less willing to hire someone with no experience and pay them a higher wage. They will be more willing to hire someone with more experience who they feel will be a better value for this higher price. Of course this then becomes a vicious cycle of young workers not getting hired because they do not have experience and having a harder time finding work because they continue to not get experience. A lower minimum wage might give young workers more opportunities.

What Should the Minimum Wage Be?

If the minimum wage is going to increase, how much should it increase by? There are a variety of numbers that get thrown around when talking about raising the minimum wage. Here is a breakdown of how people arrive at these figures.

Some people argue it should be raised to $21.67. The minimum wage had the highest purchasing power in 1968 when it was $1.60, or roughly $10.55 today when adjusting for inflation. Some studies show that personal income, excluding Social Security, has increased by 100 percent, and thus the minimum wage should be adjusted to fit that standard as well.

Others argue it should be raised to $15. In 2014 and 2015, many major cities put into place economic plans that would gradually increase the minimum wage to $15 by 2017 and 2018. Cities that enacted those plans include New York, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C. 

In 2014, The Economic Policy Institute made the case that the minimum wage should be raised to $10.10, arguing that it should be raised over a three-year period. This amount was determined to ease pressure on Medicaid and other governmental assistance programs. The debate over the minimum wage rages on, and states may adjust their own minimum wages because the federal one is too hard to change right now.

What’s Happening Now?

There has not been much movement at the federal level. Individual states are combating the federal inertia. On January 1, 2017, 19 states raised their minimum wages. The majority of the changes were to adjust for inflation (Missouri, Ohio, and Florida raising their minimum wages by only $0.05 an hour), but some states saw significant increases, like Maine (from $7.50 to $9.00), Washington ($9.47 to $11.00), and Arizona ($8.05 to $10.00). Many states have plans to increase their minimum wages in the coming years as well.

As a candidate, President Donald Trump suggested the minimum wage might be too high. In a debate in November 2015, he said in his opening statement that he would not raise the minimum wage and that wages were “too high.” He had said previously that year in an interview with MSNBC that a higher minimum wage would hurt America. “We can’t have a situation where our labor is so much more expensive than other countries’ that we can no longer win,” Trump said. This may be bad news for Trump supporters, many of whom work at the minimum wage and struggle to get by.

Conclusion

The minimum wage debate is not a new one and it’s not one that will end any time soon. Inflation and the fluctuating value of the dollar will forever throw the minimum wage’s value into question. As it stands, the current minimum wage is too low for many people to live on, but too drastic of an increase could result in far more catastrophic job loss. A delicate hand and a knowledgable course of action will be the best hope going forward. It seems that this issue will not be raised in the current administration any time soon; individual states should (and are) trying to ameliorate the issue on a local scale. If you want to see change, go out and call, mail, email, tweet, or visit your local representatives. They’re the ones who will be able to help the most right now.

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Minimum Wage: Where Are We Going and How Did We Get Here? appeared first on Law Street.

Curtis J. Jackson III, also known as “50 Cent” is, quite ironically, having some problems with money. In July, he filed for bankruptcy. But despite that fact, he has consistently been posting pictures on Instagram and other social media sites that feature him posing with stacks of money. Some even poke fun at his financial situation–in one he arranged the stacks of cash to spell the word “broke.” But in light of those pictures, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Ann M. Nevins is calling him back in to bankruptcy court to explain himself.

Check out some of the pictures in question for yourself:

Bankrupt @50cent has to explain these stacks-of-cash Instagrams to a judge https://t.co/75ucD5txT0 pic.twitter.com/b5HmNF7ov6

— Esquire Magazine (@esquire) February 21, 2016

50 Cent declared bankruptcy. Then posted pictures of himself bathed in money. Big mistake. https://t.co/MChlKmtSUr pic.twitter.com/dqGqpwXXoB — Mashable (@mashable) February 21, 2016

50 cent ordered back into bankruptcy court after flashing cash on Instagram https://t.co/wf5y8VNufS pic.twitter.com/7WC2NvprWH

— Business Insider (@businessinsider) February 20, 2016

A judge thinks 50 Cent might not be bankrupt because of this picture https://t.co/r1MV63v0Gtpic.twitter.com/OnuEf7Wy3g — The Independent (@Independent) February 21, 2016

Based on those photos, Nevins stated at a hearing on Thursday her concerns over the photos, saying: 

I’m concerned about allegations of nondisclosure and a lack of transparency in the case. There’s a purpose of having a bankruptcy process be transparent, and part of that purpose is to inspire confidence in the process.

She also told 50 Cent’s lawyer: “When that process becomes very public, the need for transparency, I believe, is even higher.” 

50 Cent’s finances are so contentious because he owes a significant hunk of cash–$7 million–to his ex-girlfriend Lastonia Leviston over a sex tape dispute. He also owes about $18 million total to a former business partner and to his mortgage lender. Leviston was actually the person who brought the judge’s attention to the posts. The many people to whom 50 Cent owes money also pointed out that he has had a few large performances since declaring bankruptcy, and hasn’t disclosed the amounts he made as a result.

50 Cent’s lawyers claim that all of the rapper’s income has been reported, and that the pictures are just to keep up his public image on social media. But 50 Cent is going to have to explain himself in court–this is just another lesson that what you put on social media can come back to hurt you.   

