...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENT: "Hard as I try, I completely fail to understand, on a personal level, this obsession with building a fantasy world. " What's so difficult to understand? They don't want the same world you do, and they can't get it without lying. So they lie. Too bad it's political opposition is essentially co-opted, else they couldn't get away with it. Not complicated.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Charlatans and Cranks Forever
By Paul Krugman, September 24, 2014
Back when Paul Ryan released his first big-splash budget — the one that had the commentariat cooing over its “seriousness” — it included a link to an absurd Heritage Foundation analysis claiming, among other things, that the plan would drive the unemployment rate down to 2.8 percent. (Heritage then tried, unsuccessfully, to send its nonsense down the memory hole and pretend it never happened.) Ryan defenders tried to claim that the plan didn’t actually rely on that Heritage stuff; but as some of us tried to explain, the plan actually didn’t add up, relying on a multi-trillion-dollar magic asterisk on tax receipts. And we predicted that sooner or later Ryan would embrace magical theories about how tax cuts increase revenue.
And here we are.
One disturbing effect if Republicans take the Senate, by the way, may be that the Congressional Budget Office becomes a purely partisan operation — effectively a department of Heritage.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Friday, September 26, 2014
Koch brothers just can't stand the thought that people will ride transit instead of driving (and thereby using Koch-provided fuel).
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENT: So strengthening local neighborhoods and municipal governments is part of a conspiracy to centralize power in a one-world government? I don’t quite see how that works. There are paranoid conspiracy theories, and then there are STUPID paranoid conspiracy theories.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Koch Brothers’ War on Transit
By Angie Schmitt, September 25, 2014
Transit advocates around the country were transfixed by a story in Tennessee this April, when the state chapter of Americans for Prosperity made a bid to pre-emptively kill Nashville bus rapid transit. It was an especially brazen attempt by Charles and David Koch’s political network to strong-arm local transportation policy makers. But it was far from the only time the Kochs and their surrogates have taken aim at transit.
The Koch brothers, who owe their fortune to fossil fuels, are best known for funding global warming deniers and Republican insurgents aligned with the Tea Party. With their political influence under greater scrutiny during election season, now’s a good time to pull together the various strands of Koch anti-transit activism.
The Kochs fund a wide-ranging network of “think tanks,” non-profits, and political organizations. Their best-known political arm is Americans for Prosperity and its various offshoots and subsidiaries. David Koch was founding chairman of Americans for Prosperity, and both brothers provided funding for its launch. Among other activities, the group does plenty to manufacture Agenda 21 paranoia, which has cable subscribers around the country convinced that smart growth is a United Nations conspiracy that will lead to one-world government.
The Kochs also have plenty of ties to widely quoted, transit-bashing pundits like Randall O’Toole, Wendell Cox, and Stanley Kurtz — people employed by organizations that receive Koch funding, like the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation, and who spout the same talking points against walkability and smart growth.
Fake experts like O’Toole and Cox have been making the rounds for ages, but the Nashville BRT story raised new questions. How many local transit projects are drawing fire from the Koch political network? And what impact is it having?
Ashley Robbins, policy manager at the Center for Transportation Excellence, which supports transit ballot measures around the country, said the Nashville case was an eye-opener. ”We’re definitely going to be watching it as we see more conservative efforts pop up in Milwaukee and Oregon as well,” she said. “We’re starting to keep an eye out to see if it’s going to be a trend.”
In Tennessee, the local Americans for Prosperity chapter failed to enact the transit lane ban, but it did undermine and weaken the Nashville BRT project, which won’t be as robust as first planned. The Nashville example got us wondering where else Koch-backed groups are attacking local transit projects.
Here are a few more examples we turned up:
Indianapolis
Americans for Prosperity Indiana was a leading opponent of efforts to expand transit in the Indianapolis region. The group lobbied state officials to kill legislation that allows Indianapolis to hold a tax referendum to expand its transit network.
Americans for Prosperity was unsuccessful in completely stopping the Indiana legislation, but it made its mark. The language of the bill that eventually passed was amended to forbid the Indianapolis region from pursuing light rail with any funds raised from the tax. Americans for Prosperity has been especially critical of rail, citing a Cato Institute study [PDF] that says rail projects are likely to run over budget (which road projects never do, of course).
Virginia
Americans for Prosperity Virginia fought a new tax in Loudoun County to pay for Metro’s Silver Line extension. The organization issued robo-calls calling the extension a “bail-out to rail-station developers,’’ according to the Washington Post. The county Board of Supervisors voted to proceed with the project anyway.
Boston
A report by the Pioneer Institute created a “manufactured controversy” over the costs of service at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Ellen Dannin wrote in Truthout earlier this year.
The Pioneer Institute is part of the State Policy Network, a group of think tanks with “deep ties to the Koch brothers” according to the Center for Media and Democracy [PDF]. According to one of the institute’s studies, maintenance costs at the MBTA are “out-of-control,” but Dannin, an author of two books on labor issues, wrote in Truthout that Pioneer relied on metrics that were bound to arrive at a predetermined outcome. For example, it chose to compare bus maintenance costs on a per-mile basis, a standard that puts a dense, crowded city like Boston at a disadvantage.
“Pioneer must have been aware that choosing a cost-per-mile standard would put the worst face on the MBTA’s performance and that neither a bus driver nor a mechanic could do anything to change that situation,” wrote Dannin.
The report also relied on some suspect comparisons. As the basis for its claims that MBTA’s pay was “out of control,” Pioneer compared costs with less expensive cities like Spokane, Washington, where the cost of living is about 22 percent lower than Boston’s.
Florida
Koch-backed organizations were instrumental in sinking Florida’s high-speed rail plans. In 2000, Sunshine State voters passed an amendment to the state’s constitution requiring the state to establish high-speed rail exceeding 120 mph linking its five major cities.
But when Governor Rick Scott was elected in 2010 in a wave of Tea Party governors, he fell in line with fellow members of the Republican Governors Association who were killing rail projects on Ohio, Wisconsin, and New Jersey.
Scott hired the Reason Foundation — where David Koch is a trustee — to write a report about the proposal. To the surprise of no one, the foundation’s Wendell Cox found the project would cost way more than projected [PDF]. Scott used Cox’s dubious claims as the basis for killing the project.
Since that time, private investors have taken up the project, which is, in itself, pretty compelling evidence of the financial feasibility of the concept.
Los Angeles
The Reason Foundation was also critical of the Los Angeles Exposition Line extension, a $2.5 billion, 15-mile light rail line that will connect Santa Monica to downtown. In May 2012, the week the first phase opened, Reason conducted a “study” in which staff went to Expo Line stations and counted passengers. Researchers counted 13,000 passengers, short of the 27,000 daily ridership forecast for 2020. The organization concluded that even by “the most optimistic figure Reason can come up with,” ridership projections had been “vastly inflated.”
Proponents of the line argued that counting passengers during the first week of service wasn’t a fair way to measure its long term success. And they were right. The following year, the Expo Line exceeded anticipated 2020 daily ridership, seven years sooner than expected.
A study by the University of Southern California reinforced the success of the project, finding that those living within a half mile of the station had reduced their driving by 40 percent. A little bit less of their paychecks will end up in the Kochs’ pockets.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENT: So strengthening local neighborhoods and municipal governments is part of a conspiracy to centralize power in a one-world government? I don’t quite see how that works. There are paranoid conspiracy theories, and then there are STUPID paranoid conspiracy theories.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Koch Brothers’ War on Transit
By Angie Schmitt, September 25, 2014
Transit advocates around the country were transfixed by a story in Tennessee this April, when the state chapter of Americans for Prosperity made a bid to pre-emptively kill Nashville bus rapid transit. It was an especially brazen attempt by Charles and David Koch’s political network to strong-arm local transportation policy makers. But it was far from the only time the Kochs and their surrogates have taken aim at transit.
The Koch brothers, who owe their fortune to fossil fuels, are best known for funding global warming deniers and Republican insurgents aligned with the Tea Party. With their political influence under greater scrutiny during election season, now’s a good time to pull together the various strands of Koch anti-transit activism.
The Kochs fund a wide-ranging network of “think tanks,” non-profits, and political organizations. Their best-known political arm is Americans for Prosperity and its various offshoots and subsidiaries. David Koch was founding chairman of Americans for Prosperity, and both brothers provided funding for its launch. Among other activities, the group does plenty to manufacture Agenda 21 paranoia, which has cable subscribers around the country convinced that smart growth is a United Nations conspiracy that will lead to one-world government.
The Kochs also have plenty of ties to widely quoted, transit-bashing pundits like Randall O’Toole, Wendell Cox, and Stanley Kurtz — people employed by organizations that receive Koch funding, like the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation, and who spout the same talking points against walkability and smart growth.
Fake experts like O’Toole and Cox have been making the rounds for ages, but the Nashville BRT story raised new questions. How many local transit projects are drawing fire from the Koch political network? And what impact is it having?
Ashley Robbins, policy manager at the Center for Transportation Excellence, which supports transit ballot measures around the country, said the Nashville case was an eye-opener. ”We’re definitely going to be watching it as we see more conservative efforts pop up in Milwaukee and Oregon as well,” she said. “We’re starting to keep an eye out to see if it’s going to be a trend.”
In Tennessee, the local Americans for Prosperity chapter failed to enact the transit lane ban, but it did undermine and weaken the Nashville BRT project, which won’t be as robust as first planned. The Nashville example got us wondering where else Koch-backed groups are attacking local transit projects.
Here are a few more examples we turned up:
Indianapolis
Americans for Prosperity Indiana was a leading opponent of efforts to expand transit in the Indianapolis region. The group lobbied state officials to kill legislation that allows Indianapolis to hold a tax referendum to expand its transit network.
Americans for Prosperity was unsuccessful in completely stopping the Indiana legislation, but it made its mark. The language of the bill that eventually passed was amended to forbid the Indianapolis region from pursuing light rail with any funds raised from the tax. Americans for Prosperity has been especially critical of rail, citing a Cato Institute study [PDF] that says rail projects are likely to run over budget (which road projects never do, of course).
Virginia
Americans for Prosperity Virginia fought a new tax in Loudoun County to pay for Metro’s Silver Line extension. The organization issued robo-calls calling the extension a “bail-out to rail-station developers,’’ according to the Washington Post. The county Board of Supervisors voted to proceed with the project anyway.
Boston
A report by the Pioneer Institute created a “manufactured controversy” over the costs of service at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Ellen Dannin wrote in Truthout earlier this year.
The Pioneer Institute is part of the State Policy Network, a group of think tanks with “deep ties to the Koch brothers” according to the Center for Media and Democracy [PDF]. According to one of the institute’s studies, maintenance costs at the MBTA are “out-of-control,” but Dannin, an author of two books on labor issues, wrote in Truthout that Pioneer relied on metrics that were bound to arrive at a predetermined outcome. For example, it chose to compare bus maintenance costs on a per-mile basis, a standard that puts a dense, crowded city like Boston at a disadvantage.
“Pioneer must have been aware that choosing a cost-per-mile standard would put the worst face on the MBTA’s performance and that neither a bus driver nor a mechanic could do anything to change that situation,” wrote Dannin.
The report also relied on some suspect comparisons. As the basis for its claims that MBTA’s pay was “out of control,” Pioneer compared costs with less expensive cities like Spokane, Washington, where the cost of living is about 22 percent lower than Boston’s.
Florida
Koch-backed organizations were instrumental in sinking Florida’s high-speed rail plans. In 2000, Sunshine State voters passed an amendment to the state’s constitution requiring the state to establish high-speed rail exceeding 120 mph linking its five major cities.
But when Governor Rick Scott was elected in 2010 in a wave of Tea Party governors, he fell in line with fellow members of the Republican Governors Association who were killing rail projects on Ohio, Wisconsin, and New Jersey.
Scott hired the Reason Foundation — where David Koch is a trustee — to write a report about the proposal. To the surprise of no one, the foundation’s Wendell Cox found the project would cost way more than projected [PDF]. Scott used Cox’s dubious claims as the basis for killing the project.
Since that time, private investors have taken up the project, which is, in itself, pretty compelling evidence of the financial feasibility of the concept.
Los Angeles
The Reason Foundation was also critical of the Los Angeles Exposition Line extension, a $2.5 billion, 15-mile light rail line that will connect Santa Monica to downtown. In May 2012, the week the first phase opened, Reason conducted a “study” in which staff went to Expo Line stations and counted passengers. Researchers counted 13,000 passengers, short of the 27,000 daily ridership forecast for 2020. The organization concluded that even by “the most optimistic figure Reason can come up with,” ridership projections had been “vastly inflated.”
Proponents of the line argued that counting passengers during the first week of service wasn’t a fair way to measure its long term success. And they were right. The following year, the Expo Line exceeded anticipated 2020 daily ridership, seven years sooner than expected.
A study by the University of Southern California reinforced the success of the project, finding that those living within a half mile of the station had reduced their driving by 40 percent. A little bit less of their paychecks will end up in the Kochs’ pockets.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Once the standard is set that lying will be rewarded, what incentive will politicians have to be honest?" WE HAVE TO CHANGE THIS!!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Tom Cotton and the era of post-truth politics
By Steve Benen, September 26, 2014
A couple of years ago, Mitt Romney developed a bad habit. As part of his national campaign, the Republican nominee would attack President Obama over some perceived failing. Then the attack would be fact-checked and be proven wrong. Romney, confronted with proof that he was lying, would repeat the claim anyway, convinced that it didn’t matter whether he told the truth or not. It happened over and over and over again.
