politics

David Yarnold: Big Oil’s Arctic Bet: A Fool’s Risk

by David Yarnold on April 17, 2012

Huffington Post…

“Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” We’ve all heard it — and lived it — as individuals and collectively as Americans. We’ve all had to confront someone who has fooled or even misled us. But when Big Oil repeatedly tells us a monumental lie, we’re struck with collective amnesia. Marking the second anniversary of the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, which occurred April 20, 2010, we can’t help but remember the rage and heartbreak we all felt when 11 men died and we saw images of oiled Brown Pelicans flattened to the wet sand. Scientists are just now reporting ominous disruptions in the Gulf’s underwater food chain and we still don’t fully understand the long-term impact on birds and other wildlife. It was a case of “shame on you” in 1989, when the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska, spilling tens of millions of gallons of crude oil into the pristine and achingly beautiful southern Alaska landscape. But there was plenty of shame to go around two years ago as the BP oil disaster unfolded in the Gulf, spewing more than 200 million gallons into what, from a bird and human standpoint, is one of America’s most precious ecosystems. William K. Reilly, a lifelong conservationist and moderate Republican, co-chaired the commission investigating the BP disaster. Reilly was EPA administrator at the time of the Valdez, and he was flabbergasted to find that nothing much had changed since 1989. Reilly concluded that the BP spill “evidenced a failure of management, and good management could have avoided the catastrophe … We are not dealing here with a sick or failing or unsuccessful industry but with a complacent one.” Reilly reminds us that we in fact dodged a bullet two years ago: “…there was a point in the management of this crisis when industry experts feared the entire 120-million-barrel reservoir might seep through the ocean floor and wreak total havoc… What would we be talking about today if the well couldn’t be canned?… We’d be having an existential conversation about whether offshore drilling should ever be permitted in US coastal waters again.” Bill Reilly is no bomb-thrower. At the time he co-chaired the BP spill commission he was serving on the boards of ConocoPhilips and DuPont. As we mark this anniversary, two immediate challenges leap to mind: First, we must restore the Gulf Coast. The BP spill was a major blow to a region already under stress from urban sprawl, wetlands loss and pollution. Congress is now weighing a measure — called the RESTORE Act — that would divert most or all of BP’s penalties to gulf cleanup. Bipartisan versions of this measure have passed both the Senate and the House; it’s time for Congress to finish the job and send a final bill to the president. Second, even as you read this, a drilling fleet under contract to Shell Oil is making its way to a patch of seabed less than 15 miles from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Incredibly, Shell has secured nearly all the government permissions it needs to begin drilling operations in a body of water that is ice-covered much of the year, in a place where the sun does not shine for months on end, and where extreme weather is commonplace. The U.S. Government’s own non-partisan watchdog, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) thinks this is a terrible idea . We agree. Cleaning up a major spill in the Arctic would make the BP disaster look like child’s play. Last month the GAO issued a report raising fundamental concerns about whether a major spill could ever be managed in icy conditions. If there is a spot on Earth as sacred or as critical to the future of our wild birds as the Gulf of Mexico, it is probably the unspoiled Arctic. Here, hundreds of bird species arrive every spring from all four North American flyways — the superhighways in the sky that birds use to travel up and down the Americas. Here, they mate, lay eggs and raise their young. Here also, many of America’s remaining polar bears make their winter dens along the coasts. The potential harm from a BP-scale spill is almost beyond comprehension. And, there is growing evidence that we simply do not need to take risks like this to meet our nation’s energy needs. Oil imports are down. Oil production from domestic wells is up thanks to new technology. We’re driving farther on a gallon of gas and using less. Energy independence is becoming a real possibility. Since those who cannot remember history are doomed to repeat it, the price of social amnesia has become unacceptably high. A workable balance between powering the nation and protecting our natural bounty is within reach, but only if we remember, learn, and not be fooled again.