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 50 Cent’s Instagram Posts Create Questions for Bankruptcy Court appeared first on Law Street.

In 2010, the world banded together in a humanitarian effort to help the people of Haiti by donating to the Red Cross. But five years and nearly $500 million later, the world is left asking where all that money went.

In January 2010, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake devastated Haiti, killing over 230,000 and displacing 1.5 million people from their homes. Many nonprofit organizations participated in the relief effort, but the Red Cross raised the most money with over $488 million in donations worldwide, promising to change the lives of the people affected by the earthquake. Now, Haitians are still fighting an ongoing battle for reliable shelter, food, clean water, and more. In light of several recent revelations about the practices of large nonprofits, many now wonder if the Red Cross is part of an emerging trend of misconduct.

Funds donated to the Red Cross were given with the expectation of creating a better life in Haiti. The Red Cross set goals to build and develop brand new communities for the people of Haiti during its donation campaign. The Red Cross proposed building roughly 700 homes by January 2013, each with finished floors, toilets, showers, and rainwater collection systems. A review of the Red Cross’ efforts shows that these goals do not appear to have come to fruition.

A recent investigation into the Red Cross by Propublica and NPR found unfulfilled promises to build homes, wasted donation funds, unnecessary fundraising, and exaggerated claims of success. The investigation showed that many of the Red Cross’s shortcomings in Haiti were of the charity’s own doing. According to the investigation, a lack of expertise and leadership led to inefficiency and fund mismanagement. For example in 2012, documents revealed that nine of the 30 leadership positions in Haiti, including experts on health and shelter, remained unfilled.

In its progress report, the Red Cross said it “helped 132,000 Haitians to live in safer conditions—ranging from providing temporary homes and rental subsidies to repaired and new homes.” But according Propublica and NPR, the Red Cross has actually built just six permanent houses in Haiti, nowhere near the number of new communities that they planned. The Red Cross cited a lack of land rights for its inability to build more homes, yet other charities facing the same challenges with less funds managed to build approximately 9,000 homes. In an interview with PBS Newshour, NPR Investigative correspondent Laura Sullivan said, “we went to one project that was done by Global Communities and PCI, where we saw more than 300 homes being built. In the project now, they’re building 75 homes that have running water for people.”

Mismanaged funds include unnecessary expenditures like financial perks for non-Haitian officials. For example, a project manager–a position reserved for an expatriate–was given an allowance for housing, vacations, and other expenses for about $140,000 a year. But a senior Haitian engineer–the top local position–received only $42,000 a year. Shelim Dorval, a Haitian administrator who worked for the Red Cross to coordinate travel and housing for expatriate staffers told Propublica:

For each one of those expats, they were having high salaries, staying in a fancy house, and getting vacation trips back to their countries…A lot of money was spent on those people who were not Haitian, who had nothing to do with Haiti. The money was just going back to the United States.

The Red Cross also continued soliciting money from donors well after it had collected enough for its relief plans. In contrast, organizations like Doctors Without Borders stopped fundraising when they received enough money to accomplish their goals. The investigation also revealed that the organization used some of the extra money to erase a $100 million deficit that was unrelated to the Haiti relief project. The Red Cross declined continuous requests from NPR and Propublica to disclose details of how much money went to relief projects, and what the results of each project were.

A Recurrent Trend

This recent report falls in line with many other cases of mega nonprofit organizations involved in questionable practices. The most recent were the charges brought against four well renowned cancer non-profit organizations. Last month, the Federal Trade Commission, along with 58 law enforcement partners from across the country, charged four organizations and their operators with defrauding more than $187 million from donors. One of the charges alleged that the charities used telemarketing calls, direct mail, websites, and other methods to disguise their organizations as legitimate charities only to use the money to help friends and family acquire lucrative jobs, as well as for luxuries like cars and cruises. The organizations were The Cancer Fund of America, Cancer Support Services, The Children’s Cancer Fund of America, and The Breast Cancer Society.

These organizations and many others amass millions of dollars each year from donors trying to help those in need, but instead take advantage of their status. Organizations like Kids Wish Network repeatedly accepted millions of annual donations, of which large sums were given to solicitors rather than to the individuals that the organization was supposed to help. Federal tax filings from the last 10 years show that the Kids Wish Network received $137.9 million in donations, but used $115.9 million of the donations for “fundraising costs.” Put simply, that means paying people or companies to raise money for the organization. The Cancer Fund of America, one of the four charities recently charged with fraud, also received over $86 million from donors and gave $75.4 million to solicitors. The chart below shows the amount of money given to non-profits, and how much they spent on solicitors.

The reality is that many donors still donate to these charities because of name recognition without knowing where their money really ends up. Charity navigator, America’s largest charity evaluator, encourages donors to research and ask questions about a non-profit organization before donating. Questions like whether a non-profit clearly explains its goals, the specific problems it intends to improve, and whether it regularly achieves its objectives are all encouraging steps to finding the right charity. Researching, and questioning organizations like the Red Cross is the next step in holding said organizations accountable for the millions they receive from the people.

Kwame Apea

Kwame Apea is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Kwame at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Red Cross: A Failure in Haiti? appeared first on Law Street.