It underscored a dangerous development: the era of post-truth politics.
Two years later, the phenomenon hasn’t gone away. In Arkansas last week, Rep. Tom Cotton (R), his party’s U.S. Senate nominee, was caught in one of the most brazen lies of the 2014 campaign season. The right-wing congressman claimed he voted against this year’s Farm Bill because President Obama “hijacked” it, “turned it into a food-stamp bill,” and added “billions more in spending.”
As a factual matter, literally none of this is even remotely true, and fact-checkers came down hard on such shameless dishonesty – all of which might matter if Cotton gave a darn. But as Peter Urban reported yesterday, the congressman just doesn’t care about getting caught.
As defenses go, Cotton’s argument is gibberish. One need not grow up on a farm to recognize the basic tenets of reality. The congressman told a lie, he knew it was a lie, he got caught telling a lie, and instead of doing the honorable thing, Cotton has decided he likes this lie.
The public discourse isn’t supposed to work this way. Under traditional American norms, politicians could be expected to spin, dodge, and slice the truth awfully thin, but there was an expectation that a candidate who got caught telling a bald-faced lie to the public was likely to end up in real trouble.
Cotton seems to believe those norms no longer apply – he can get caught lying and pay no real price at all.
In other words, Tom Cotton sees American politics in a post-truth era. He can say what he pleases, without regard for honesty, because there won’t be any meaningful consequences for deceiving the public on purpose.
Is he right? This didn’t work out too well for Romney, but Cotton’s in a much better position to prevail in Arkansas.
Once the standard is set that lying will be rewarded, what incentive will politicians have to be honest?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Tom Cotton and the era of post-truth politics
By Steve Benen, September 26, 2014
A couple of years ago, Mitt Romney developed a bad habit. As part of his national campaign, the Republican nominee would attack President Obama over some perceived failing. Then the attack would be fact-checked and be proven wrong. Romney, confronted with proof that he was lying, would repeat the claim anyway, convinced that it didn’t matter whether he told the truth or not. It happened over and over and over again.
It underscored a dangerous development: the era of post-truth politics.
Two years later, the phenomenon hasn’t gone away. In Arkansas last week, Rep. Tom Cotton (R), his party’s U.S. Senate nominee, was caught in one of the most brazen lies of the 2014 campaign season. The right-wing congressman claimed he voted against this year’s Farm Bill because President Obama “hijacked” it, “turned it into a food-stamp bill,” and added “billions more in spending.”
As a factual matter, literally none of this is even remotely true, and fact-checkers came down hard on such shameless dishonesty – all of which might matter if Cotton gave a darn. But as Peter Urban reported yesterday, the congressman just doesn’t care about getting caught.
Rejecting criticism of its latest TV ad, Republican Senate hopeful Tom Cotton plans to keep running the “Farm Bill” message beyond its current ad buy.In a local interview this week, Cotton said he’s “proud” of his demonstrably dishonest commercial, adding that the fact-checkers didn’t spend time “growing up on a farm,” so he knows “a little bill more about farming than they do.”
“We’ve gotten such great feedback from farmers, taxpayers, and supporters that we’re actually going to increase the size of the ad buy,” said David Ray, a spokesman for the Cotton campaign.
As defenses go, Cotton’s argument is gibberish. One need not grow up on a farm to recognize the basic tenets of reality. The congressman told a lie, he knew it was a lie, he got caught telling a lie, and instead of doing the honorable thing, Cotton has decided he likes this lie.
The public discourse isn’t supposed to work this way. Under traditional American norms, politicians could be expected to spin, dodge, and slice the truth awfully thin, but there was an expectation that a candidate who got caught telling a bald-faced lie to the public was likely to end up in real trouble.
Cotton seems to believe those norms no longer apply – he can get caught lying and pay no real price at all.
In other words, Tom Cotton sees American politics in a post-truth era. He can say what he pleases, without regard for honesty, because there won’t be any meaningful consequences for deceiving the public on purpose.
Is he right? This didn’t work out too well for Romney, but Cotton’s in a much better position to prevail in Arkansas.
Once the standard is set that lying will be rewarded, what incentive will politicians have to be honest?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Thursday, September 25, 2014
"But a lot of the people who are convinced Obamacare is a disaster will never know that, because the voices they trust will never tell them." Fox News, anyone?
...................................................................................................................................................................
In conservative media, Obamacare is a disaster. In the real world, it’s working.
By Ezra Klein, September 24, 2014
Before Obamacare launched, conservative outlets warned that the law would collapse as insurers shunned the overpriced, overregulated insurance exchanges. "More Insurers Drop Out Of Exchanges," warned Fox Business. "Three Major Insurers Flee California's Obamacare Exchange," said HotAir.com. "The President's health care law has almost completely failed to increase insurance market competition," wrote the Heritage Foundation.
It continued after the law's launch. I remember, a month or two after HealthCare.gov opened (and crashed), being on a panel with a conservative writer who said that Obamacare might well enter a death spiral as insurers pull out of the marketplaces.
On Tuesday, the idea that insurers would flee Obamacare joined the long procession of Obamacare disasters that simply didn't happen. Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell announced that in the 44 states where numbers were available, the number of companies offering plans in 2015 would increase by 25 percent. So, far from fleeing the exchanges, insurers are rushing into them. Competition is increasing.
HHS key findings
This news is not, as I write this on Tuesday evening, being carried on the home pages of Fox Business, HotAir.com, or the Heritage Foundation. (In case you're wondering, the most recent Obamacare article on FoxBusiness.com is "Obamacare website still not secure?"; on Hot Air.com, it's "How many people are poised to lose 2014 Obamacare coverage?"; at Heritage, it's "Why you can't keep your plan under Obamacare, explained in 3 minutes.")
This is the problem in the debate about Obamacare. The two sides live in different informational universes. A few days ago, the New Republic's Danny Vinik tweeted a picture of the headlines he was receiving from the conservative YG Network:
(Danny Vinik/TNR)
That top headline, "More bad news for Obamacare exchange customers," quotes a New York Times report that "in many places premiums are going up by double-digit percentages within many of the most popular plans." It omits the next two sentences: "But other plans, hoping to attract customers, are increasing their prices substantially less. In some markets, plans are even cutting prices." (The point of the piece is that to get the best price you need to shop around.)
ARTICLES DON'T NEED TO PLAY TRICKS TO PAINT A GRIM PICTURE FOR OBAMACARE
It's easy to give people a skewed impression of Obamacare without ever running a false story. The Affordable Care Act is a huge law, and at any given moment, there are some good things happening in it and some bad things happening in it. If you run multiple articles every day on the problems and nothing on the broader trends, it's easy to mislead your audience.
Recently, one of the major insurers pulled out of the Minnesota exchange. The news received huge play in the conservative media. The story is real — and it's bad news for Minnesotans. It's just not representative of the overall trend towards increased exchange participation. But a lot of conservative readers don't know that. The Daily Caller, for instance, hit the Minnesota story hard. But on Tuesday, they managed to report on Burwell's remarks without even mentioning the new data she presented on rising insurer participation.
IF ALL YOU'RE SEEING IS AN ENDLESS PROCESSION OF STORIES THAT SEEM TO SHOW OBAMACARE IS A DISASTER, YOU'RE GOING TO THINK OBAMACARE IS A DISASTER
My hunch is that relatively few conservatives realize that premiums are lower-than-expected, and that the law's costs are lower-than-expected ($104 billion lower, as of April 2014). (Of course, information loops can go the other way, too: a lot of liberals probably don't know that of the much-discussed 8 million enrollees in Obamacare's insurance exchanges, new data suggests only about 7.3 million stuck around as paying members.)
In wonkier Republican circles, the spin has gotten subtler. They know that premiums are lower than projected and insurers are joining the exchanges. So the argument has developed a good-news-is-bad-news quality.
The fear about government programs in general, and government health-insurance programs in particular, is that they are overly generous because they spend other people's money. So Republicans have, for a long time, been putting forward health-care plans that would devolve single-payer insurance programs like Medicare to private insurers that would hold down costs by narrowing networks and managing care. Then, they figure, Americans can shop around, and the market will reward the plans that hold down costs and punish the plans that don't. These ideas were present in the health reforms Mitt Romney passed in Massachusetts, and Obamacare borrowed heavily from them.
Rep. Paul Ryan has also been a key sponsor of these ideas. But now that they're happening in Obamacare, he's selling it to conservatives like some kind of catastrophe. "I don't think this is the kind of country that is going to stand for being told who and where they're going to get their health care," he told the Washington Examiner's Phil Klein. As Jonathan Chait writes:
That is an extraordinary sentence: Obamacare is forcing insurers to run leaner than employers are. If Obamacare were Romneycare does anyone doubt Ryan — and Republicans more broadly — would be celebrating?
Obamacare isn't by any means a perfect law and not everything in it is going right. The law powers a different insurance market in every state (plus the District of Columbia), so it is perfectly possible for Obamacare to be a success in California even as there are troubles in Minnesota. And there continue to be operational issues: there have been troubling revelations about web site security, and problems verifying the incomes of some enrollees.
On the whole, though, costs are lower than expected, enrollment is higher than expected, the number of insurers participating in the exchanges is increasing, and more states are joining the Medicaid expansion. Millions of people have insurance who didn't have it before. The law is working. But a lot of the people who are convinced Obamacare is a disaster will never know that, because the voices they trust will never tell them.
...................................................................................................................................................................
In conservative media, Obamacare is a disaster. In the real world, it’s working.
By Ezra Klein, September 24, 2014
Before Obamacare launched, conservative outlets warned that the law would collapse as insurers shunned the overpriced, overregulated insurance exchanges. "More Insurers Drop Out Of Exchanges," warned Fox Business. "Three Major Insurers Flee California's Obamacare Exchange," said HotAir.com. "The President's health care law has almost completely failed to increase insurance market competition," wrote the Heritage Foundation.
It continued after the law's launch. I remember, a month or two after HealthCare.gov opened (and crashed), being on a panel with a conservative writer who said that Obamacare might well enter a death spiral as insurers pull out of the marketplaces.
On Tuesday, the idea that insurers would flee Obamacare joined the long procession of Obamacare disasters that simply didn't happen. Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell announced that in the 44 states where numbers were available, the number of companies offering plans in 2015 would increase by 25 percent. So, far from fleeing the exchanges, insurers are rushing into them. Competition is increasing.
HHS key findings
This news is not, as I write this on Tuesday evening, being carried on the home pages of Fox Business, HotAir.com, or the Heritage Foundation. (In case you're wondering, the most recent Obamacare article on FoxBusiness.com is "Obamacare website still not secure?"; on Hot Air.com, it's "How many people are poised to lose 2014 Obamacare coverage?"; at Heritage, it's "Why you can't keep your plan under Obamacare, explained in 3 minutes.")
This is the problem in the debate about Obamacare. The two sides live in different informational universes. A few days ago, the New Republic's Danny Vinik tweeted a picture of the headlines he was receiving from the conservative YG Network:
(Danny Vinik/TNR)
That top headline, "More bad news for Obamacare exchange customers," quotes a New York Times report that "in many places premiums are going up by double-digit percentages within many of the most popular plans." It omits the next two sentences: "But other plans, hoping to attract customers, are increasing their prices substantially less. In some markets, plans are even cutting prices." (The point of the piece is that to get the best price you need to shop around.)
ARTICLES DON'T NEED TO PLAY TRICKS TO PAINT A GRIM PICTURE FOR OBAMACARE
It's easy to give people a skewed impression of Obamacare without ever running a false story. The Affordable Care Act is a huge law, and at any given moment, there are some good things happening in it and some bad things happening in it. If you run multiple articles every day on the problems and nothing on the broader trends, it's easy to mislead your audience.
Recently, one of the major insurers pulled out of the Minnesota exchange. The news received huge play in the conservative media. The story is real — and it's bad news for Minnesotans. It's just not representative of the overall trend towards increased exchange participation. But a lot of conservative readers don't know that. The Daily Caller, for instance, hit the Minnesota story hard. But on Tuesday, they managed to report on Burwell's remarks without even mentioning the new data she presented on rising insurer participation.
IF ALL YOU'RE SEEING IS AN ENDLESS PROCESSION OF STORIES THAT SEEM TO SHOW OBAMACARE IS A DISASTER, YOU'RE GOING TO THINK OBAMACARE IS A DISASTER
My hunch is that relatively few conservatives realize that premiums are lower-than-expected, and that the law's costs are lower-than-expected ($104 billion lower, as of April 2014). (Of course, information loops can go the other way, too: a lot of liberals probably don't know that of the much-discussed 8 million enrollees in Obamacare's insurance exchanges, new data suggests only about 7.3 million stuck around as paying members.)
In wonkier Republican circles, the spin has gotten subtler. They know that premiums are lower than projected and insurers are joining the exchanges. So the argument has developed a good-news-is-bad-news quality.
The fear about government programs in general, and government health-insurance programs in particular, is that they are overly generous because they spend other people's money. So Republicans have, for a long time, been putting forward health-care plans that would devolve single-payer insurance programs like Medicare to private insurers that would hold down costs by narrowing networks and managing care. Then, they figure, Americans can shop around, and the market will reward the plans that hold down costs and punish the plans that don't. These ideas were present in the health reforms Mitt Romney passed in Massachusetts, and Obamacare borrowed heavily from them.