See the article here:
David Yarnold: Big Oil’s Arctic Bet: A Fool’s Risk

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

Bob Edgar: ALEC Tries Humor as Defense

by Bob Edgar on April 16, 2012

Huffington Post…

Did you know that some of the biggest, baddest names in American business have funnybones? Walmart, ExxonMobil, Pfizer, even the Koch brothers — plus hundreds of others, actually — are cut-ups. Who’d have guessed? But it’s true. Last week, as tens thousands of Americans voiced our collective outrage at the work of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a lobbying front underwritten by these and other major companies, they delivered a side-splitting response . “This is an attempt to silence our organization… This is an all-out intimidation campaign,” groused Ron Scheberle, ALEC’s executive director. “America needs organizations like ALEC to foster the discussion and debate of policy differences in an open, transparent way and not fall back on bullying, intimidation and threats.” Scheberle’s comment was written, so I can’t tell if he was grinning when he uncorked it. But the notion that people like me, who’ve been publicly taking on ALEC and its political/policy agenda, are somehow intimidating, is a laugher. And the suggestion that ALEC fosters open, transparent debate is absolutely hilarious. Think of it. We’re just a bunch of everyday folks — working moms and dads, students, retirees, small business owners, a cross-section of Americans — who object to the way that multi-billion dollar companies, through ALEC, have been pushing laws that encourage vigilante justice, threaten to block millions of people from voting, attack our public schools and deny climate change. And somehow, because we dare to speak up and challenge these behemoths, we’ve become fearsome intimidators? C’mon man! Nobody’s trying to silence ALEC. Silence and secrecy are ALEC’s biggest weapons. At Common Cause, where I work, we’re trying to amplify — not suppress — ALEC’s voice. That’s what they don’t like. For years, ALEC’s corporate members have quietly poured money into the campaign funds of thousands of our elected representatives, entertained and lobbied them at resort hotels far from the eyes and ears of the public and press, and used them to advance ALEC’s “model” legislation. It worked because nobody knew about it. Well, now folks are learning. Because Common Cause and other groups have picked up a megaphone and spread ALEC’s message and tactics, companies are re-thinking their involvement with ALEC. And some of them — smart, responsible companies like Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Kraft Foods and Intuit, are getting out. That’s not bullying. It’s democracy.

Read more here:
Bob Edgar: ALEC Tries Humor as Defense

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

William S. Becker: Children v. Dirty Business

April 11, 2012

On May 11, a group of children will face off against the Obama administration and the National Association of Manufacturers for the latest round of a David vs. Goliath battle in federal court. The kids filed a lawsuit last year against the administration, arguing that common law requires governments to protect critical natural resources on behalf of current and future generations. In this case, the kids argue, the government has an inherent duty to protect the atmosphere from greenhouse gas emissions, and all of us from the impacts of global climate change. In their lawsuit, a group called Our Children’s Trust filed against a who’s who of administration officials including EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Robert Wikins ruled that the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and several California businesses could intervene against the kids, based on the argument that limiting greenhouse gas emissions would lead to a “diminution or cessation of their businesses” — in other words, jeopardize their profit margins. Now, NAM and the administration have asked the judge to dismiss the case. That’s the motion to be considered in May. Blogger Ben Jervey has done a good job describing the lawsuit’s background , including who the kids are and why they’re doing this, so I won’t go into it here. But I am curious about an argument attributed to one of the attorneys for the businesses, that companies have a “legally protected cognizable interest to freely emit CO2.” Of course, what is legal is not necessarily moral, but morality is the province of the clergy, not the courts. More to the point, it would seem that the public — present and future — has a “cognizable interest” to live without the natural disasters, health hazards, humanitarian tragedies and threats of war that are the likely results of climate change and that already are in evidence today. Further, as unofficial co-plaintiffs in this case, we might all point out that while companies can resolve this problem by installing better emission controls, or using cleaner fuels, or changing the nature of their operations, the damages from greenhouse gas emissions are not so easily avoided. In fact, scientists tell us that some of the damages are irreversible. At the heart of this case, it seems to me, is not whether current law permits corporations to willfully alter the atmosphere with their wastes. If we depend solely on political bodies to protect the climate, for example, then we will politicize the atmosphere as well as polluting it. The health of oceans, forests, fresh water supplies and soils — and consequently human beings — all will be subject to the whims and prejudices of politicians. The real issue is whether the health of the natural systems and resources that all of us “own” is protected by a doctrine that transcends the interests of any one industry, the statutes of any one Congress, the actions of any administration, or the abdication of responsibility by any of them. As a 65-year-old, I must admit some embarrassment that our children now feel obligated to face off against the giants of industry and government and all their lawyers. These kids are stepping in where their elders in Washington and the international community have feared to tread. But it’s also heartening and none too soon. What could be established as a result of this lawsuit is that protecting a global life-support system from irreparable harm is a higher priority than corporate profits — profits derived in part from making the rest of us pay the god-awful price of greenhouse gas emissions. It’s our kids who will have to live with the court’s ultimate decision, but it’s in the interest of all of us for Judge Wilkins to allow the lawsuit to proceed.