Lucky enough to have a job? Unlucky enough to have a long or expensive commute? You’re not alone, according to a new Citi study.

The average American spends $10 per day in commuting fees, clocking about 45 minutes a day in commuting time. Want to take a stab at which city boasts the highest daily roundtrip costs? Surprisingly, it’s Los Angeles—commuters shell out an average of $16 per day. New York comes in second place at $14, with Chicago and San Francisco tying for third place at $11 a day.

While people in L.A. spend the most amount of green commuting, New Yorkers spend the most amount of time getting to and from work. How long, exactly? An average of 73 minutes per day. (I myself am a tri-state area commuter who spends about double that amount of time commuting per day, and I feel the need to stress the term “average.” For every person whose commute is a breezy 20 minutes, you can find at least one poor soul who logs three to four hours of commuting time per day.

So why do people subject themselves to these crazy commutes? For some people, money is a driving factor (no pun intended). If they can take home larger salaries, they can justify spending more time and money getting to work.

Other people might actually not mind commuting. (These people have obviously never been in Port Authority during rush hour or experienced genuine hell traffic at the Lincoln Tunnel).

About 72 percent of the women involved in the study said that commuting was the only “me” time they had during the day. Husbands are not within earshot of their wives, and mothers are away from their kids. There is time to read, catch up on favorite podcasts, or swipe on some Maybelline while en route to work. Although, as a friendly PSA to my fellow ladies and other humans who put on makeup while on the train, keep it simple, quick, and scent-free…you’re in a public space, after all.

For some people, however, commuting negatively affects their everyday attitudes pretty significantly. They report feelings of anxiety and genuine dissatisfaction with their lives.

People who use public transportation reported higher levels of anxiety compared to people who commuted privately (i.e. drove their own cars).

The most recent study showed that 49 percent of those polled who do not ride their bikes to work would do so if their town/city offered a bike-share program, especially in Los Angeles and Chicago. New York City has had its Citi-sponsored bike-sharing initiative running since 2013, with plans to launch 1,000 newer & slimmer Olympic-style bikes this month.

Commuting might stink both literally and metaphorically at times, but what’s the alternative? Not everyone can work from home. Only the strong can commute. We schlep, we drive, we work, we ride NJ Transit. Then we wake up and do it all over again.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are You Schlepping to Work in This City With the Longest Commute? appeared first on Law Street.

Starting in late April 2015, the Taliban launched its annual Spring offensive in Afghanistan. Since that time, the government has fought back and launched its own counteroffensive, which has continued throughout the month of May and into June. After more than a decade and major American military intervention, the Taliban remains active and strong within Afghanistan and neighboring regions. Read on to learn about the group’s origins, the impact of the American war, and the Taliban’s role in Afghanistan’s future.

The Origins of the Taliban

As the oft-told story goes, the Taliban emerged as one of the many competing groups among the Mujahideen fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the late 1970s through 1980s. The group and many others that would make up the Mujahideen were supplied, equipped, and financed in part by large contributions from the United States and Pakistan, which shares a close tribal relation to the Taliban.

The group came to prominence beginning in 1994, succeeding the ouster of Soviet forces. Following the scramble for control, the Taliban, a predominantly Pashtun group, began taking over large swaths of territory. The motivation behind the group centered on a strict interpretation of Sharia law and Sunni Islam. In 1995 they captured their first province, Herat, bordering Iran. By 1998 they had conquered 90 percent of the entire country and were effectively in charge.  The video below details the origins of the Taliban.

Help From Abroad

While the Taliban enjoyed a seemingly meteoric rise from obscure Mujahideen group to the rulers of an entire country, it was not without substantial help–inadvertent or overt–from outside sources. This assistance begins with the United States.

As touched on briefly, the U.S. initially started supporting the Taliban and similar groups in the 1980s in an effort to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. This assistance was far from benign, in fact several Mujahideen members actually visited the White House and met with then-President Ronald Reagan. The relationship continued openly until as late as 1997, when members of the Taliban came to Texas to discuss building an oil pipeline in Afghanistan with an American oil company. This even while the Taliban had been suspected of hiding Osama Bin Laden as early as 1996.

Even after the war in Afghanistan started and dragged on, the U.S. was still allegedly funding the Taliban inadvertently. Up to a billion dollars a year in funding ear-marked for the Afghan government, was believed to be funneled directly to the Taliban.

While the United States has directly and indirectly funded the Taliban, Saudi Arabia has been more direct. The Taliban themselves are widely suspected of emerging from holy seminaries paid for by the Saudis, which cultivated the ideals of strict Sunni Islam. However, their support has not stopped there.

Along with other gulf countries, including the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, Saudi Arabia remains the largest funder of terrorist groups, including the Taliban. These funds are not usually given out directly. Instead, they are channeled through a false corporation that may request support to build more schools, for example. The Taliban and other groups can also raise money from these countries through kidnappings and extortion.

However, the Taliban’s strongest supporter is likely Pakistan, which shares the closest kinship bonds with members of the Taliban. The Pashtun is a tribe whose members live in an area that straddles the northern borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Many of the early members were also educated in Pakistani schools known as Madrassas.

