Bank of America -- pararlo, por favor

"Madness, madness". That's what F. Scott (Patrick) Fitzgerald said in the courtroom the other day, commenting on Libby's lawyer Ted Wells and demanding truth for the masses. He could just as easily have been reacting to the president of Bank of America, who recently defended his "no credit" credit card:

In his Thursday opinion piece, Lewis admitted it is not pleasant to be caught a century later in the "heated" national immigration debate, and that he was "feeling the passion."

Still, he pledged to continue the card program, which he said complies with the USA Patriot Act and other laws.

President Lewis set it up by reminding everyone how his bank came to being in 1904 to serve Italian immigrants "other banks wouldn't touch". Can you see the emerging corporate strategy?

On Sunday's Academy Awards show, Bank of America will launch a new advertising campaign, with a "Bank of Opportunity" tagline replacing the 4-year-old "Higher Standards" slogan.

Ah yes, the tried and true tactic of painting opponents of illegal immigration as heartless haters of humanity--and what better venue to announce it.

Mr. Lewis should know that America was a different place in 1904. We were facing an immigration crisis then as well, which led to the creation of the Bureau of Immigration in 1906, but chances are the Italians Mr. Lewis used as strawmen were probably processed through Ellis Island. And that's the crux of the debate.

Or to borrow a condescending phrase from the 90s, it's the rule of law, stupid. Some of these companies seem to believe they should be able to pick and choose which parts of the US Code that works best for their bottom line, yet when it comes time for litigation the same folks demand the letter of the law be upheld.

Anyway, since B of A has decided to go humanitarian by tossing out established banking practices such as the use of credit scores for eligibility (lucky for them that credit card interest is no longer tax deductable, eh?) perhaps they could extend that sentiment by publicly advocating the removal of credit reporting houses altogether. While they're at it they could work on lowering some of the highway robbery APRs, capping at 15 percent, for instance. Surely they wouldn't want to be accused of robbing the illegals they're trying to "help", right?

FOLLOW THE TAX MONEY 2/24/07

The Republican-held Tennessee Senate has proposed a bill to eliminate our state's 6 percent tax on unprepared food (groceries) over a 12 year period. Governor Bredesen, a Democrat, is opposed, since he claims the missing revenue will have to be replaced by other taxation rather than just trimming the fat out of the bureaucracy as we go along. But there are other concerns.

The grocery tax is not progressive. Everyone, including a mythical illegal alien I'll call Raul (who has just slipped into Tennessee to work construction) has to pay the same rate. Therefore, Raul is now doing his part to pay for some of the services he's using. But if the grocery tax reduction is passed by this years' Republican state government, but down the road the stripes revert to Democrats, then it's pretty clear an income tax will be proposed as the only "fair" and "progressive" solution to makeup for any shortfalls, which will exist in part because Raul's kids will be going to the local elementary school.

In that case our hypothetical friend Raul would get a break, since those working for cash don't pay income tax. Now--if we somehow make Raul a legal resident, including Social Security Benefits, he'd have to make the decision whether to come out of the closet and get the benies, or remain stealth and avoid income tax. But if there was no income tax...