Read the full article →

Ian Yolles: Contributing to the Greater Good by Being Selfish

April 10, 2012

“Doing well by doing good.” The phrase has been overused, but fortunately it is no longer a novel concept in business. Employees, shareholders, and customers are increasingly expecting companies to focus on their social and environmental performance hand-in-hand with their financial performance. In fact, recent studies by companies such as Edelman Financial Group and WPP indicate that when choosing between brands of equal quality and price, social purpose ranks as the number-one deciding factor for global consumers’ purchases, above design, innovation, and brand loyalty considerations, and 75 percent of U.S. consumers want to buy from green brands. Failure to listen, given the means in the digital age to stand in judgment of brands, will result in business being withdrawn. The reverse is also true. Consumers will reward brands for their behavior with passionate advocacy enabled by the same social media tools. At its core, the phrase “doing well by doing good” means that growth, revenue, and profit should be the byproduct of making a positive difference for multiple stakeholders, not the ultimate goal. This approach becomes more interesting when applied to the most microcosmic “business unit” possible: the individual consumer. If we could imbue this philosophy into our culture — at an individual level — collectively we would catalyze a broad positive impact previously thought unattainable. Businesses that embrace this philosophy focus on the connections between creating societal and economic value and are motivated by generating benefit for multiple and diverse stakeholders — for their employees, supply chain partners, customers, investors, and the health of their brand. Many individual consumers are similarly motivated. Our choices are heavily influenced by self-interest; we want to have enough resources to support ourselves and be able to provide for and protect our families, while at the same time wanting to leave a positive mark on our communities and even the world. The ROI of “doing good” for businesses is pretty easy to understand: improvements to the bottom line, increased customer satisfaction, and often a more visible, measurable environmental impact due to the larger scale. The return on making sustainable lifestyle changes at the individual level, however, isn’t always as clear or pronounced. Given the magnitude of our environmental issues, we cannot always “see” the impact of our behavior. To get a critical mass of consumers to change their behavior, you have to make the return relatable and valuable on a personal level. So which are the most effective motivators of behavior change? I believe there are three key pillars: Show me the money: If certain behavior changes can influence one’s personal financial position and that of one’s community, it forges a personal connection and increases the chance that the behavior is maintained over time. The consumer becomes invested, if you will. The opportunity to save or even make money taps into every person’s desire to better provide for themselves and their family. Get social: We now live in a world of hyper transparency and constant connectivity; people don’t hesitate to head online to seek out information around sustainability efforts, share their own thoughts, and promote the positive steps they are taking to live more sustainably. This public sharing contributes to our definition of our sense of self and provides social status and recognition, which adds an additional motivational factor. Incorporating elements of competition and personal reaffirmation into our efforts to inspire a mass shift towards more sustainable choices and behaviors is an effective way to use social currency as a catalyst for positive change. Make it measurable: The global environmental issues that confront us are so large, complex, and interconnected that they seem impersonal and impossible to do anything about at the individual level. By making the actions you are requesting people to take measurable and trackable, you can show individuals the tangible impact that their actions have in the context of the collective action of others. If you can show them how their actions are contributing positively to their own community as well as the natural environment, then you can catalyze social activism and commitment. If we’re going to navigate our way toward a sustainable future, we’re going to have to think and behave differently. It’s not about doing good for the sake of doing good. It’s really about self-interest. By engraining this into both business and consumer behavior, we can more effectively move society toward a sustainable future, and, in the process, help people understand the connection between the environment, economics, and the well-being of our communities.