Pakistan’s relationship with the Taliban did not end there. Like the U.S., Pakistan funded the Taliban in their efforts against the Soviets in the 1980s; however, the Pakistanis’ efforts continued after the Americans left, as Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence agency (ISI) continued to train members of the Taliban throughout the 1990s up until the American invasion in 2001.

In 2007, after being driven out of Afghanistan, the Taliban set up an organization in Waziristan, Pakistan and proclaimed itself an Islamic state. From this base the Taliban, which is still being supported by aspects of Pakistan’s ISI, has launched numerous attacks, assassinations, and kidnappings into Afghanistan.

The U.S. War in Afghanistan

Despite the Taliban coming to power essentially as a result of fighting one superpower, this did not prevent the other from going after them either. Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, then-President George W. Bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum to either hand over Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden or be attacked. The Taliban refused and U.S. forces were in the country in less than a month. Less than two months after that, the Taliban was defeated and pushed out of Afghanistan. Despite this victory, both Bin Laden and the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, were able to escape to Pakistan.

Following the overthrow of the Taliban, the focus of the U.S. and its allies shifted to nationbuilding and keeping the remnants of the Taliban at bay. The Taliban however, would not be so quickly dismissed and began a resurgence starting in 2005. The Taliban traded in their old tactics of facing the U.S. in conventional battles for guerilla tactics–particularly suicide bombs–which had been effective in Iraq. The group also resorted to the opium trade for funding. Afghanistan would eventually reach a point where it was supplying 90 percent of the world’s opium.

The renewed and increased violence led to another major policy shift: the surge. The surge was a large additional deployment of U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Newly appointed general Stanley McChrystal requested the troop increase out of fear that at current levels the war may be lost outright. Following this in 2010, Afghan President Hamid Karzai began to publicly float the idea of meeting with Taliban leaders for the first time. While the U.S. initially condemned his actions, by the following year and in the aftermath of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, the Obama Administration announced it was open to talks.

Along with attempts at negotiating with the Taliban, the U.S. and its allies also began shifting greater responsibility and power to their Afghan counterparts. The U.S. and NATO also planned to pull out all troops by the end of 2014. However, following continued violence, uncertain safety situations, and attacks on NATO troops by allied Afghan soldiers, NATO agreed to keep as many as 13,000 soldiers in the country as part of a new bilateral security agreement signed by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. The war officially concluded in 2014, making it the longest war in American history.  The video below details the latest war in Afghanistan.

The Future of the Taliban in Afghanistan

So what is the Taliban’s position today? While as of 2014 they maintained direct control of only four of the 373 districts in the country, their reach is much greater. For example, in a 2013 assessment by Afghan security forces, 40 percent of the country was considered to be at a raised or high danger level. Furthermore, while Pakistan has paid lip service, the Taliban still have a strong base in the neighboring country. The group has also benefited from record poppy harvests and other illegal financing operations such as mining.

Partners in power?

Negotiations of varying degrees have been attempted beginning as early as 2010. President Ashraf Ghani seems especially eager to bring the Taliban to the table, as his first two official visits were to Pakistan where the Taliban is strong and China, who has sponsored such talks. The two sides finally met in May and while nothing was agreed upon, just meeting was a step in a positive direction. However, for more meaningful action to be taken it may require removing all foreign fighters from Afghanistan as the Taliban has articulated.  The video below presents a desire by the Afghan president to talk with the Taliban.

The question now is how likely the Taliban is to actually come to the negotiating table in a meaningful way? The Taliban currently have an entrenched position and are reaping the windfall from record opium sales. It is very possible that the group will simply wait out the withdrawal of all foreign combat troops and then reignite the conflict with a government that has been repeatedly unable to answer to the task.

Conclusion

You reap what you sow. This is an old saying that essentially means your actions will have consequences, whether good or bad. For the United States, it used the Mujahideen in its fight against the Soviets in the 1980s then left them to themselves for much of the next two decades; however, 9/11 revealed what can happen as a result of benign neglect.

While the attacks were not orchestrated by Afghanistan, they were planned by the insidious leader of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, who was allowed to live in Afghanistan by the Taliban and who helped them gain more territory in the country.

Since that fateful day the U.S., its allies, and many average Afghanis have fought with the consequences of earlier decisions. This process has now seemingly come full circle, as the U.S. and its regional partners are advocating for talks with the Taliban and suggesting a role for them in the government. The Taliban, for their part, seemed hesitant to commit and more likely to wait out the complete withdrawal of foreign forces before striking again at what is viewed as a weak government.

Resources

BBC: Who Are the Taliban?

Nazareth College: The History of the Taliban

Global Research: Grisly Peshawar Slaughter-Who Created the Taliban? Who Still Funds Them?

Guardian: WikiLeaks Cables Portray Saudi Arabia as a Cash Machine for Terrorists

Shave Magazine: Pakistan and Taliban: It’s Complicated

Council on Foreign Relations: U.S. War in Afghanistan

Brookings Institution: Blood and Hope in Afghanistan

Council on Foreign Relations: The Taliban in Afghanistan

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Resurgent Taliban Complicates Life in Afghanistan appeared first on Law Street.