Rep. Paul Ryan has also been a key sponsor of these ideas. But now that they're happening in Obamacare, he's selling it to conservatives like some kind of catastrophe. "I don't think this is the kind of country that is going to stand for being told who and where they're going to get their health care," he told the Washington Examiner's Phil Klein. As Jonathan Chait writes:
Except that very dynamic is exactly the way Ryan's own fabled Medicare plan is designed to work - by having insurance companies lure customers by competing to hold down prices, in part by excluding doctors and hospitals that charge too much. Only now, rather than hold up this scheme of exchanges with private insurers as the silver bullet to solve America's problems, Ryan is exploiting discontent with it. He is implicitly promising that people will be able to go to whichever doctor or hospital they want, regardless of price. Of course he won't say how he'll pay for that luxury, either.Obamacare's competitive insurance marketplaces are actually doing what they promised to do: forcing insurers to compete for customers by cutting costs. The Congressional Budget Office explains that Obamacare's premiums are cheaper-than-expected because its insurance features "lower payment rates for providers, narrower networks of providers, and tighter management of their subscribers' use of health care than employment-based plans do."
That is an extraordinary sentence: Obamacare is forcing insurers to run leaner than employers are. If Obamacare were Romneycare does anyone doubt Ryan — and Republicans more broadly — would be celebrating?
Obamacare isn't by any means a perfect law and not everything in it is going right. The law powers a different insurance market in every state (plus the District of Columbia), so it is perfectly possible for Obamacare to be a success in California even as there are troubles in Minnesota. And there continue to be operational issues: there have been troubling revelations about web site security, and problems verifying the incomes of some enrollees.
On the whole, though, costs are lower than expected, enrollment is higher than expected, the number of insurers participating in the exchanges is increasing, and more states are joining the Medicaid expansion. Millions of people have insurance who didn't have it before. The law is working. But a lot of the people who are convinced Obamacare is a disaster will never know that, because the voices they trust will never tell them.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The new Forest Service rules about taking photos are clearly unconstitutional but that isn't stopping them from being enforced-- WE will have to do that.
...................................................................................................................................................................
THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE WANTS TO FINE YOU $1,000 FOR TAKING PICTURES IN THE FOREST
Nice photo. That'll be $1,000, please.
This week's most profoundly wrongheaded display of nonviolent press infringement comes from an unlikely source: The U.S. Forest Service. New rules being finalized in November state that—across this country's gloriously beautiful, endlessly photogenic, 193 million acres of designated wilderness area administered by the USFS—members of the press who happen upon it will need permits to photograph or shoot video.
And yes, it does sound like one of the dumbest things you've ever read.
Maybe outrage shouldn't be your first reaction. Maybe it's good for the forests. You won't have news crews traipsing about, trampling leaves. You won't get as frustrated as you might otherwise have been when you pass some dude with a camera on a trail. Maybe we'd all be better off, even.
Wrong.
The Organic Act of 1897, the legislation that kicked off, in a big way, the establishment of the modern U.S. Forest Service, clearly provides (emphasis added):
And as for "duties as citizens of the State." Well, it's called the Fourth Estate for a reason. That's what the U.S. Forest Service is hurting here: The understanding that the public has a right to this land, and right to know about it, with media more expressive than words.
With this:
A hiker takes the trail approaching Minaret Lake, getting a great view of Reigelhuth Minaret - Sierra Nevada.
Close, of the Forest Service, doesn't seem to agree.
"When the Wilderness Act was created in 1964, there were plenty of people doing photography," he says. "Nothing in the Wilderness Act says photography is not approved or banned."
When he goes out to shoot, Essick takes the utmost care to the follow the rules of "leave no trace," and he does it with 65 pounds of gear on his back. He's a nature photographer: Not trashing the place is pretty much rule number one.
There's another layer to this, too. The USFS and the other agencies have used photography since their inception to tell the story of the wilderness. All the words in the world can't show you as much as one beautiful Ansel Adams photo. Coincidentally, Essick spent lots of time photographing the Ansel Adams Wilderness, named for the famous photographer, for his own book.
Over and over again, the establishment of an American wilderness, the National Parks, the core idea that you can escape to a more primitive, but nonetheless essential part of this country, has been referred to as America's best idea. It's why city-dwelling, suburb-raised punks like me can have so many feelings toward land that has filled our lungs with fresh air and our hearts with wonder. It's why I swell with pride when my little sister, gritting her teeth through cuts and tears, finished her first hike. It's why I look forward to enjoying it with my children when they come along.
That feeling needs to stick around.
And, believe me, I get it. No one wants annoying reporters or photographers damaging the environment, even if "breaking news" is happening. (This is the only case in which this rule wouldn't apply—and it happens to be entirely unenforceable.)
Wilderness areas have it bad enough already. The United States pumps "on the order of nearly 60 million 'short tons'" of carbon monoxide into the air every year, the EPA tells us. We dump 1.2 trillion gallons of untreated sewage stormwater, and industrial waste into the water that—eventually—is supposed to make it back to your faucet, your hot shower, the water bottle you give your kid on his hike. And no one likes seeing headlines like "Sequoia National Park is Stuck in Pollution Hell" or "Where the Smog Ends Up."
But do the good people running the USFS really think that charging a journalist $1,500 for a permit—and a fine of $1,000 per shot to those who don't get one—is going to aid that cause? Do they think adding a roadblock to the essential act of newsgathering and to the creation of free publicity for the forests is a wise decision?
It infringes upon the First Amendment. There's no reasonable way to enforce it. The U.S. Forest Service have failed to cite real-life examples of why it's needed. Above all, the spirit of the rules would limit our understanding of these beautiful spaces with which we're supposed to co-exist.
Today the Forest Service tweeted this video. It's beautiful: a PSA specifically meant to connect tweens to nature, "ultimately creating a lifelong interest in spending time outdoors." Who knows if AdCouncil, which produced it, paid $1,500 for a permit, but that money would prevent a lot of people from doing so.
"There would be less photography done," Essick says. "I can't see that as something that would help the wilderness."
To their credit, the Forest Service has opened themselves up to comment. Call them out, and post some photos on Instagram and Twitter while you're at it.
UPDATE: Environment reporter Rob Davis of the Oregonian has a great breakdown of the implications of this here.
...................................................................................................................................................................
THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE WANTS TO FINE YOU $1,000 FOR TAKING PICTURES IN THE FOREST
The Forest Service oversees 193 million acres of wilderness. In a month, you won't be able to take a picture in them without getting a fine -- even if the new rules are unconstitutional.
By Eric Vilas-Boas, September 24, 2014Nice photo. That'll be $1,000, please.
This week's most profoundly wrongheaded display of nonviolent press infringement comes from an unlikely source: The U.S. Forest Service. New rules being finalized in November state that—across this country's gloriously beautiful, endlessly photogenic, 193 million acres of designated wilderness area administered by the USFS—members of the press who happen upon it will need permits to photograph or shoot video.
And yes, it does sound like one of the dumbest things you've ever read.
"It's pretty clearly unconstitutional," said Gregg Leslie, legal defense director at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Alexandria, Va. "They would have to show an important need to justify these limits, and they just can't."Wait! It gets better.
[Liz Close, the Forest Service's acting wilderness director] didn't cite any real-life examples of why the policy is needed or what problems it's addressing. She didn't know whether any media outlets had applied for permits in the last four years.The slap you just heard was of more than 34 million American hikers hitting palm to forehead. And the clicks you heard came from nature photographers from coast to coast ignoring those new rules.
Maybe outrage shouldn't be your first reaction. Maybe it's good for the forests. You won't have news crews traipsing about, trampling leaves. You won't get as frustrated as you might otherwise have been when you pass some dude with a camera on a trail. Maybe we'd all be better off, even.
Wrong.
The Organic Act of 1897, the legislation that kicked off, in a big way, the establishment of the modern U.S. Forest Service, clearly provides (emphasis added):
The jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, over persons within such reservations shall not be affected or changed by reason of the existence of such reservations, except so far as the punishment of offenses against the United States therein is concerned; the intent and meaning of this provision being that the State wherein any such reservation is situated shall not, by reason of the establishment thereof, lose its jurisdiction, nor the inhabitants thereof their rights and privileges as citizens, or be absolved from their duties as citizens of the State.For any journalist, both parts of that statement are very important. All U.S. citizens enjoy the right of the First Amendment, and courts have very clearly upheld the rights of a citizen to take photographs taken in a public place—even the unpopular ones, and even ugly, boring ones of trees and mountains.
And as for "duties as citizens of the State." Well, it's called the Fourth Estate for a reason. That's what the U.S. Forest Service is hurting here: The understanding that the public has a right to this land, and right to know about it, with media more expressive than words.
With this:
A hiker takes the trail approaching Minaret Lake, getting a great view of Reigelhuth Minaret - Sierra Nevada.
Close, of the Forest Service, doesn't seem to agree.
She said the agency was implementing the Wilderness Act of 1964, which aims to protect wilderness areas from being exploited for commercial gain."That's kind of a distortion," says Peter Essick, an award-winning National Geographic photographer who has worked with the Forest Service before, as well as the other agencies that oversee American wildernesses for years to produce truly remarkable work.
"When the Wilderness Act was created in 1964, there were plenty of people doing photography," he says. "Nothing in the Wilderness Act says photography is not approved or banned."
When he goes out to shoot, Essick takes the utmost care to the follow the rules of "leave no trace," and he does it with 65 pounds of gear on his back. He's a nature photographer: Not trashing the place is pretty much rule number one.
There's another layer to this, too. The USFS and the other agencies have used photography since their inception to tell the story of the wilderness. All the words in the world can't show you as much as one beautiful Ansel Adams photo. Coincidentally, Essick spent lots of time photographing the Ansel Adams Wilderness, named for the famous photographer, for his own book.
Over and over again, the establishment of an American wilderness, the National Parks, the core idea that you can escape to a more primitive, but nonetheless essential part of this country, has been referred to as America's best idea. It's why city-dwelling, suburb-raised punks like me can have so many feelings toward land that has filled our lungs with fresh air and our hearts with wonder. It's why I swell with pride when my little sister, gritting her teeth through cuts and tears, finished her first hike. It's why I look forward to enjoying it with my children when they come along.
That feeling needs to stick around.
And, believe me, I get it. No one wants annoying reporters or photographers damaging the environment, even if "breaking news" is happening. (This is the only case in which this rule wouldn't apply—and it happens to be entirely unenforceable.)
Wilderness areas have it bad enough already. The United States pumps "on the order of nearly 60 million 'short tons'" of carbon monoxide into the air every year, the EPA tells us. We dump 1.2 trillion gallons of untreated sewage stormwater, and industrial waste into the water that—eventually—is supposed to make it back to your faucet, your hot shower, the water bottle you give your kid on his hike. And no one likes seeing headlines like "Sequoia National Park is Stuck in Pollution Hell" or "Where the Smog Ends Up."
But do the good people running the USFS really think that charging a journalist $1,500 for a permit—and a fine of $1,000 per shot to those who don't get one—is going to aid that cause? Do they think adding a roadblock to the essential act of newsgathering and to the creation of free publicity for the forests is a wise decision?
It infringes upon the First Amendment. There's no reasonable way to enforce it. The U.S. Forest Service have failed to cite real-life examples of why it's needed. Above all, the spirit of the rules would limit our understanding of these beautiful spaces with which we're supposed to co-exist.
Today the Forest Service tweeted this video. It's beautiful: a PSA specifically meant to connect tweens to nature, "ultimately creating a lifelong interest in spending time outdoors." Who knows if AdCouncil, which produced it, paid $1,500 for a permit, but that money would prevent a lot of people from doing so.
USDA Forest Service @forestservice
Have you seen a Light Show on a National Forest? Take a peek! http://bit.ly/TmCfTd
10:00 AM - 24 Sep 2014
"There would be less photography done," Essick says. "I can't see that as something that would help the wilderness."
To their credit, the Forest Service has opened themselves up to comment. Call them out, and post some photos on Instagram and Twitter while you're at it.
UPDATE: Environment reporter Rob Davis of the Oregonian has a great breakdown of the implications of this here.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republicans "... send a message that African-American voters are not legitimate members of society and any attempt on their part to vote should be met with suspicion."
...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP war on black voters quietly re-ignites: New ploys show it’s not just ancient history
When Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion striking down a key part of the Voting Rights Act, he said “our country has changed,” arguing that the circumstances that led to the initial formula for preclearance was no longer valid because the country had overcome much of its racial prejudice. But in the year immediately following the decision, many Southern conservatives have shown that many of the prejudices that prevented blacks from voting in the past are still manifesting themselves today through attempts to suppress the vote of minorities.
In Georgia, DeKalb County announced it would allow voting on the last Sunday of October, making it the first time the state would have Sunday voting. Sunday voting is immensely popular with African-American Voters, who frequently participate in “souls to the polls,” where African-American churches often coordinate voting on Sunday.
But state Sen. Fran Millar cried foul, calling it a “blatantly partisan move” because DeKalb is located near black churches. While it is true that in many Southern states, many Democratic voters are African-American (Georgia boasts the only white Democratic congressman in the Deep South), Millar’s crowing shows that to many, any attempt to increase black voter turnout must be illegitimate or the effect of some scheme. Millar’s sentiments did not end there. On his Facebook page, he further commented that he would “prefer more educated voters than an increase in the greater number of voters.”