Read the full article →

Job Creators Alliance: What the Federal Government Can Learn From Florida

April 8, 2012

The headline numbers of 121,000 in March and 240,000 in February were well below the consensus expectations, which ran about 205,000. Private payrolls increased by 121,000, with the bulk coming from private services at 90,000. Gains were strongest in business services (31,000), education and health (37,000), and leisure and hospitality (39,000), but gains in these sectors were below what had been observed in recent months. On the goods-producing side of the ledger, construction payrolls fell by 7,000. Manufacturing payrolls, however, grew by 31,000 and, along with gains in leisure and hospitality, suggest that some underlying labor market strength in cyclical sectors remains in place. The public sector shed 1,000 jobs, and recent trends there suggest that the persistent declines in public sector payrolls have subsided. The three-month average change in public sector payrolls is now 1,000, versus the -22,000 average monthly change recorded in 2011. Finally, net revisions to previous months added 4,000 jobs, continuing the pattern of upward revisions to the data, but at a slower rate. EARNINGS GROWTH STAGNANT Average hourly earnings rose 0.2 percent, compared with an upwardly revised 0.3 percent in the previous month (initial estimate: 0.1 percent), and the y/y change now stands at 2.1 percent. The average workweek was unchanged at 34.5 hours, in line with expectations, while the February data were revised higher to 34.6 from 34.5. Aggregate hours worked increased at a 3.7 percent 3m/3m (saar) pace in March, compared with 4.1 percent in February and 3.4 percent in January. The payroll proxy for labor income (aggregate hours worked times average hourly earnings) rose at a 5.6 percent 3m/3m (saar) pace after rising 5.8 percent last month and 5.0 percent in January. The household survey also took on a weak tone, with employment falling by 31,000. This is well below the three-month average of 415,000 and breaks eight consecutive months of household employment gains. THE CLAIMS DROP BECAUSE CLAIMANTS DROP OFF The unemployment rate fell to 8.2 percent (8.192 percent unrounded), reflecting a drop in the participation rate of one-tenth, to 63.8 percent. Overall, the report had an undeniably weak tone and will raise doubts about the strength of the labor market. Given that the report reflects only one month of data and some of the underlying cyclical sectors registered payroll gains, I do not view it as conclusively signaling a shift to a lower trend rate of employment growth. THE BOTTOM LINE OF THE BOTTOM LINE Although the unemployment rate went down to 8.2 percent, the number of jobs created was only 121,000. This is basically in line with population growth. The only reason the number of unemployment claims went down is because the overall labor force participation went down — those hundreds of thousands who are no longer eligible for unemployment. This is what happens when you give people less incentive. The president says we have tried ‘on-your-own economics’ but now we can see how ‘government-run, high-tax, heavily-regulated, bureaucrats-pick-the-winners-and-losers economics’ destroys job growth. The 121,000 new jobs are in line with what you would expect with GDP growth and income growth. As I have always said the prior job growth was not in line with the low GDP and income growth we were seeing. Our low GDP and income growth during this period should have given us job growth of 120,000-150,000 a month, rather than the anemic growth we had in February and March. What this says to me is the growth in jobs is a just bounce from too many layoffs during the recession beyond what the GDP at that point was indicating. The effect of the administration’s policies are finally showing. One month is not a trend, but we finally have a correlation between the GDP and Income growth. And on the bright side, we have job growth in the service industry that serves alcohol. THE FLORIDA EXCEPTION One state that stood apart from national trends was Florida. What they saw there was amazing, and it was the result of a government approach to economics that was 180 degrees from what the White House wants. With the release of March’s data, Florida has now had 11 consecutive months of job growth. Their unemployment is at a three-year low . These job growth trends are a result of Florida’s reducing regulation, easing the tax burden on small businesses and delivering two consecutive balanced state budgets without tax increases. This is the example we need in every state, and most especially in Washington, D.C. The parties must come together to create a positive business environment, with established and common sense rules, a reduction in bureaucratic induced burdens, and the removal of uncertainty and ambiguity that comes from arbitrary and radical policies. By David Park, Chairman, Job Creators Alliance David Park is Managing Partner at Austin Capital, LLC, a merchant bank that assists small companies with financial consulting, and is also Chairman of the Job Creators Alliance , a nonprofit comprised of current and former major business leaders who are committed to the defense and preservation of the free enterprise system.