I’ve lived in Washington, DC for almost five years, and I’ve gotten used to pretty much any kind of disruption to my day because of security concerns. Whether it’s having to walk all the way around the White House complex due to it being shut down for security reasons, or not being able to cross the street because President Obama’s motorcade is coming through, minor interruptions to my day have become the norm. But last month, a man took even the most jaded DC residents, and the country, by surprise when he landed a gyrocopter in front of the U.S. Capitol Building. That man, Doug Hughes, was just indicted on six counts as a result of his misadventures, and could face a sentence of more than nine years in prison if found guilty.

Hughes is 61 and works as a mailman in Ruskin, Florida. He drove the gyrocopter up to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, then flew it to DC and landed it on the Capitol lawn. Hughes was completely aware that what he was doing was against the law; in fact, breaking the law was sort of the point, as it would allow him to attract attention and publicity for his cause. He was trying to deliver 535 letters (one for each member of Congress) to the Capitol building, protesting the power that big money plays in Washington politics. Hughes’ contraption looked like this:

#Gyrocopter pilot due in court today pic.twitter.com/aZOn3exMrb

— 10 News (@WTSP10News) May 21, 2015

The charges against Hughes include two felonies and four misdemeanors. One issue is that he didn’t have any sort of license to operate his “aircraft”–the felony charges are to that effect. The misdemeanor charges include three counts of violating national defense airspace, and for mislabeling his gyrocopter as a mail-delivery vehicle. Regardless of the jail time that Hughes is probably going to serve, he’s received quite a bit of attention for his message as a result of the stunt. When he came back to DC for his hearing, he was met by plenty of supporters. He appeared in the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse just a few blocks away from where he landed his gyrocopter this Spring, and pleaded not guilty to the charges. He doesn’t contest that he flew the gyrocopter onto the Capitol lawn, just that he caused no damage when he did so.

#Gyrocopter pilot: “I’ll never do anything like this again, but I would do it exactly the way that I did.”@wusa9 pic.twitter.com/0RPHwliqaZ

— Andrea McCarren (@AndreaMcCarren) May 21, 2015

He also pledged to continue his fight against the influence of money in politics, and to continue to educate voters. Hughes stated:

Over time, the Congress, our Congress, has rewritten the rules to define an open marriage: They’re in bed with lobbyists, special interests, Wall Street and big banks. We are not asking, we are demanding that our government honor the vows of fidelity implicit in the Constitution…As long as I am free, I am going to keep introducing voters to solutions to the problems of corruption that the vast majority of voters recognize and oppose.

While Hughes certainly seems passionate about his cause, and did receive attention for the gyrocopter stunt, violating multiple laws really isn’t a great way to make a compelling argument for a cause, no matter how worthy the it is. Unfortunately for Hughes his actions, and the legal issues he’s going to have moving forward, probably won’t do much to advance his cause in the end.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Man Who Landed Gyrocopter Near Capitol Building Indicted appeared first on Law Street.

In the immortal words of the one and only Beyonce Knowles “Who run the world? Girls!” But that anthem makes me wonder–if that’s the case, why in the U.S. are there no female faces on the actual thing that makes our world go round–our money? The nonprofit “Women on 20s” hopes to change that with its campaign aiming to get a famous female face on the twenty-dollar bill by 2020. The date would celebrate the 100th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment that granted women the right to vote.

One of these 4 women could replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. #WomenOn20s @avianneflu http://t.co/6zWlCdNX0V pic.twitter.com/brFmW1EZ7i

— Paul Shin (@PaulHBShin) April 8, 2015

“Women on 20s” started this portion of its advocacy by allowing voters to pick from 15 candidates, all of whom have made significant strides in history in her own right, and now it’s down to the final four. The final contenders include First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, civil rights activist Rosa Parks, abolitionist Harriet Tubman, and Cherokee Nation leader Wilma Mankiller.

The group’s executive director Susan Ades Stone told ABC News:

In the past 48 hours since the final round started, we’ve had 60,000 people cast votes already. Though all these women and many more deserve to be honored, the winner will be a symbol of what we hope are greater things to come.

But why the 20-dollar bill? Well according to the group’s website, continuing to immortalize Andrew Jackson on our money is blatantly disrespectful to American Indians and also kind of ironic.

While our nation’s seventh president was celebrated for founding the Democratic party, he also signed, supported, and enforced the Indian Removal Act of 1830, commonly known as the “Trail of Tears.” This mass relocation of American Indians off their “resource-rich land” to provide space for white European settlers resulted in the deaths of thousands from exposure, disease and starvation. Wilma Mankiller, who was the first elected female chief of a Native nation in modern times, could very well be the perfect American Indian-positive revamp for the somewhat tainted bill.

As for irony, according to the campaign’s site Jackson was actually a “fierce opponent of the central banking system and favored gold and silver coin or ‘hard money’ over paper currency,” making his permanent place on papered 20s quite funny.

Stone told ABC News that after the voting period ends, “Women on 20s” will “ask President Obama to start the process of getting the winning woman on the bill.”

Do you want a say in which lady graces the new twenty-dollar bill? Get involved and cast your ballot here, or tell us your pick in the comments below. All of these historic ladies deserve to grace our dough, but there can only be one winner.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could a Female Face Grace the New Twenty-Dollar Bill? appeared first on Law Street.

Senior federal judges can make quite a pretty penny by working as teachers or lecturers at law schools, according to the financial statements that they are required to supply each year. The National Law Journal is featuring an excellent story, to be published next week but available online now, on just how much money is made by senior judges who lecture or teach at top law schools around the country.