Millar’s sentiments sounded like echoes of Georgia’s past. In 1906, Hoke Smith campaigned on disenfranchising black voters and followed through when he helped amend the state constitution to require a literacy test in the state. For so many white Georgians, black voting was a threat to their identity and the power structure. Similarly, today, those like Millar know more voting by minorities will be a threat to their livelihood and don’t think the masses are educated enough to exercise their rights.
Earlier this month, Democracy North Carolina, a left-leaning good government outlet, released a report showing that 454 provisional ballots in the state were denied in the state’s primary last May because voters could no longer use same-day registration or because they voted out of their precinct, both of which were eliminated by the voter ID law the General Assembly passed last year. Furthermore, the study showed that while 45 percent of those whose ballots were not counted were white — unsurprising in a state with a sizable white population — 39 percent of the voters whose ballots weren’t counted were black.
The invalidation of votes in provisional balloting due to a lack of same-day registration does disproportionately affect blacks since 70 percent of African-Americans who voted in 2012 used early voting. In addition, African-American voter turnout in 2012 in the state was 70.2 percent, which was higher than white and Latino turnout.
Attempts to put roadblocks on out-of-precinct voting and same-day registration are a way of trying to delegitimize the votes of African-Americans, which has a long history in the Tar Heel State. In 1898, shortly after taking control of the Legislature, white Southern Democrats stormed the city of Wilmington, then a city with two-thirds African-American population, and burned down the building of a city newspaper and overthrew the city’s elected municipal government as a means of intimidation, leaving at least 14 African-Americans dead.
To those in power in North Carolina, the idea of black empowerment was seen as an illegitimate encroachment on their power. In turn, the state constitution was amended with a “grandfather clause,” which allowed voters who were able to vote before 1867, and whose father or grandfather was able to vote before then, to skip literacy tests and poll taxes, and the voter must register by 1908. Obviously, many black voters did not have this right before 1867, given their previous status, and as result they were subjected to literacy tests and poll taxes.
Likewise, the additional hurdles on in-person early voting in North Carolina, passed in 2013, were accompanied by an expansion of absentee voting access; they were also accompanied by an increase in mail-in ballots, which have historically been popular with Republican voters in the state. Then, just as now, laws that work to make voting more difficult for minorities find ways to exempt those voters who are seen as legitimate in their eyes.
It is no coincidence that Georgia and North Carolina are states with largely shifting politics that could put Republicans in peril. In Georgia, Democratic Senate candidate Michelle Nunn and gubernatorial candidate Jason Carter are competitive in a Republican stronghold. Meanwhile, in North Carolina, Sen. Kay Hagan is in a hotly contested race with North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis, who was speaker when the voter law was passed.
African-Americans are a vital constituency for Democrats, and Republicans are aware of this. In turn, these attempts are working to hobble mostly Democratic constituents. But more than that, they send a message that African-American voters are not legitimate members of society and any attempt on their part to vote should be met with suspicion. In that sense, these two Southern states have not changed that much and are carrying on in a long and sordid tradition.
...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP war on black voters quietly re-ignites: New ploys show it’s not just ancient history
How the long history of Southern states trying to disenfranchise African-Americans got an ugly new boost this month
By Eric Garcia, September 25, 2014When Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion striking down a key part of the Voting Rights Act, he said “our country has changed,” arguing that the circumstances that led to the initial formula for preclearance was no longer valid because the country had overcome much of its racial prejudice. But in the year immediately following the decision, many Southern conservatives have shown that many of the prejudices that prevented blacks from voting in the past are still manifesting themselves today through attempts to suppress the vote of minorities.
In Georgia, DeKalb County announced it would allow voting on the last Sunday of October, making it the first time the state would have Sunday voting. Sunday voting is immensely popular with African-American Voters, who frequently participate in “souls to the polls,” where African-American churches often coordinate voting on Sunday.
But state Sen. Fran Millar cried foul, calling it a “blatantly partisan move” because DeKalb is located near black churches. While it is true that in many Southern states, many Democratic voters are African-American (Georgia boasts the only white Democratic congressman in the Deep South), Millar’s crowing shows that to many, any attempt to increase black voter turnout must be illegitimate or the effect of some scheme. Millar’s sentiments did not end there. On his Facebook page, he further commented that he would “prefer more educated voters than an increase in the greater number of voters.”
Millar’s sentiments sounded like echoes of Georgia’s past. In 1906, Hoke Smith campaigned on disenfranchising black voters and followed through when he helped amend the state constitution to require a literacy test in the state. For so many white Georgians, black voting was a threat to their identity and the power structure. Similarly, today, those like Millar know more voting by minorities will be a threat to their livelihood and don’t think the masses are educated enough to exercise their rights.
Earlier this month, Democracy North Carolina, a left-leaning good government outlet, released a report showing that 454 provisional ballots in the state were denied in the state’s primary last May because voters could no longer use same-day registration or because they voted out of their precinct, both of which were eliminated by the voter ID law the General Assembly passed last year. Furthermore, the study showed that while 45 percent of those whose ballots were not counted were white — unsurprising in a state with a sizable white population — 39 percent of the voters whose ballots weren’t counted were black.
The invalidation of votes in provisional balloting due to a lack of same-day registration does disproportionately affect blacks since 70 percent of African-Americans who voted in 2012 used early voting. In addition, African-American voter turnout in 2012 in the state was 70.2 percent, which was higher than white and Latino turnout.
Attempts to put roadblocks on out-of-precinct voting and same-day registration are a way of trying to delegitimize the votes of African-Americans, which has a long history in the Tar Heel State. In 1898, shortly after taking control of the Legislature, white Southern Democrats stormed the city of Wilmington, then a city with two-thirds African-American population, and burned down the building of a city newspaper and overthrew the city’s elected municipal government as a means of intimidation, leaving at least 14 African-Americans dead.
To those in power in North Carolina, the idea of black empowerment was seen as an illegitimate encroachment on their power. In turn, the state constitution was amended with a “grandfather clause,” which allowed voters who were able to vote before 1867, and whose father or grandfather was able to vote before then, to skip literacy tests and poll taxes, and the voter must register by 1908. Obviously, many black voters did not have this right before 1867, given their previous status, and as result they were subjected to literacy tests and poll taxes.
Likewise, the additional hurdles on in-person early voting in North Carolina, passed in 2013, were accompanied by an expansion of absentee voting access; they were also accompanied by an increase in mail-in ballots, which have historically been popular with Republican voters in the state. Then, just as now, laws that work to make voting more difficult for minorities find ways to exempt those voters who are seen as legitimate in their eyes.
It is no coincidence that Georgia and North Carolina are states with largely shifting politics that could put Republicans in peril. In Georgia, Democratic Senate candidate Michelle Nunn and gubernatorial candidate Jason Carter are competitive in a Republican stronghold. Meanwhile, in North Carolina, Sen. Kay Hagan is in a hotly contested race with North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis, who was speaker when the voter law was passed.
African-Americans are a vital constituency for Democrats, and Republicans are aware of this. In turn, these attempts are working to hobble mostly Democratic constituents. But more than that, they send a message that African-American voters are not legitimate members of society and any attempt on their part to vote should be met with suspicion. In that sense, these two Southern states have not changed that much and are carrying on in a long and sordid tradition.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"If [Rick Perry] cannot even properly manage a $500 million fund, why in the world should American voters trust him with the management of this country’s finances?"
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENT: Since when is someone called a 'manager' when giving out favors? Since when is someone called a 'manager' when giving out favors? Since when is someone called a 'manager' when giving out favors?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Rick Perry’s management skills in serious question after auditor’s report
By Tod Robberson, September 25, 2014
Christy Hoppe’s blockbuster story about the first independent audit of the Texas Enterprise Fund contains quite a few shocking revelations, the biggest of which is how lax Gov. Rick Perry was in his financial oversight. The fund handed out $222 million to entities that hadn’t even bothered to submit applications. I wonder how that worked, exactly. If you have good contacts in the governor’s office, do you just call up and say, “Hey, could you funnel a few million my way?” And suddenly, poof, it’s yours.
For a governor who is making no secret of his presidential ambitions, his mismanagement of this fund is certain to play front and center in presidential debates as other candidates — Republican and Democrat — question whether he’s got the stuff to run our nation.
After reviewing the 98-page report, the governor’s office acknowledged that weak controls were in place when the fund first began in 2003, Hoppe reports. But now they’ve implemented the recommendations made by the auditors. I wonder, if the audit hadn’t happened, would these shoddy practices still be happening?
The “process and policies of the TEF have evolved” and it has now adopted “a more standard operating procedure,” Perry aides told the auditor.
Let’s read between the lines here: Left to their own devices, the people directly under Perry’s supervision never thought to question the way the Enterprise Fund money was being dispensed, even as they doled out nearly half of the total amount of the $500 million fund to people who apparently hadn’t even submitted a formal application for it. Nor were those requests accompanied even with a promise to create jobs in exchange for receiving the money.
For Perry and his staffers, that process was working just fine until those pesky auditors barged in and messed everything up. The auditors complained, “it was not always possible to determine whether award decisions were supported, or to determine the number of jobs that recipients of the awards from the Texas Enterprise Fund created.”
This is a guy who has built his presidential ambitions on attacking the Obama administration for its economic management. If he cannot even properly manage a $500 million fund, why in the world should American voters trust him with the management of this country’s finances?
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENT: Since when is someone called a 'manager' when giving out favors? Since when is someone called a 'manager' when giving out favors? Since when is someone called a 'manager' when giving out favors?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Rick Perry’s management skills in serious question after auditor’s report
By Tod Robberson, September 25, 2014
Christy Hoppe’s blockbuster story about the first independent audit of the Texas Enterprise Fund contains quite a few shocking revelations, the biggest of which is how lax Gov. Rick Perry was in his financial oversight. The fund handed out $222 million to entities that hadn’t even bothered to submit applications. I wonder how that worked, exactly. If you have good contacts in the governor’s office, do you just call up and say, “Hey, could you funnel a few million my way?” And suddenly, poof, it’s yours.
For a governor who is making no secret of his presidential ambitions, his mismanagement of this fund is certain to play front and center in presidential debates as other candidates — Republican and Democrat — question whether he’s got the stuff to run our nation.
After reviewing the 98-page report, the governor’s office acknowledged that weak controls were in place when the fund first began in 2003, Hoppe reports. But now they’ve implemented the recommendations made by the auditors. I wonder, if the audit hadn’t happened, would these shoddy practices still be happening?
The “process and policies of the TEF have evolved” and it has now adopted “a more standard operating procedure,” Perry aides told the auditor.
Let’s read between the lines here: Left to their own devices, the people directly under Perry’s supervision never thought to question the way the Enterprise Fund money was being dispensed, even as they doled out nearly half of the total amount of the $500 million fund to people who apparently hadn’t even submitted a formal application for it. Nor were those requests accompanied even with a promise to create jobs in exchange for receiving the money.
For Perry and his staffers, that process was working just fine until those pesky auditors barged in and messed everything up. The auditors complained, “it was not always possible to determine whether award decisions were supported, or to determine the number of jobs that recipients of the awards from the Texas Enterprise Fund created.”
This is a guy who has built his presidential ambitions on attacking the Obama administration for its economic management. If he cannot even properly manage a $500 million fund, why in the world should American voters trust him with the management of this country’s finances?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
"... it would cost $1,800 to provide records about the financial relationship between the school and the Koch brothers ..."
...................................................................................................................................................................
KU students raise funds to pay for records request
By Scott Rothschild, September 23, 2014
A student who was told by Kansas University it would cost $1,800 to provide records about the financial relationship between the school and the Koch brothers said Tuesday she has raised the money.
"We'll be submitting payment tomorrow," said Schuyler Kraus, president of Students for a Sustainable Future, which filed the request last month under the Kansas Open Records Act.
Much of Kraus' records request and an article she wrote that was published on the Journal-World's Opinion Page on Sunday seeks information on the financial relationship between Art Hall, the executive director of the Center for Applied Economics at KU's School of Business, and conservative activists Charles and David Koch, billionaires who own Wichita-based Koch Industries.
Administrators at KU said in an Aug. 19 letter that it would cost the students $1,800 to retrieve the information.
"I feel like because we are tuition-paying students and taxpaying Kansans, there shouldn't be a fee or it should be minimal," Kraus said. Members of the Kansas chapter of the American Association of University Professors agreed with Kraus and donated $1,000 to her group's effort.
"I personally believe that asking for so much money, especially of students, is just inappropriate," said Ron Barrett-Gonzalez, president of the Kansas chapter of AAUP.
Other donations came in and eventually put Kraus over the $1,800.
In a response to Kraus, KU custodian of public records, Andy Foat, noted the scope of the records request covered a period of more than 10 years and would require multiple offices to locate the documents.
KU's itemized calculation of the cost of getting the records includes $1,430 for 22 hours of manager time to retrieve and review at $65 per hour; $264 for 8 hours of staff time to retrieve, assemble for production: $100 for two hours of specialized computer retrieval at $50 per hour; and $1.50 for the digital transmission or mailing fee. The total estimate is $1,795.50.
Hall was chief economist of the public-sector group at Koch Industries Inc. in Wichita from 1997-2004.
The Center for Applied Economics is a research center funded by contributions from the Fred C. and Mary R. Koch Foundation and other private donors, according to KU. It was established in 2003 with support from the Koch Professorship in Business and Economics and the Koch Foundation.
Hall has testified many times before the Kansas Legislature and provided economic advice to Gov. Sam Brownback. Last year, Hall testified in support of a bill repealing renewable energy standards.