Read the full article →

Blair Bowie: Disempowered Bankers Start Super PAC, Reveal Plans for World Domination

April 6, 2012

The American Banker Association recently announced that after years of being ignored in the halls of power, it will at last be creating its own super PAC to serve as its proverbial “big stick.” For too long, the banking industry has been stuck at 13 on the list of industries giving the most to members of Congress , drowned out by such vehemently anti-banking interests as “Misc. Finance” (12), “Lobbyists” (7), “Real Estate” (5), and “Securities and Investment” (3). American Banker editor-at-large Barbara Rehm writes, “Frustrated by a lack of political power and fed up with blindly donating to politicians who consistently vote against the industry’s interests, a handful of leaders are determined to shake things up.” While I am highly skeptical of the sentiment that “Congress is not afraid of bankers”, given that banking lobbyists outnumber banking reform advocates 25-1 and that the Chairman of the Senate Financial Services Committee seems to believe that “the banks own the place,” the most ridiculous thing about this announcement may just be ABA’s willingness to reveal its strategy for skirting the non-coordination rules. The Supreme Court and FEC explicitly prohibit Super PACs from coordinating with candidates and their campaigns. I generally interpret this to mean that having a direct conversation with a candidate is a violation of the rules. Yet Matt Packard, the Super PAC’s chairman, is apparently quite excited about using his new stick in that context, “If someone says I am going to give your opponent $5,000 or $10,000, you might say, ‘Yea, okay’. But if you say the bankers are going to put in $10,000 or $500,000 or $1 million into your opponent’s campaign, that starts to draw some attention.” When is Packard imagining himself having this conversation and what will he be asking for to call off the hounds? This statement speaks volumes about how the industry thinks about its involvement in politics. Note too that Packard says they may be directing money “into your opponent’s campaign.” He means that in the same way that one might give to Restore Our Future to support Romney right? Nope. While the coordination rules are twisted enough when it comes to candidate specific super PACs, Friends of Traditional Banking plans to go even further. The independen expenditure-only committee, according to Rehm’s description, will exist not to “touch the money,” but to direct it to the candidate’s actual campaigns. This is starting to feel like the scene where the Bond villain reveals his whole plan for world domination. Even with a feckless FEC on the beat, Friends of Traditional Banking seems to be inviting federal investigation. Rehm reports that the first thing prospective donors have been asking Utah Bankers Association president Howard Headlee is, “Is this legal?” Luckily, Headlee seems to have a Trevor Potter button for that.