The highest earning senior judge this year was Senior Judge Donald Ginsburg, a DC Circuit Court Judge, who took home $277,906 teaching for NYU Law. Another DC Circuit Judge, Senior Judge Harry Edwards, took in just south of $200,000, also from NYU Law. All in all, there were five federal judges who earned at least $100,000 from outside teaching and speaking engagements.

So, what is a senior judge?

A senior judge is a federal judge. In some states, state judges who are quasi-retired are considered senior judges. In order to be a senior judge, a judge must be at least 65, and have served at least 15 years on the bench. That requirement is sliding though, for each year older than 65, they need to have served one year less on the bench. For example, a 67-year-old judge could receive senior status after 13 years of presiding.

Depending on how many cases they choose to take on, senior judges might receive the same salary as an active federal judge. If they take on less, their salary is discounted slightly, but it will never fall below what it was the year they took senior status. So those five senior judges that made $100,000 (or more) are earning that on top of the regular salary they get from being senior judges. Given that a circuit judge now makes roughly $200,000 just for that position, senior judges like Ginsburg and Edwards are doing very, very, well for themselves.

The purpose of this program is that when judges elect to take senior status, they forfeit their seat. They become a kind of “at-large” judge who can float around and take on cases when needed. The vacated seat is filled so that there are more judges to take on heavy caseloads at the federal level. Senior judges can also work with and mentor younger active judges.

Active judges do have requirements about what they can do outside of their judgeship. They are not allowed to make more than $26,955 a year outside of their federal salary — although this does exclude certain ways of earning money, such as royalties from books already published. The purpose behind the rule is to keep active judges, who certainly could be in demand to teach or lecture, focused and prevent them from becoming overworked. However, there is no such requirement for senior judges. 

Senior judges are free to make as much as they desire in their free time, in addition to whatever portion of salary they receive from taking on a case load. Which leads to positions like Ginsburg and Edwards have at NYU Law.

Whether active or senior, that sounds like a decent amount of money to me, especially for a government employee. It is more than what our members of congress get–roughly $175,000 per year. But still, some judges say that it is still much too little. For example, Chief Justice John G. Roberts has made a number of statements saying that we need to pay our judges more. He claims that the salaries have not stayed consistent with the cost of living. In 2007, he actually called the supposedly stagnant pay for judges a “constitutional crisis” in his annual report.

To be fair, judges do make less than their law school classmates who landed partnerships at big law firms. But they still are among the highest paid government employees, they (clearly) can make quite a lot once they reach retirement age, and most importantly, they have lifetime job security. No law firm can boast that kind of awesome financial security.

So if you are thinking about a new dream job, being a senior judge may not be a bad one to add to your list. If you are anything like some of the judges teaching at law schools now, you will be pretty much set for life. Although if that is not quite enough money for you, there is another kind of judgeship to check out: in my research, I found out that Judge Judy makes about $47 million a year, making her the highest paid personality on TV. So either way, go on the judge route and you should be all set!

[National Law Journal]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Martin Bowling via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Looking to Make Money? Become a Federal Judge appeared first on Law Street.

Get ready for even more money to enter politics. The Supreme Court overturned limits on federal political donations yesterday. In an election year in which every Representative and a third of the Senate is fighting to keep his or her job, expect this to be the year of record-breaking campaign donations. In a 5-4 decision along ideological lines, SCOTUS ruled that any caps and limitations on federal campaign donations are unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Whereas the infamous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling allowed for unlimited outside political spending by corporations, the outcome of McCutcheon v. FEC now expands unlimited contributions directly to politicians and their parties.

This does not mean that now every American can send in as much money as they want in a single check to their desired politician. An individual contribution in one check still stands at $2,600 per politico. What has been struck down, however, are the aggregate limitations per two-year cycle of $48,600 and $74,600 to candidates and parties, respectively. Now a donor has free reign in terms of the amount of checks they want to send within any given time frame.

In the majority ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. explained that even if there is popular sentiment that money corrupts the American political system, it is still protected under the First Amendment like other “repugnant” actions.

“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects … If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas joined the Chief Justice in his majority opinion, with Clarence Thomas even going so far as suggesting all campaign contribution limits should have been struck down.

Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan signed onto Breyer’s dissent authoring the call that “[the ruling] creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or a candidate’s campaign … The methods for using today’s opinion to evade the law’s individual contribution limits are complex, but they are well known, or will become well known, to party fundraisers.”

The case was brought forth by plaintiff Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama Republican and CEO of Coalmont Electrical Development. Explaining how he was injured by the campaign limits put forth by the Federal Election Commission in an editorial he authored for Politico, he said, “Somehow, I can give the individual limit, now $2,600, to 17 candidates without corrupting the system. But as soon as I give that same amount to an 18th candidate, our democracy is suddenly at risk.” By arguing the unconstitutionality of campaign finance limits, McCutcheon set himself up to be included alongside legal precedent – and with this ruling he has guaranteed his name in the history books.