Hall could not be reached for comment, but KU Business School Dean Neeli Bendapudi defended him in an open letter to the Journal-World.
"We ask of him what we ask of every faculty member in our school: to have strong credentials, to be effective in the classroom, and to be respectful of different points of view.
"He does that admirably as evidenced in his receiving the 2014 MBA Association Educator of the Year Award, which is voted on by students. As is the case with any employee, when Art presents his perspectives in different forums, he is required to qualify them as his own and not those of the school or university," Bendapudi said.
...................................................................................................................................................................
KU students raise funds to pay for records request
By Scott Rothschild, September 23, 2014
A student who was told by Kansas University it would cost $1,800 to provide records about the financial relationship between the school and the Koch brothers said Tuesday she has raised the money.
"We'll be submitting payment tomorrow," said Schuyler Kraus, president of Students for a Sustainable Future, which filed the request last month under the Kansas Open Records Act.
Much of Kraus' records request and an article she wrote that was published on the Journal-World's Opinion Page on Sunday seeks information on the financial relationship between Art Hall, the executive director of the Center for Applied Economics at KU's School of Business, and conservative activists Charles and David Koch, billionaires who own Wichita-based Koch Industries.
Administrators at KU said in an Aug. 19 letter that it would cost the students $1,800 to retrieve the information.
"I feel like because we are tuition-paying students and taxpaying Kansans, there shouldn't be a fee or it should be minimal," Kraus said. Members of the Kansas chapter of the American Association of University Professors agreed with Kraus and donated $1,000 to her group's effort.
"I personally believe that asking for so much money, especially of students, is just inappropriate," said Ron Barrett-Gonzalez, president of the Kansas chapter of AAUP.
Other donations came in and eventually put Kraus over the $1,800.
In a response to Kraus, KU custodian of public records, Andy Foat, noted the scope of the records request covered a period of more than 10 years and would require multiple offices to locate the documents.
KU's itemized calculation of the cost of getting the records includes $1,430 for 22 hours of manager time to retrieve and review at $65 per hour; $264 for 8 hours of staff time to retrieve, assemble for production: $100 for two hours of specialized computer retrieval at $50 per hour; and $1.50 for the digital transmission or mailing fee. The total estimate is $1,795.50.
Hall was chief economist of the public-sector group at Koch Industries Inc. in Wichita from 1997-2004.
The Center for Applied Economics is a research center funded by contributions from the Fred C. and Mary R. Koch Foundation and other private donors, according to KU. It was established in 2003 with support from the Koch Professorship in Business and Economics and the Koch Foundation.
Hall has testified many times before the Kansas Legislature and provided economic advice to Gov. Sam Brownback. Last year, Hall testified in support of a bill repealing renewable energy standards.
Hall could not be reached for comment, but KU Business School Dean Neeli Bendapudi defended him in an open letter to the Journal-World.
"We ask of him what we ask of every faculty member in our school: to have strong credentials, to be effective in the classroom, and to be respectful of different points of view.
"He does that admirably as evidenced in his receiving the 2014 MBA Association Educator of the Year Award, which is voted on by students. As is the case with any employee, when Art presents his perspectives in different forums, he is required to qualify them as his own and not those of the school or university," Bendapudi said.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... if political transparency is your thing, you might be a little conflicted about that Netflix addiction."
...................................................................................................................................................................
20 well-known companies that aren’t being transparent about their politics
By Aaron Blake, September 24, 2014
The Center for Public Accountability is out today with a massive piece of research, ranking hundreds of major companies according to how politically transparent they are.
And let's just say that if political transparency is your thing, you might be a little conflicted about that Netflix addiction.
The study used a series of criteria, including how and whether these companies disclose political contributions, whether they disclose spending on contentious political issues like ballot measures, whether they are up-front about their policies on political giving, and whether there is proper oversight of that political giving.
As the Center for Public Integrity's Dave Levinthal -- who first wrote up the report -- noted, 20 of the nearly 300 companies included in the study came out with a score of zero. But the study notes that there is also evidence that companies are moving in the direction of more transparency. And while there are plenty of companies scoring very low, there are also many quite recognizable ones that score very highly.
Below we've picked out some of the most recognizable companies that scored either very highly or very lowly. (Warning to pro-transparency Keurig aficionados: You might feel moved to adjust your caffeine intake methods more toward Starbucks.)
And for those who want to look up a specific company that isn't listed below, we encourage you to peruse the full report.
Scoring zero:
T Rowe Price
Schwab (Charles) Corp.
Ralph Lauren Corp.
Ross Stores Inc.
Netflix
M&T Bank Corp.
Keurig Green Mountain Inc.
Low (20 or fewer points):
PNC Financial Services (4.3)
Fidelity National Information Services (4.3)
Dollar General Corp. (7.1)
Bed, Bath and Beyond Inc. (7.1)
Priceline.com Inc. (8.6)
Whole Foods Market Inc. (10.0)
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc. (10.0)
DIRECTV (10.0)
CBS Corp. (11.4)
Macy’s Inc. (12.9)
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (15.7)
Tyson Foods (20.0)
Southwest Airlines Co (20.0)
High (75-90 points):
Visa Inc. (75.7)
Starbucks Corp. (75.7)
BB&T Corp. (75.7)
Aetna Inc. (75.7)
Monsanto Co. (77.1)
Kellogg Co. (77.1)
Johnson & Johnson (77.1)
MetLife Inc. (78.6)
Lockheed Martin Corp. (78.6)
General Electric Co. (78.6)
Boston Scientific Corp. (78.6)
CVS Caremark Corp. (80.0)
Costco Wholesale Corp. (80.0)
Wells Fargo & Co. (81.4)
Target Corp. (81.4)
eBay Inc. (81.4)
Boeing Co. (81.4)
General Mills, Inc. (87.1)
ConocoPhillips (87.1)
American Express Co. (87.1)
Yum Brands Inc. (Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut) (88.6)
Exemplary (90 points or above):
Time Warner Inc. (90.0)
Hershey Co. (90.0)
Intel Corp. (91.4)
Morgan Stanley (92.9)
Microsoft Corp. (92.9)
AFLAC Inc. (92.9)
United Parcel Service (UPS) Inc. (94.3)
Capital One Financial Corp. (94.3)
...................................................................................................................................................................
20 well-known companies that aren’t being transparent about their politics
By Aaron Blake, September 24, 2014
The Center for Public Accountability is out today with a massive piece of research, ranking hundreds of major companies according to how politically transparent they are.
And let's just say that if political transparency is your thing, you might be a little conflicted about that Netflix addiction.
The study used a series of criteria, including how and whether these companies disclose political contributions, whether they disclose spending on contentious political issues like ballot measures, whether they are up-front about their policies on political giving, and whether there is proper oversight of that political giving.
As the Center for Public Integrity's Dave Levinthal -- who first wrote up the report -- noted, 20 of the nearly 300 companies included in the study came out with a score of zero. But the study notes that there is also evidence that companies are moving in the direction of more transparency. And while there are plenty of companies scoring very low, there are also many quite recognizable ones that score very highly.
Below we've picked out some of the most recognizable companies that scored either very highly or very lowly. (Warning to pro-transparency Keurig aficionados: You might feel moved to adjust your caffeine intake methods more toward Starbucks.)
And for those who want to look up a specific company that isn't listed below, we encourage you to peruse the full report.
Scoring zero:
T Rowe Price
Schwab (Charles) Corp.
Ralph Lauren Corp.
Ross Stores Inc.
Netflix
M&T Bank Corp.
Keurig Green Mountain Inc.
Low (20 or fewer points):
PNC Financial Services (4.3)
Fidelity National Information Services (4.3)
Dollar General Corp. (7.1)
Bed, Bath and Beyond Inc. (7.1)
Priceline.com Inc. (8.6)
Whole Foods Market Inc. (10.0)
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc. (10.0)
DIRECTV (10.0)
CBS Corp. (11.4)
Macy’s Inc. (12.9)
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (15.7)
Tyson Foods (20.0)
Southwest Airlines Co (20.0)
High (75-90 points):
Visa Inc. (75.7)
Starbucks Corp. (75.7)
BB&T Corp. (75.7)
Aetna Inc. (75.7)
Monsanto Co. (77.1)
Kellogg Co. (77.1)
Johnson & Johnson (77.1)
MetLife Inc. (78.6)
Lockheed Martin Corp. (78.6)
General Electric Co. (78.6)
Boston Scientific Corp. (78.6)
CVS Caremark Corp. (80.0)
Costco Wholesale Corp. (80.0)
Wells Fargo & Co. (81.4)
Target Corp. (81.4)
eBay Inc. (81.4)
Boeing Co. (81.4)
General Mills, Inc. (87.1)
ConocoPhillips (87.1)
American Express Co. (87.1)
Yum Brands Inc. (Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut) (88.6)
Exemplary (90 points or above):
Time Warner Inc. (90.0)
Hershey Co. (90.0)
Intel Corp. (91.4)
Morgan Stanley (92.9)
Microsoft Corp. (92.9)
AFLAC Inc. (92.9)
United Parcel Service (UPS) Inc. (94.3)
Capital One Financial Corp. (94.3)
...................................................................................................................................................................
"The costs of policy inaction, and the increasing ideological purity of the parties, threaten to fracture the current system."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Let’s reduce polarized politics
By Chris Mehl, September 24, 2014
For years, I’ve joined other Montanans in taking solace in the idea that while Congress and Washington, D.C., may be polarized, out here in the Big Sky that simply was not the case.
Sadly, I’m no longer so sure. Increasingly, Americans from all states and geographies are moving apart ideologically.
Vigorous debate strengthens democracy, but our nation’s rising polarization creates a number of challenges at national, state and local levels. How we respond — to work together, or apart — will play a large role in the future we create for the next generation.
Earlier this year, an in-depth poll of more than 10,000 Americans by the Pew Research Center found “Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines — and partisan acrimony is deeper and more extensive — than at any point in recent history.”
Political parties are now much more consistent ideologically with little overlap between them. Today, 92 percent of Republicans are more conservative than the median Democrat; and 94 percent of Democrats are more liberal than the median Republican. Twenty years ago, the numbers were 64 percent and 70 percent respectively.
Party purity similarly has grown: 33 percent of engaged Republicans express consistently conservative views, up from 10 percent ten years ago. For Democrats, 38 percent are consistent liberals, up from 8 percent in 1994.
This trend also happened geographically. A shrinking number of states, for example, are contested between presidential candidates. In my town, a small split divided Bozeman and the rest of Gallatin County in 2000 when voting for Bush or Gore. By 2012, the separation in the presidential vote between Bozeman and the county had grown significantly.
Furthermore, the share of each party that negatively views the other has doubled since 1994. Cooperation is akin to capitulation.
Increasingly, political leaders and supporters hold predetermined conclusions. This limits compromise, making it exceedingly difficult to reach long-term or nuanced decisions that involve complex factors and trade-offs such as tax reform, education overhaul or modernizing entitlements. The perfect has become the enemy of the good.
At the same time, the middle shrunk. Today, 39 percent of Americans hold a roughly equal number of conservative and liberal positions, down from 49 percent 10 years ago.
Moderates already are much less likely to vote, or give money or time to political campaigns, compared to across-the-board conservatives or liberals.
Office holders now are more responsive party wings — those who hold disproportionate influence over nominations, campaign funding, volunteers and other political necessities.
A danger of these polarizing trends is that a governor or president will have a much harder time sustaining the leadership necessary to represent all constituents.
The costs of policy inaction, and the increasing ideological purity of the parties, threaten to fracture the current system. Politics means debate, discussion, and disagreement, but good policy also means that eventually we must cooperate. Building a better future depends on it.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Let’s reduce polarized politics
By Chris Mehl, September 24, 2014
For years, I’ve joined other Montanans in taking solace in the idea that while Congress and Washington, D.C., may be polarized, out here in the Big Sky that simply was not the case.
Sadly, I’m no longer so sure. Increasingly, Americans from all states and geographies are moving apart ideologically.
Vigorous debate strengthens democracy, but our nation’s rising polarization creates a number of challenges at national, state and local levels. How we respond — to work together, or apart — will play a large role in the future we create for the next generation.
Earlier this year, an in-depth poll of more than 10,000 Americans by the Pew Research Center found “Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines — and partisan acrimony is deeper and more extensive — than at any point in recent history.”
Political parties are now much more consistent ideologically with little overlap between them. Today, 92 percent of Republicans are more conservative than the median Democrat; and 94 percent of Democrats are more liberal than the median Republican. Twenty years ago, the numbers were 64 percent and 70 percent respectively.
Party purity similarly has grown: 33 percent of engaged Republicans express consistently conservative views, up from 10 percent ten years ago. For Democrats, 38 percent are consistent liberals, up from 8 percent in 1994.
This trend also happened geographically. A shrinking number of states, for example, are contested between presidential candidates. In my town, a small split divided Bozeman and the rest of Gallatin County in 2000 when voting for Bush or Gore. By 2012, the separation in the presidential vote between Bozeman and the county had grown significantly.
Furthermore, the share of each party that negatively views the other has doubled since 1994. Cooperation is akin to capitulation.
Increasingly, political leaders and supporters hold predetermined conclusions. This limits compromise, making it exceedingly difficult to reach long-term or nuanced decisions that involve complex factors and trade-offs such as tax reform, education overhaul or modernizing entitlements. The perfect has become the enemy of the good.
At the same time, the middle shrunk. Today, 39 percent of Americans hold a roughly equal number of conservative and liberal positions, down from 49 percent 10 years ago.