Read the full article →

Robert Reich: The Fable of the Century

April 5, 2012

Imagine a country in which the very richest people get all the economic gains. They eventually accumulate so much of the nation’s total income and wealth that the middle class no longer has the purchasing power to keep the economy going full speed. Most of the middle class’s wages keep falling and their major asset — their home — keeps shrinking in value. Imagine that the richest people in this country use some of their vast wealth to routinely bribe politicians. They get the politicians to cut their taxes so low there’s no money to finance important public investments that the middle class depends on — such as schools and roads, or safety nets such as health care for the elderly and poor. Imagine further that among the richest of these rich are financiers. These financiers have so much power over the rest of the economy they get average taxpayers to bail them out when their bets in the casino called the stock market go bad. They have so much power they even shred regulations intended to limit their power. These financiers have so much power they force businesses to lay off millions of workers and to reduce the wages and benefits of millions of others, in order to maximize profits and raise share prices — all of which make the financiers even richer, because they own so many of shares of stock and run the casino. Now, imagine that among the richest of these financiers are people called private-equity managers who buy up companies in order to squeeze even more money out of them by loading them up with debt and firing even more of their employees, and then selling the companies for a fat profit. Although these private-equity managers don’t even risk their own money — they round up investors to buy the target companies — they nonetheless pocket 20 percent of those fat profits. And because of a loophole in the tax laws, which they created with their political bribes, these private equity managers are allowed to treat their whopping earnings as capital gains, taxed at only 15 percent — even though they themselves made no investment and didn’t risk a dime. Finally, imagine there is a presidential election. One party, called the Republican Party, nominates as its candidate a private-equity manager who has raked in more than $20 million a year and paid only 13.9 percent in taxes — a lower tax rate than many in the middle class. Yes, I know it sounds far-fetched. But bear with me because the fable gets even wilder. Imagine this candidate and his party come up with a plan to cut the taxes of the rich even more — so millionaires save another $150,000 a year. And their plan cuts everything else the middle class and the poor depend on — Medicare, Medicaid, education, job-training, food stamps, Pell grants, child nutrition, even law enforcement. What happens next? There are two endings to this fable. You have to decide which it’s to be. In one ending the private-equity manager candidate gets all his friends and everyone in the Wall Street casino and everyone in every executive suite of big corporations to contribute the largest wad of campaign money ever assembled — beyond your imagination. The candidate uses the money to run continuous advertisements telling the same big lies over and over, such as “don’t tax the wealthy because they create the jobs” and “don’t tax corporations or they’ll go abroad” and “government is your enemy” and “the other party wants to turn America into a socialist state.” And because big lies told repeatedly start sounding like the truth, the citizens of the country begin to believe them, and they elect the private equity manager president. Then he and his friends turn the country into a plutocracy (which it was starting to become anyway). But there’s another ending. In this one, the candidacy of the private equity manager (and all the money he and his friends use to try to sell their lies) has the opposite effect. It awakens the citizens of the country to what is happening to their economy and their democracy. It ignites a movement among the citizens to take it all back. The citizens repudiate the private equity manager and everything he stands for, and the party that nominated him. And they begin to recreate an economy that works for everyone and a democracy that’s responsive to everyone. Just a fable, of course. But the ending is up to you. Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future , now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org .

Read the full article →

Allan Brawley: Let’s Stand With Working People Against the Crony Capitalists and Their Political Lackeys