But does striking down campaign finance rules under the guise of a healthy democracy truly achieve that aim? As Breyer pointed out in the dissent, allowing more money to flow into the political system can only hurt it more but disenfranchising those who do not donate to their elected official. A report by the Campaign Finance Institute points out that in 2012, the cost of winning a seat in the House chamber was nearly $1.6 million. It is even worse for the Senate, where nearly 10 times the amount, $10.35 million, is needed to win a seat in that chamber. The average voter does not have the same “purchasing power” behind their contributions, as the majority of contributions come from the wealthiest individuals through their companies and organizations. According to OpenSecrets, an organization dedicated to campaign finance transparency, those who give $200 to a politician, political action committee, or party committee only represent 0.12 percent of the United States population.

Pay attention to how politicians and their bases raise money, as it can be expected in this crucial midterm election year to break records for the amount raised and spent. With a Supreme Court more apt to protecting the right of individuals and corporations to donate as much as they would like as frequently as they would like, it would seem that we are on a road to limitless campaign contributions.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [dnkbdotcom via Flickr]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What SCOTUS’ McCutcheon Decision Means for the Future of US Elections appeared first on Law Street.

Is the federal government ‘too big’ or ‘too small’? Americans have been debating the best size of the federal government since the birth of the Republic. From the Federalist Papers all the way to current court cases seeking to establish the superiority of states rights, the federal vs. state government fight is not a new one. To this day, intellectuals on both sides of the issue fight to prove the merits of their own views, as well as show which government philosophy would be better for taxpayers. Looking at the numbers might surprise you, though. The federal government probably doesn’t spend as much as you think.

The federal government’s budget is one of the most politically sensitive topics there is — entire movements were born from a perceived sense of increased governing spending (hello, Tea Party). While it may be the job of Congress and the President to compromise and agree on a budget, mudslinging and partisanship make its passage very difficult. The most recent budget proposal, presented by the President on April 10, requests nearly $3.8 trillion in expenditures and $3.03 trillion in revenue, putting the deficit at $744 billion, or 4.4 percent of gross domestic product. That’s a decrease in the deficit of nearly $229 billion.

Right now, federal legislative, judicial, and executive branch departments are under what is called ‘the sequester.’ As a result of the failure of Congress and the President to pass a federal budget by January 1, 2013, the Budget Control Act was set to automatically reduce spending in various departments throughout the federal system. Some have applauded the sequester’s sharp curtailing of government spending, while others point to the devastating economic ripple effects the law has had. According to the Government Accountability Office, “19 agencies reported curtailing hiring; 16 reported rescoping or delaying contracts or grants for core mission activities; 19 reported reducing employee training; 20 reported reducing employee travel; and seven reported furloughing more than 770,000 employees from one to seven days.” The Congressional Budget Office has pointed to a possible 0.6 percent contraction of the nation’s economy due to the austerity-minded law.

After the government shutdown in October 2013 due to partisan disagreement over the budget bill, Congressional approval ratings plummeted to 10 percent. Three months later, Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Act, which sought to increase spending caps enacted by the sequester in exchange for extending the duration of the cuts to 2023 -– lowering the national deficit by $23 billion. Advocates calling for lower government spending should be applauding.

As the nation continues to debate whether the sequester cuts have been beneficial or harmful to the nation, the next date to look forward to is in September when the government runs out of authority to spend taxpayer money. With the national debt at $17.5 trillion and counting, and the midterm elections coming this November, we’ll have to wait and see is Congress will work together to pass a compromise appropriations bill.

As time goes by, the federal budget inevitably increases in order to meet the country’s demands. As our infrastructure continues to crumble, more Americans retire, and workers demand a living wage, increased spending cannot be stopped in general, no matter the amount. It is up to our elected officials to take action and simplify the tax code, increase revenue, and close corporate loopholes and subsidies.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Ryan McFarland via Flickr]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does the Government Really Spend Too Much? appeared first on Law Street.

For those of you who are behind the times, Bitcoin is a unique electronic currency developed five years ago. Among many currencies, Bitcoin is the first decentralized digital currency, enabling individuals to exchange Bitcoins through the Internet without having to go through a middleman such as a bank. Bitcoins are revolutionizing traditional currencies, as anyone can “mine” the electronic coins. This is a significant reason why Bitcoin is becoming increasingly popular, as anyone can “mine” coins and make money. For a more extensive breakdown of Bitcoin, check out this article.

As Bitcoin emerges into a recognized currency, much of the legality and security of the e-currency has yet to be interpreted and standardized. This poses the complex question of what is needed to create a new currency? Often, the use of the Bitcoin is illegal, though the bitcoin system itself is not. Thus, the issue is not with the currency, but rather with it’s tendency to be prone to illegal activity. Therefore, does Bitcoin enhance criminality?

As Bitcoin is the newest globally recognized currency, agencies including the Internal Revenue Service, Canada Revenue Agency, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are developing new methods of taxing the e-currency. Exclusive to the United States, the Internal Revenue Service affirms the awareness of the potential tax-compliance risks posed by virtual currencies. Consequently, the lacking regulation permits malicious activity detrimental to the states well-being.

Bitcoin incorporates the option of anonymity into every exchange, making it prone to illegal activity. Provided in a case study by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, “cyber criminals may increasingly use bitcoins to purchase illegal goods and services and to fund illegal activities.” Specifically, this untraceable digital currency has an inherent proclivity towards criminality. However, if a transaction is not anonymized, a third party can geographically locate the individual. Every Bitcoin transaction is public and documented through archiving its Internet Protocol addresses.