Moderates already are much less likely to vote, or give money or time to political campaigns, compared to across-the-board conservatives or liberals.
Office holders now are more responsive party wings — those who hold disproportionate influence over nominations, campaign funding, volunteers and other political necessities.
A danger of these polarizing trends is that a governor or president will have a much harder time sustaining the leadership necessary to represent all constituents.
The costs of policy inaction, and the increasing ideological purity of the parties, threaten to fracture the current system. Politics means debate, discussion, and disagreement, but good policy also means that eventually we must cooperate. Building a better future depends on it.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"The Kochs are our homegrown oligarchs; they've cornered the market on Republican politics and are nakedly attempting to buy Congress and the White House."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire
The enormity of the Koch fortune is no mystery. Brothers Charles and David are each worth more than $40 billion. The electoral influence of the Koch brothers is similarly well-chronicled. The Kochs are our homegrown oligarchs; they've cornered the market on Republican politics and are nakedly attempting to buy Congress and the White House. Their political network helped finance the Tea Party and powers today's GOP. Koch-affiliated organizations raised some $400 million during the 2012 election, and aim to spend another $290 million to elect Republicans in this year's midterms. So far in this cycle, Koch-backed entities have bought 44,000 political ads to boost Republican efforts to take back the Senate.
What is less clear is where all that money comes from. Koch Industries is headquartered in a squat, smoked-glass building that rises above the prairie on the outskirts of Wichita, Kansas. The building, like the brothers' fiercely private firm, is literally and figuratively a black box. Koch touts only one top-line financial figure: $115 billion in annual revenue, as estimated by Forbes. By that metric, it is larger than IBM, Honda or Hewlett-Packard and is America's second-largest private company after agribusiness colossus Cargill. The company's stock response to inquiries from reporters: "We are privately held and don't disclose this information."
But Koch Industries is not entirely opaque. The company's troubled legal history – including a trail of congressional investigations, Department of Justice consent decrees, civil lawsuits and felony convictions – augmented by internal company documents, leaked State Department cables, Freedom of Information disclosures and company whistle--blowers, combine to cast an unwelcome spotlight on the toxic empire whose profits finance the modern GOP.
Under the nearly five-decade reign of CEO Charles Koch, the company has paid out record civil and criminal environmental penalties. And in 1999, a jury handed down to Koch's pipeline company what was then the largest wrongful-death judgment of its type in U.S. history, resulting from the explosion of a defective pipeline that incinerated a pair of Texas teenagers.
The volume of Koch Industries' toxic output is staggering. According to the University of Massachusetts Amherst's Political Economy Research Institute, only three companies rank among the top 30 polluters of America's air, water and climate: ExxonMobil, American Electric Power and Koch Industries. Thanks in part to its 2005 purchase of paper-mill giant Georgia-Pacific, Koch Industries dumps more pollutants into the nation's waterways than General Electric and International Paper combined. The company ranks 13th in the nation for toxic air pollution. Koch's climate pollution, meanwhile, outpaces oil giants including Valero, Chevron and Shell. Across its businesses, Koch generates 24 million metric tons of greenhouse gases a year.
For Koch, this license to pollute amounts to a perverse, hidden subsidy. The cost is borne by communities in cities like Port Arthur, Texas, where a Koch-owned facility produces as much as 2 billion pounds of petrochemicals every year. In March, Koch signed a consent decree with the Department of Justice requiring it to spend more than $40 million to bring this plant into compliance with the Clean Air Act.
The toxic history of Koch Industries is not limited to physical pollution. It also extends to the company's business practices, which have been the target of numerous federal investigations, resulting in several indictments and convictions, as well as a whole host of fines and penalties.
And in one of the great ironies of the Obama years, the president's financial-regulatory reform seems to benefit Koch Industries. The company is expanding its high-flying trading empire precisely as Wall Street banks – facing tough new restrictions, which Koch has largely escaped – are backing away from commodities speculation.
It is often said that the Koch brothers are in the oil business. That's true as far as it goes – but Koch Industries is not a major oil producer. Instead, the company has woven itself into every nook of the vast industrial web that transforms raw fossil fuels into usable goods. Koch-owned businesses trade, transport, refine and process fossil fuels, moving them across the world and up the value chain until they become things we forgot began with hydrocarbons: fertilizers, Lycra, the innards of our smartphones.
The company controls at least four oil refineries, six ethanol plants, a natural-gas-fired power plant and 4,000 miles of pipeline. Until recently, Koch refined roughly five percent of the oil burned in America (that percentage is down after it shuttered its 85,000-barrel-per-day refinery in North Pole, Alaska, owing, in part, to the discovery that a toxic solvent had leaked from the facility, fouling the town's groundwater). From the fossil fuels it refines, Koch also produces billions of pounds of petrochemicals, which, in turn, become the feedstock for other Koch businesses. In a journey across Koch Industries, what enters as a barrel of West Texas Intermediate can exit as a Stainmaster carpet.
Koch's hunger for growth is insatiable: Since 1960, the company brags, the value of Koch Industries has grown 4,200-fold, outpacing the Standard & Poor's index by nearly 30 times. On average, Koch projects to double its revenue every six years. Koch is now a key player in the fracking boom that's vaulting the United States past Saudi Arabia as the world's top oil producer, even as it's endangering America's groundwater. In 2012, a Koch subsidiary opened a pipeline capable of carrying 250,000 barrels a day of fracked crude from South Texas to Corpus Christi, where the company owns a refinery complex, and it has announced plans to further expand its Texas pipeline operations. In a recent acquisition, Koch bought Frac-Chem, a top provider of hydraulic fracturing chemicals to drillers. Thanks to the Bush administration's anti-regulatory- agenda – which Koch Industries helped craft – Frac-Chem's chemical cocktails, injected deep under the nation's aquifers, are almost entirely exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Koch is also long on the richest – but also the dirtiest and most carbon-polluting – oil deposits in North America: the tar sands of Alberta. The company's Pine Bend refinery, near St. Paul, Minnesota, processes nearly a quarter of the Canadian bitumen exported to the United States – which, in turn, has created for Koch Industries a lucrative sideline in petcoke exports. Denser, dirtier and cheaper than coal, petcoke is the dregs of tar-sands refining. U.S. coal plants are largely forbidden from burning petcoke, but it can be profitably shipped to countries with lax pollution laws like Mexico and China. One of the firm's subsidiaries, Koch Carbon, is expanding its Chicago terminal operations to receive up to 11 million tons of petcoke for global export. In June, the EPA noted the facility had violated the Clean Air Act with petcoke particulates that endanger the health of South Side residents. "We dispute that the two elevated readings" behind the EPA notice of violation "are violations of anything," Koch's top lawyer, Mark Holden, told Rolling Stone, insisting that Koch Carbon is a good neighbor.
Over the past dozen years, the company has quietly acquired leases for 1.1 million acres of Alberta oil fields, an area larger than Rhode Island. By some estimates, Koch's direct holdings nearly double ExxonMobil's and nearly triple Shell's. In May, Koch Oil Sands Operating LLC of Calgary, Alberta, sought permits to embark on a multi-billion-dollar tar-sands-extraction operation. This one site is projected to produce 22 million barrels a year – more than a full day's supply of U.S. oil.
[major, major snippage]
...................................................................................................................................................................
Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire
Together, Charles and David Koch control one of the world's largest fortunes, which they are using to buy up our political system. But what they don't want you to know is how they made all that money
By Tim Dickinson, September 24, 2014The enormity of the Koch fortune is no mystery. Brothers Charles and David are each worth more than $40 billion. The electoral influence of the Koch brothers is similarly well-chronicled. The Kochs are our homegrown oligarchs; they've cornered the market on Republican politics and are nakedly attempting to buy Congress and the White House. Their political network helped finance the Tea Party and powers today's GOP. Koch-affiliated organizations raised some $400 million during the 2012 election, and aim to spend another $290 million to elect Republicans in this year's midterms. So far in this cycle, Koch-backed entities have bought 44,000 political ads to boost Republican efforts to take back the Senate.
What is less clear is where all that money comes from. Koch Industries is headquartered in a squat, smoked-glass building that rises above the prairie on the outskirts of Wichita, Kansas. The building, like the brothers' fiercely private firm, is literally and figuratively a black box. Koch touts only one top-line financial figure: $115 billion in annual revenue, as estimated by Forbes. By that metric, it is larger than IBM, Honda or Hewlett-Packard and is America's second-largest private company after agribusiness colossus Cargill. The company's stock response to inquiries from reporters: "We are privately held and don't disclose this information."
But Koch Industries is not entirely opaque. The company's troubled legal history – including a trail of congressional investigations, Department of Justice consent decrees, civil lawsuits and felony convictions – augmented by internal company documents, leaked State Department cables, Freedom of Information disclosures and company whistle--blowers, combine to cast an unwelcome spotlight on the toxic empire whose profits finance the modern GOP.
Under the nearly five-decade reign of CEO Charles Koch, the company has paid out record civil and criminal environmental penalties. And in 1999, a jury handed down to Koch's pipeline company what was then the largest wrongful-death judgment of its type in U.S. history, resulting from the explosion of a defective pipeline that incinerated a pair of Texas teenagers.
The volume of Koch Industries' toxic output is staggering. According to the University of Massachusetts Amherst's Political Economy Research Institute, only three companies rank among the top 30 polluters of America's air, water and climate: ExxonMobil, American Electric Power and Koch Industries. Thanks in part to its 2005 purchase of paper-mill giant Georgia-Pacific, Koch Industries dumps more pollutants into the nation's waterways than General Electric and International Paper combined. The company ranks 13th in the nation for toxic air pollution. Koch's climate pollution, meanwhile, outpaces oil giants including Valero, Chevron and Shell. Across its businesses, Koch generates 24 million metric tons of greenhouse gases a year.
For Koch, this license to pollute amounts to a perverse, hidden subsidy. The cost is borne by communities in cities like Port Arthur, Texas, where a Koch-owned facility produces as much as 2 billion pounds of petrochemicals every year. In March, Koch signed a consent decree with the Department of Justice requiring it to spend more than $40 million to bring this plant into compliance with the Clean Air Act.
The toxic history of Koch Industries is not limited to physical pollution. It also extends to the company's business practices, which have been the target of numerous federal investigations, resulting in several indictments and convictions, as well as a whole host of fines and penalties.
And in one of the great ironies of the Obama years, the president's financial-regulatory reform seems to benefit Koch Industries. The company is expanding its high-flying trading empire precisely as Wall Street banks – facing tough new restrictions, which Koch has largely escaped – are backing away from commodities speculation.
It is often said that the Koch brothers are in the oil business. That's true as far as it goes – but Koch Industries is not a major oil producer. Instead, the company has woven itself into every nook of the vast industrial web that transforms raw fossil fuels into usable goods. Koch-owned businesses trade, transport, refine and process fossil fuels, moving them across the world and up the value chain until they become things we forgot began with hydrocarbons: fertilizers, Lycra, the innards of our smartphones.
The company controls at least four oil refineries, six ethanol plants, a natural-gas-fired power plant and 4,000 miles of pipeline. Until recently, Koch refined roughly five percent of the oil burned in America (that percentage is down after it shuttered its 85,000-barrel-per-day refinery in North Pole, Alaska, owing, in part, to the discovery that a toxic solvent had leaked from the facility, fouling the town's groundwater). From the fossil fuels it refines, Koch also produces billions of pounds of petrochemicals, which, in turn, become the feedstock for other Koch businesses. In a journey across Koch Industries, what enters as a barrel of West Texas Intermediate can exit as a Stainmaster carpet.
Koch's hunger for growth is insatiable: Since 1960, the company brags, the value of Koch Industries has grown 4,200-fold, outpacing the Standard & Poor's index by nearly 30 times. On average, Koch projects to double its revenue every six years. Koch is now a key player in the fracking boom that's vaulting the United States past Saudi Arabia as the world's top oil producer, even as it's endangering America's groundwater. In 2012, a Koch subsidiary opened a pipeline capable of carrying 250,000 barrels a day of fracked crude from South Texas to Corpus Christi, where the company owns a refinery complex, and it has announced plans to further expand its Texas pipeline operations. In a recent acquisition, Koch bought Frac-Chem, a top provider of hydraulic fracturing chemicals to drillers. Thanks to the Bush administration's anti-regulatory- agenda – which Koch Industries helped craft – Frac-Chem's chemical cocktails, injected deep under the nation's aquifers, are almost entirely exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Koch is also long on the richest – but also the dirtiest and most carbon-polluting – oil deposits in North America: the tar sands of Alberta. The company's Pine Bend refinery, near St. Paul, Minnesota, processes nearly a quarter of the Canadian bitumen exported to the United States – which, in turn, has created for Koch Industries a lucrative sideline in petcoke exports. Denser, dirtier and cheaper than coal, petcoke is the dregs of tar-sands refining. U.S. coal plants are largely forbidden from burning petcoke, but it can be profitably shipped to countries with lax pollution laws like Mexico and China. One of the firm's subsidiaries, Koch Carbon, is expanding its Chicago terminal operations to receive up to 11 million tons of petcoke for global export. In June, the EPA noted the facility had violated the Clean Air Act with petcoke particulates that endanger the health of South Side residents. "We dispute that the two elevated readings" behind the EPA notice of violation "are violations of anything," Koch's top lawyer, Mark Holden, told Rolling Stone, insisting that Koch Carbon is a good neighbor.
Over the past dozen years, the company has quietly acquired leases for 1.1 million acres of Alberta oil fields, an area larger than Rhode Island. By some estimates, Koch's direct holdings nearly double ExxonMobil's and nearly triple Shell's. In May, Koch Oil Sands Operating LLC of Calgary, Alberta, sought permits to embark on a multi-billion-dollar tar-sands-extraction operation. This one site is projected to produce 22 million barrels a year – more than a full day's supply of U.S. oil.
[major, major snippage]
...................................................................................................................................................................
When Obama does it, whatever "it" may be, the GOP insists it's scandalous. The GOP itself is what is scandalous!
...................................................................................................................................................................
The political world falls for dumb ‘controversies,’ Part XXXVII
By Steve Benen, September 24, 2014
When the right start hyperventilating about President Obama’s awkward salute yesterday, it seemed like the kind of mindless story that would shine bright but burn out quickly. Apparently, however, it’s not quite done.
But it’s not just a media problem. Beltway Republicans have suggested the “Latte Salute Election” may be a worthwhile 2014 theme, and the National Republican Congressional Committee has even launched a fundraising campaign, urging donors to hand over money because the president saluted Marines while holding a coffee cup.
Yep, this is what contemporary politics has come to.
And while the debate – if we use the word loosely – about this nonsense serves no real purpose except giving Republicans an excuse to question the president’s patriotism, there are two related angles to that are actually somewhat interesting.
The first is an ongoing pattern in which the political world holds President Obama to a standard unlike his predecessors. It’s not as if other recent presidents weren’t photographed making awkward salutes – see the image included above – but the difference is the media and the president’s critics didn’t consider it important, and Democratic campaign committees didn’t use it as the basis for an election.
When other presidents issue executive orders, it’s fine. When Obama does it, Republicans insist it’s scandalous.
When other presidents rely on “czars,” it’s fine. When Obama does it, Republicans insist it’s scandalous.
When other presidents make recess appointments, it’s fine. When Obama does it, Republicans insist it’s scandalous.
When other presidents decide not to defend certain federal laws against court challenges, it’s fine. When Obama does it, Republicans insist it’s scandalous.
Other presidents have bowed when meeting foreign heads of state. They’ve tried terrorist suspects in federal courts. They’ve played plenty of golf. They were photographed wearing casual attire in the Oval Office. They’ve made awkward salutes. But when this president has done the exact same things, his detractors have turned the meaningless incidents into controversies.
I’m all for holding Obama to high standards. I just wish he wasn’t held to a different standard than other presidents.
But even if we put that aside, what’s up with these salutes in the first place? A friend of mine, I believe her name is Rachel Maddow, wrote a bit about this in her best-selling book. From page 36:
Also note, in 2012, the right briefly went nuts because Obama saluted while holding a phone, and in 2013, some reporters were outraged when the president briefly forgot to salute as he boarded Marine One.
Sometimes it seems as if the Beltway really needs better things to do .
...................................................................................................................................................................
The political world falls for dumb ‘controversies,’ Part XXXVII
By Steve Benen, September 24, 2014
When the right start hyperventilating about President Obama’s awkward salute yesterday, it seemed like the kind of mindless story that would shine bright but burn out quickly. Apparently, however, it’s not quite done.
A backlash is brewing after a video emerged showing President Barack Obama holding a coffee cup while saluting Marines. The White House Instagram account posted footage of Obama offering the informal salute as he climbed down from Marine One after landing in New York for the United Nations General Assembly. Criticism soon spilled over on Twitter.Naturally, because the right considers The Most Important Story On Earth, a wide variety of news organizations are treating it as a legitimate “controversy.” Even by the low standards of our 2014 political discourse, this is pretty depressing.
But it’s not just a media problem. Beltway Republicans have suggested the “Latte Salute Election” may be a worthwhile 2014 theme, and the National Republican Congressional Committee has even launched a fundraising campaign, urging donors to hand over money because the president saluted Marines while holding a coffee cup.Yep, this is what contemporary politics has come to.
And while the debate – if we use the word loosely – about this nonsense serves no real purpose except giving Republicans an excuse to question the president’s patriotism, there are two related angles to that are actually somewhat interesting.
The first is an ongoing pattern in which the political world holds President Obama to a standard unlike his predecessors. It’s not as if other recent presidents weren’t photographed making awkward salutes – see the image included above – but the difference is the media and the president’s critics didn’t consider it important, and Democratic campaign committees didn’t use it as the basis for an election.
When other presidents issue executive orders, it’s fine. When Obama does it, Republicans insist it’s scandalous.
When other presidents rely on “czars,” it’s fine. When Obama does it, Republicans insist it’s scandalous.
When other presidents make recess appointments, it’s fine. When Obama does it, Republicans insist it’s scandalous.
When other presidents decide not to defend certain federal laws against court challenges, it’s fine. When Obama does it, Republicans insist it’s scandalous.
Other presidents have bowed when meeting foreign heads of state. They’ve tried terrorist suspects in federal courts. They’ve played plenty of golf. They were photographed wearing casual attire in the Oval Office. They’ve made awkward salutes. But when this president has done the exact same things, his detractors have turned the meaningless incidents into controversies.
I’m all for holding Obama to high standards. I just wish he wasn’t held to a different standard than other presidents.
But even if we put that aside, what’s up with these salutes in the first place? A friend of mine, I believe her name is Rachel Maddow, wrote a bit about this in her best-selling book. From page 36:
White House military aides saw a lot of [President Reagan], which perhaps bred a certain amount of familiarity, which could be why one aide, John Kline, wondered aloud if maybe Ronald Reagan was doing something out of line. Kline noticed that his boss was saluting members of the armed forces. Soldiers were supposed to salute their president; the president was not supposed to salute the soldiers.Garry Wills wrote in 2007, “Dwight Eisenhower, a real general, knew that the salute is for the uniform, and as president he was not wearing one. An exchange of salutes was out of order.”
No modern president, not even General Eisenhower, has saluted military personnel. It might even be, well, sort of improper.
Kline suggested he talk to the commandant of the United States Marine Corps and get his advice, and the commandant’s advice ran something like this: You’re the goddamn president. You can salute whoever you goddamn well please. So Ronald Reagan continued saluting his soldiers, and he encouraged his own vice president and successor, George H.W. Bush, to do the same. And every president since has followed.
Also note, in 2012, the right briefly went nuts because Obama saluted while holding a phone, and in 2013, some reporters were outraged when the president briefly forgot to salute as he boarded Marine One.
Sometimes it seems as if the Beltway really needs better things to do .
...................................................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Google CEO says "... groups that argue against research showing that humans are the cause of climate change, 'they're just literally lying.'"
...................................................................................................................................................................
Google pulls out of conservative political group over climate change
By Chris Isidore, September 23, 2014
Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt says the company is pulling its support of a conservative political group because he believes it is lying on climate change.
The group, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), lobbies state legislatures on a variety of issues. It has proposed legislation to roll back government mandates for greater use of renewable energy.
Schmidt, in an interview on National Public Radio's "The Diane Rehm Show," said Google decided to cut its support of the group because of its stance on climate change.
Schmidt said Google's support of ALEC was due to an unrelated issue, which he did not identify. But he said "I think the consensus within the company was that that was some sort of mistake, and so we're trying to not do that in the future."
"The company has a very strong view that we should make decisions in politics based on facts—what a shock," he said. And he said groups that argue against research showing that humans are the cause of climate change, "they're just literally lying."
ALEC CEO Lisa Nelson issued a statement saying she was sorry to see Google leave the group, but that it would not change its position.
"Google is an important voice on these and many other issues, and we will miss their perspective in our discussions," Nelson said. "However, ALEC and its members will continue to advance limited government, free markets and federalism through dialogue, debate and model policy formulation."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Google pulls out of conservative political group over climate change
By Chris Isidore, September 23, 2014
Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt says the company is pulling its support of a conservative political group because he believes it is lying on climate change.
The group, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), lobbies state legislatures on a variety of issues. It has proposed legislation to roll back government mandates for greater use of renewable energy.
Schmidt, in an interview on National Public Radio's "The Diane Rehm Show," said Google decided to cut its support of the group because of its stance on climate change.
Schmidt said Google's support of ALEC was due to an unrelated issue, which he did not identify. But he said "I think the consensus within the company was that that was some sort of mistake, and so we're trying to not do that in the future."
"The company has a very strong view that we should make decisions in politics based on facts—what a shock," he said. And he said groups that argue against research showing that humans are the cause of climate change, "they're just literally lying."
ALEC CEO Lisa Nelson issued a statement saying she was sorry to see Google leave the group, but that it would not change its position.
"Google is an important voice on these and many other issues, and we will miss their perspective in our discussions," Nelson said. "However, ALEC and its members will continue to advance limited government, free markets and federalism through dialogue, debate and model policy formulation."
...................................................................................................................................................................
What a waste of Kansas state resources! Gov. Inslee, please don't do this here!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Kansas Gov. Brownback to proclaim Zombie Preparedness Month
September 23, 2014
Kansans are being encouraged to prepare for an invasion of the living dead, with Gov. Sam Brownback scheduled to sign a proclamation later this week declaring October Zombie Preparedness Month.
The state Division of Emergency Management says if residents are prepared for a zombie attack, they're prepared for anything. Deputy director Angee Morgan says the idea is to make people aware of the need to be ready for emergency situations like natural disasters, catastrophic storms, fires — even a swarm of zombies.
Brownback is slated to sign the proclamation at 11 a.m. Friday in his ceremonial office in the Statehouse.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Kansas Gov. Brownback to proclaim Zombie Preparedness Month
September 23, 2014
Kansans are being encouraged to prepare for an invasion of the living dead, with Gov. Sam Brownback scheduled to sign a proclamation later this week declaring October Zombie Preparedness Month.
The state Division of Emergency Management says if residents are prepared for a zombie attack, they're prepared for anything. Deputy director Angee Morgan says the idea is to make people aware of the need to be ready for emergency situations like natural disasters, catastrophic storms, fires — even a swarm of zombies.
Brownback is slated to sign the proclamation at 11 a.m. Friday in his ceremonial office in the Statehouse.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"More leading companies are establishing political disclosure as a mainstream corporate practice ..." but only after having been dragged kicking and screaming into it!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Study: Major companies are increasingly disclosing their political spending
By Tom Hamburger, September 24, 2014
Major corporations are increasingly disclosing their political spending this election year, even as some business groups discourage them from doing so, according to a new study set for release Wednesday.
The annual index of corporate political spending by the Center for Political Accountability shows that a majority of nearly 200 publicly held companies received higher ratings for disclosure this year compared with 2013.
"More leading companies are establishing political disclosure as a mainstream corporate practice," said Bruce Freed, president of the group, which conducts the annual survey in conjunction with the Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research at the University of Pennsylvania.
The study examines policies and practices of disclosure on the websites of leading corporations. This year 20 companies received top rankings for disclosure and accountability. Two companies -- CSX Corp. and Noble Energy Inc. -- received the top score ever awarded. Several others, including Blackrock Inc. and Schlumberger Ltd., were cited for showing "greatest improvement" in making political spending information public.
"The transparency and disclosure movement is growing," said Charles Kolb, a former White House domestic policy advisor under George H.W. Bush, who sits on the board of the CPA.
The survey this year looked at disclosure by the top 300 companies on the Standard & Poors 500 list, up from 200 firms surveyed last year. Of the firms studied, sixty percent disclosed at least some spending on behalf of candidates, parties and political committees. Nearly half described their membership or payments to politically active trade associations, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The Chamber and allied national business groups are wary of the new pressure for donor disclosure, whether mandated by Congress, the courts or shareholders. One of the biggest spenders on elections, the Chamber has long refused to disclose details of its corporate donors, saying identification would lead to harassment and intimidation.
"What they really want is to silence viewpoints they don't like in order to have one-sided conversation with the America people in the public square," Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue said in a speech last year. "The aim to do this by regulating speech they don't like and intimidating speakers they don't agree with," Donohue said.
The Securities and Exchange Commission has received petitions and letters urging it to require publicly traded companies to disclose their political spending. The push for transparency has grown since 2010, when the U.S. Supreme Court rolled back restrictions on political spending by corporations, associations and labor unions. Although once a bipartisan cause, the current disclosure campaign has been led mostly by Democrats and groups on the left.
The study released Wednesday gives top ratings to 20 firms, among them Microsoft Corp., Morgan Stanley, Merck & Co., Inc., Qualcomm, Inc., and Time Warner, Inc. The survey does not include any judgments about a company's political spending or whether its disclosure is complete.
The Center for Competitive Politics criticized the newly released index as a “flawed and partisan measure of corporate accountability.”
“Corporations have an obligation to do what is in the best interest of their shareholders, not comply with the demands of a non-profit that opposes speech by the business community,” said CCP Chairman Brad Smith, former Federal Election Commission Chairman.
Smith also said it was "important to recognize the implications of activist investing and dragging the SEC into politics. CPA has no obligation to worry about the actual interests of shareholders, and nothing suggests that they have the best interest of the business community at heart.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
Study: Major companies are increasingly disclosing their political spending
By Tom Hamburger, September 24, 2014
Major corporations are increasingly disclosing their political spending this election year, even as some business groups discourage them from doing so, according to a new study set for release Wednesday.
The annual index of corporate political spending by the Center for Political Accountability shows that a majority of nearly 200 publicly held companies received higher ratings for disclosure this year compared with 2013.