As bitcoin technology increasingly becomes popular, criminals develop intricate methods to create an incognito transaction. An example of this illicit method is using a third party eWallet, attempting to consolidate Internet Protocol addresses. Research from the Federal Bureau of Investigation further concludes, “some third-party services offer the option of creating an eWallet that allows users to consolidate many bitcoin address and store and easily access their bitcoins from any device”

Bitcoin is the currency of choice–it has been used on many sites including the late Silk Road. An electronic market to buy potentially illegal goods, the hidden site was seized by the FBI in conjunction with the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, ICE Homeland Security Investigations, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. Prior to the injunction, private brownish markets were prone to criminal activity. The Silk Road allowed “parties to communicate anonymously for the purchase and sale of illegal goods, including the purchase of illegal narcotics, in addition to using Bitcoin.” Prior to the implementation of Bitcoin, Silk Road received very little traffic. Currently, hundred of thousands of transactions have been made through Silk Road and the newest platform, Silk Road 2 via Bitcoin. Such illicit websites cause for questioning the integrity of Bitcoin around the world.

What about this…

Although regulative agencies spanning across the world have yet to concretely define the boundaries, actions against criminality have been taken. On January 27, 2014 Charlie Shrem was arrested for engaging in currency laundering–directly connected to the Silk Road. Regarding the innovative currencies connections to criminal activity, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara stated, “truly innovative business models don’t need to resort to old-fashioned lawbreaking, and when bitcoins, like any traditional currency, are laundered and used to fuel criminal activity, law enforcement has no choice but to act.”

Bitcoin is highly susceptible to theft. Thieves intending on stealing bitcoins target and exploit third-party Bitcoin services “because there is no central Bitcoin server to compromise.” Malicious actors can steal user “mined” bitcoins by exploiting “the way bitcoins are generated by compromising victim’s computers.” Accomplished by installing malware on a victim’s computer, criminals can then use the compromised computers to generate bitcoins. The evolution of Bitcoin towards a more sustainable and legal future exemplifies the nature of an ever-changing currency. Yet the activity associated with Bitcoin can destroy the currency ad infinitum.

 [Business Insider] [Federal Bureau of Investigation]

—

Zachary Schneider

Feature image courtesy of [Antana via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bitcoin: Why is it Prone to Criminal Activity? appeared first on Law Street.

The United States of America. Land of the free, home of the brave. Doesn’t that have a nice ring to it?

Anyone from anywhere, regardless of socioeconomic class, religion, or culture can come and make a name for themselves in the United States. We believe in “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, set your mind on the prize, and go claim what is yours.

Yet each year the range in wealth disparity increases, rendering it more difficult–to a point where it is impossible to succeed economically.

In the United States, there is an immense wealth disparity. The vast majority of capital is owned by the top 5%, leaving 95% with huge levels of wealth disparity.

As the standard of living increases, the federal minimum wage should increases respectively.

A step forward in the right direction was the Minimum Wage Act of 2012, specifying that the federal minimum wage would be increased to $9.80 by 2014.

The question is often asked, why raise minimum wage? This video explains why.

Minimum wage is a mechanism the protects the Average Joe, the working class. The issue is that the “Average Joe” ten years ago is nothing like “Joe” in the status quo. The cost of living has increased exponentially, so much that individuals paid at a minimum wage can barely support themselves, let alone a family.  Often times, families have to rely on food stamps and governments subsidies on a daily basis just to survive.

With an increased minimum wage, the government will be inherently be removed from the lives of Americans across the country and a free market will be able to flourish.

With an increased minimum wage, the gap in wealth subsequently decreases. Individuals, along side their families, have more money to spend and invest. Not only does this end the cyclical process of poverty and create a stronger middle class, but it provides for a stronger economy.

The United States should want to encourage these people to move up to the higher echelons in society, not keep them in the current cycle of cyclical poverty. If we increased the minimum wage, we would inherently have less people on food stamps and government programs, thus more people would be supporting the free market.

By increasing the minimum wage, not only with the United States shrink its ever growing wealth gap, but it will improve the lives of millions of Americans.

[BusinessWeek] [DepartmentofLabor]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Fibonacci Blue via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Wealth Disparity in the United States: Minimum Wage appeared first on Law Street.

Name: Robert S. Khuzami

Born: August 2, 1956

Position: Partner

Place of Occupation: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C.

Current Salary: $5,000,000/year

Former Notable Positions:

• Head of Enforcement Division at Securities Exchange Commission (SEC)
• U.S. Federal Prosecutor – Chief of Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force
• General Counsel at Deutsche Bank AG (DBK)

Law School: Boston University School of Law, Class of 1983

Links:

• Robert Khuzami – Kirkland & Ellis LP Profile Page
• Robert Khuzami – Wikipedia page
• Ex-SEC Enforcement Chief Joins Kirkland & Ellis for $5 Million a Year
• Under Khuzami, SEC Filed More Than 150 Cases Related to Financial Meltdown
• A Legal Bane of Wall Street Switches Sides

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Donald W Reynolds via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Robert Khuzami Jumps to Big Law for $5 Million appeared first on Law Street.