"More leading companies are establishing political disclosure as a mainstream corporate practice," said Bruce Freed, president of the group, which conducts the annual survey in conjunction with the Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research at the University of Pennsylvania.
The study examines policies and practices of disclosure on the websites of leading corporations. This year 20 companies received top rankings for disclosure and accountability. Two companies -- CSX Corp. and Noble Energy Inc. -- received the top score ever awarded. Several others, including Blackrock Inc. and Schlumberger Ltd., were cited for showing "greatest improvement" in making political spending information public.
"The transparency and disclosure movement is growing," said Charles Kolb, a former White House domestic policy advisor under George H.W. Bush, who sits on the board of the CPA.
The survey this year looked at disclosure by the top 300 companies on the Standard & Poors 500 list, up from 200 firms surveyed last year. Of the firms studied, sixty percent disclosed at least some spending on behalf of candidates, parties and political committees. Nearly half described their membership or payments to politically active trade associations, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The Chamber and allied national business groups are wary of the new pressure for donor disclosure, whether mandated by Congress, the courts or shareholders. One of the biggest spenders on elections, the Chamber has long refused to disclose details of its corporate donors, saying identification would lead to harassment and intimidation.
"What they really want is to silence viewpoints they don't like in order to have one-sided conversation with the America people in the public square," Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue said in a speech last year. "The aim to do this by regulating speech they don't like and intimidating speakers they don't agree with," Donohue said.
The Securities and Exchange Commission has received petitions and letters urging it to require publicly traded companies to disclose their political spending. The push for transparency has grown since 2010, when the U.S. Supreme Court rolled back restrictions on political spending by corporations, associations and labor unions. Although once a bipartisan cause, the current disclosure campaign has been led mostly by Democrats and groups on the left.
The study released Wednesday gives top ratings to 20 firms, among them Microsoft Corp., Morgan Stanley, Merck & Co., Inc., Qualcomm, Inc., and Time Warner, Inc. The survey does not include any judgments about a company's political spending or whether its disclosure is complete.
The Center for Competitive Politics criticized the newly released index as a “flawed and partisan measure of corporate accountability.”
“Corporations have an obligation to do what is in the best interest of their shareholders, not comply with the demands of a non-profit that opposes speech by the business community,” said CCP Chairman Brad Smith, former Federal Election Commission Chairman.
Smith also said it was "important to recognize the implications of activist investing and dragging the SEC into politics. CPA has no obligation to worry about the actual interests of shareholders, and nothing suggests that they have the best interest of the business community at heart.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Koch brothers "... are enjoying making themselves billionaires by impoverishing the rest of us."
...................................................................................................................................................................
RFK Jr.: 'Do I Think the Koch Brothers Are Treasonous? Yes, I Do'
By Cathy Burke, September 23, 2014
There ought to be a law against climate-change deniers, says activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
In an interview with Climate Depot during New York City’s People's Climate March last Sunday, the Kennedy scion said, "I wish there were a law you could punish them with."
Story continues below video.
He also lashed out at lawmakers who are skeptical of climate change as well.
"I don't think there is a law that you can punish these politicians under . . . [and skeptical politicians are] selling out the public trust."
"Those guys are doing the Koch brothers' bidding and are against all the evidence of the rational mind, saying global warming does not exist," Kennedy railed. "They are contemptible human beings."
He accused the wealthy Koch brothers, Charles and David, of "polluting our atmosphere."
"I think it's treason. Do I think the Koch brothers are treasonous — yes, I do," Kennedy told Climate Depot.
"They are enjoying making themselves billionaires by impoverishing the rest of us. Do I think they should be in jail — I think they should be enjoying three hots and a cot at The Hague with all the other war criminals. Do I think the Koch brothers should be tried for reckless endangerment? Absolutely, that is a criminal offense and they ought to be serving time for it."
His remarks were sharply criticized.
"Kennedy's insidious aspirations are the inevitable consequence of his conviction that he is in possession of the truth and that all who have the temerity to question him are, in consequence, wreckers," Charles C.W. Cooke writes in National Review.
Also, writer Daniel Greenfield writes on frontpagemag.com, "If we're going to jail traitors, we could do worse than find RFK Jr. a nice spot in a country club prison."
Greenfield pointed to a New York Times report on Kennedy's ties to late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and that he used the proceeds of Chavez's donated oil to help fund his heating oil charity.
...................................................................................................................................................................
RFK Jr.: 'Do I Think the Koch Brothers Are Treasonous? Yes, I Do'
By Cathy Burke, September 23, 2014
There ought to be a law against climate-change deniers, says activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
In an interview with Climate Depot during New York City’s People's Climate March last Sunday, the Kennedy scion said, "I wish there were a law you could punish them with."
Story continues below video.
He also lashed out at lawmakers who are skeptical of climate change as well.
"I don't think there is a law that you can punish these politicians under . . . [and skeptical politicians are] selling out the public trust."
"Those guys are doing the Koch brothers' bidding and are against all the evidence of the rational mind, saying global warming does not exist," Kennedy railed. "They are contemptible human beings."
He accused the wealthy Koch brothers, Charles and David, of "polluting our atmosphere."
"I think it's treason. Do I think the Koch brothers are treasonous — yes, I do," Kennedy told Climate Depot.
"They are enjoying making themselves billionaires by impoverishing the rest of us. Do I think they should be in jail — I think they should be enjoying three hots and a cot at The Hague with all the other war criminals. Do I think the Koch brothers should be tried for reckless endangerment? Absolutely, that is a criminal offense and they ought to be serving time for it."
His remarks were sharply criticized.
"Kennedy's insidious aspirations are the inevitable consequence of his conviction that he is in possession of the truth and that all who have the temerity to question him are, in consequence, wreckers," Charles C.W. Cooke writes in National Review.
Also, writer Daniel Greenfield writes on frontpagemag.com, "If we're going to jail traitors, we could do worse than find RFK Jr. a nice spot in a country club prison."
Greenfield pointed to a New York Times report on Kennedy's ties to late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and that he used the proceeds of Chavez's donated oil to help fund his heating oil charity.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... national politicians have already had seven years since the recession began to combat its corrosive effects. Its efforts have been underwhelming."
...................................................................................................................................................................
This is why the middle class can't get ahead
By Rick Newman, September 19, 2014
For everybody wondering why the economic recovery feels like a recession, here’s the answer: We’re still at least five years away from regaining everything lost during the 2007-2009 downturn.
Forecasting firm IHS Global Insight predicts that real median household income — perhaps the best proxy for middle-class living standards — won’t reach the prior peak from 2007 until 2019. Since the numbers are adjusted for inflation, that means the typical family will wait 12 years until their purchasing power is as strong as it was before the recession. That would be the longest period of stagnation, by far, since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Even though the recession officially ended in 2009, median household income declined until 2012 (which suggests maybe we ought to reconsider the way we define recessions). The total decline from the peak in 2007 to the bottom in 2012 was 8.3%. For a family earning $50,000, that means they would have been getting by on $4,150 less per year.
There's been a small uptick in incomes since 2012, but we're not even close to digging out of the crater caused by the recession. Census data going back to 1967 shows that to be the biggest drop in any recession, and the same probably holds true going all the way back to 1940. The second-worst drop in inflation-adjusted income was 6%, from a peak in 1979 to a bottom in 1983. This chart shows the trend (numbers after 2013 are projections):
By other measures, the recession is a distant memory. Total employment eclipsed pre-recession levels earlier this year. The stock market exceeded its 2007 peak in 2013, as did the total amount of household wealth — mostly home equity and financial investments. But the achingly slow recovery in incomes reveals the troublesome changes that are transforming the whole U.S. economy and holding back the middle class: Certain skills are becoming rapidly outdated, many jobs pay less than they used to and a greater share of income is flowing to the wealthy.
The stark disparity between the return of jobs and wealth, on one hand, and depressed incomes, on the other, shows the limits of the Federal Reserve’s ability to stimulate the economy. The Fed’s super-easy monetary policy has clearly helped boost stock prices and home values, which helps the wealthy most of all, since they’re the ones who tend to own stocks and homes. That's why some aggregate economic data looks pretty good — huge gains at the top pull up the averages. But the most aggressive Fed action ever has been unable to prevent an ongoing income depression. Of course, incomes might have been even lower had the Fed been less aggressive.
The sharp and prolonged drop in incomes could have far-reaching consequences beyond those that are already apparent. “People are starting to realize that something serious has happened,” says IHS economist Chris Christopher. “What the younger generation, people under 35, is experiencing is something very different than their parents or grandparents experienced.” Recent college grads are finding it far tougher to land decent jobs and pay off student debt. They’re getting married and having kids later in life, while also delaying purchases of big things like cars and homes. Young workers without a college degree face limited opportunities, and some may never earn enough to support a family.
Lower incomes means less consumer spending and slower economic growth overall. The longer that persists, the longer it will take for the U.S. economy to create the kinds of well-paying jobs that allow the middle class to prosper. Meanwhile, more and more people will come up short on things such as education funding for their kids and retirement nest eggs.
IHS regards 2014 as an inflection point, a year in which real incomes ought to turn upward for good and continue to rise gradually, until they finally reach pre-recession levels in 2019. Still, a 12-year downturn in incomes would span President Obama’s entire eight-year tenure in office. That might tip the odds in favor of a Republican president in 2016, but Obama’s successor could suffer from the same weak spending power among consumers. And a slower-growing economy will keep federal tax revenues down, assuring that large budget deficits continue and the national debt, now a whopping $18 trillion, will become even more unmanageable.
Debate will probably intensify over whether there’s anything policymakers can do to make incomes grow faster. There might be — cleverly crafted infrastructure projects, tax reform, or widespread and effective job training might give incomes a boost. But national politicians have already had seven years since the recession began to combat its corrosive effects. Its efforts have been underwhelming. At least we may be closer to the end of the income depression than the beginning.
...................................................................................................................................................................
This is why the middle class can't get ahead
By Rick Newman, September 19, 2014
For everybody wondering why the economic recovery feels like a recession, here’s the answer: We’re still at least five years away from regaining everything lost during the 2007-2009 downturn.
Forecasting firm IHS Global Insight predicts that real median household income — perhaps the best proxy for middle-class living standards — won’t reach the prior peak from 2007 until 2019. Since the numbers are adjusted for inflation, that means the typical family will wait 12 years until their purchasing power is as strong as it was before the recession. That would be the longest period of stagnation, by far, since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Even though the recession officially ended in 2009, median household income declined until 2012 (which suggests maybe we ought to reconsider the way we define recessions). The total decline from the peak in 2007 to the bottom in 2012 was 8.3%. For a family earning $50,000, that means they would have been getting by on $4,150 less per year.
There's been a small uptick in incomes since 2012, but we're not even close to digging out of the crater caused by the recession. Census data going back to 1967 shows that to be the biggest drop in any recession, and the same probably holds true going all the way back to 1940. The second-worst drop in inflation-adjusted income was 6%, from a peak in 1979 to a bottom in 1983. This chart shows the trend (numbers after 2013 are projections):
By other measures, the recession is a distant memory. Total employment eclipsed pre-recession levels earlier this year. The stock market exceeded its 2007 peak in 2013, as did the total amount of household wealth — mostly home equity and financial investments. But the achingly slow recovery in incomes reveals the troublesome changes that are transforming the whole U.S. economy and holding back the middle class: Certain skills are becoming rapidly outdated, many jobs pay less than they used to and a greater share of income is flowing to the wealthy.
The stark disparity between the return of jobs and wealth, on one hand, and depressed incomes, on the other, shows the limits of the Federal Reserve’s ability to stimulate the economy. The Fed’s super-easy monetary policy has clearly helped boost stock prices and home values, which helps the wealthy most of all, since they’re the ones who tend to own stocks and homes. That's why some aggregate economic data looks pretty good — huge gains at the top pull up the averages. But the most aggressive Fed action ever has been unable to prevent an ongoing income depression. Of course, incomes might have been even lower had the Fed been less aggressive.
The sharp and prolonged drop in incomes could have far-reaching consequences beyond those that are already apparent. “People are starting to realize that something serious has happened,” says IHS economist Chris Christopher. “What the younger generation, people under 35, is experiencing is something very different than their parents or grandparents experienced.” Recent college grads are finding it far tougher to land decent jobs and pay off student debt. They’re getting married and having kids later in life, while also delaying purchases of big things like cars and homes. Young workers without a college degree face limited opportunities, and some may never earn enough to support a family.
Lower incomes means less consumer spending and slower economic growth overall. The longer that persists, the longer it will take for the U.S. economy to create the kinds of well-paying jobs that allow the middle class to prosper. Meanwhile, more and more people will come up short on things such as education funding for their kids and retirement nest eggs.
IHS regards 2014 as an inflection point, a year in which real incomes ought to turn upward for good and continue to rise gradually, until they finally reach pre-recession levels in 2019. Still, a 12-year downturn in incomes would span President Obama’s entire eight-year tenure in office. That might tip the odds in favor of a Republican president in 2016, but Obama’s successor could suffer from the same weak spending power among consumers. And a slower-growing economy will keep federal tax revenues down, assuring that large budget deficits continue and the national debt, now a whopping $18 trillion, will become even more unmanageable.
Debate will probably intensify over whether there’s anything policymakers can do to make incomes grow faster. There might be — cleverly crafted infrastructure projects, tax reform, or widespread and effective job training might give incomes a boost. But national politicians have already had seven years since the recession began to combat its corrosive effects. Its efforts have been underwhelming. At least we may be closer to the end of the income depression than the beginning.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)