April 2, 2012

The labor unions have always been in the forefront of the national struggle for workers’ rights to organize, a living wage, safe workplaces, health and unemployment insurance, pensions and countless other benefits we have all come to take for granted. Many of these gains were won with the blood and other personal sacrifices of those workers who stood up to the depredations, and often violent, responses of their employers. Those early union struggles need to be remembered and appropriately re-enacted if we are to take the country back from the corporate interests that again control it, their political and judicial allies and the complicit mainstream media. Unfortunately, expecting the gravely weakened unions to take the lead in today’s struggle by themselves is unrealistic and unfair, although their full participation in the battle is essential. The labor movement opened itself to criticism by the behavior of some of its leaders in the past that undermined its image — defending the retention of unproductive workers, insisting on overly generous benefit packages, etc. But, anyone who knows anything about unions is fully aware that these were aberrations that distracted attention from the invaluable role they have played in promoting a higher standard of living and democracy, not only in the workplace, but also for the country as a whole. At least in part because of these achievements, they have been systematically and unfairly demonized by big money interests for decades. It is to be hoped that these sustained misrepresentations of what unions have fought for and achieved for all of us over the years will not result in a repetition today of the more extreme conditions that provoked their founding. Last year’s explosion at Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia that killed 29 people and the disastrous blowout at BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico that claimed eleven lives are eerie reminders of events that occurred at the turn of the last century. Last year was the 100th anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Company fire in New York City that cost the lives of 146 workers (mostly young Jewish immigrant women) who were trapped in their workplace because their employers had barred the means of escape. Eyewitnesses to the tragedy saw a steady stream of workers pause helplessly amid the flames before jumping to their deaths on the sidewalk before their eyes. The impact of the Triangle fire on the national psyche and on the organizing efforts of the unions cannot be overstated. Within five years, several clothing industry unions had gained recognition and played a key role in securing from their employers the 45-hour week, a living wage, paid vacations, health insurance and pensions. Mine, steel, textile, railroad, automobile and countless other workers had to suffer their own versions of employer-inflicted inhumanity, violence and multiple deaths and injuries before they secured recognition and some degree of workplace fairness and safety. We owe all of them a great deal — at the very least, to remember and honor them for their courage and sacrifice. Progressives succeeded in having many of these workplace rights (initially secured by the unions), adopted by specific states and municipalities and, later, enacted into Federal law, especially in the 1930s. These rights were expanded and enforced for the next 30 years until the Right Wing of the Republican Party mounted their systematic assault on ordinary working people, their families and the people who sought to represent them. We are now witnessing the consequences of three decades of corporate deregulation, tax breaks for the biggest corporations and the wealthiest Americans, and a complete disregard for the poor and vulnerable, including children and sick people — a disgraceful and unsustainable gap between the ultra-rich and everyone else. That the restoration of the power of the labor unions would be a huge benefit to the country at this time is undeniable and they should be supported and strengthened by the efforts of all of us who care about the American way of life — and democracy itself. It will take a concerted effort by all persons with a sense of fairness, as well as a commitment to truly representative government, to fight the seemingly limitless greed of the country’s billionaires and multimillionaires and its destructive effects on the political process. Fortunately, Wisconsin’s million-signature recall campaign against its union-busting governor (and Koch Brothers-funded lackey) has demonstrated what energized union members and their outraged neighbors can accomplish. Similarly, the ability of the Occupy Wall Street movement to strike chords that have resonated nationally with a large segment of the 99 percent of Americans whose voices and well-being have not counted in recent years is an encouraging development. There is hope, therefore, that effective progressive movements such as these, as in the past and with our energetic support, can save the country from the crony capitalists who have rigged the economy and the democratic process for their exclusive benefit and those political operatives who have benefitted hugely from doing their bidding.

Read the full article →

Lisa Gilbert: Spending Spotlight

April 2, 2012

This week has showcased the need for a spotlight on the money overwhelming our democracy, as reform groups, investors, state elected officials and more have demanded that Congress and federal agencies do their jobs and make elections transparent to the people voting in them. First, on Monday morning, organizations and investors gathered to urge the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to require publicly traded companies to disclose contributions when they engage in electoral politics. Then this Thursday, the DISCLOSE Act came up for a hearing in the Senate. Both SEC rules and congressional action are critical to close the gaping loopholes in our system left by the Citizens United decision and ineffective FEC regulations on the disclosure of political spending. Polls show the public overwhelmingly supports disclosure. According to a New York Times article on a New York Times /CBS News poll released on October 28, 2010, Americans significantly, ” favor full disclosure of spending by both campaigns and outside groups.” When it comes to investors, it is the job of the SEC to pull them out of the dark and create a rule on political spending. In his opinion in Citizens United , Justice Anthony Kennedy incorrectly stated that shareholders would be in the know on political spending, but there’s actually no mechanism to give them the information. This is particularly troubling because companies can now give unlimited amounts to nonprofits and trade groups playing in elections that don’t have to disclose their funders. Groups on both the right and left, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Crossroads GPS, and Priorities U.S.A. can now receive unlimited gifts from companies without the knowledge of the corporation’s investors. A company’s political spending is relevant information to current and potential shareholders who are deciding where to invest their money. One SEC commissioner, Luis Aguilar, has already said publicly that he would support a disclosure rule. Only two more votes are needed to promulgate a rule via the SEC, and they should quickly move the ball forward on this key disclosure measure. Another important avenue for disclosure is the subject of this Thursday’s hearing, the DISCLOSE Act. Parts of this bill would ensure that citizens know on a timely basis the identities of the large donors that fund tax-exempt organizations spending money on elections. The legislation would also fix the problem of untimely disclosure of the donors to super PACs supporting presidential candidates, instead giving the public information in time to act on it. The slow super PAC disclosure problem was highlighted sharply in the Republican primaries, when the disclosure of most of the super PAC donors didn’t even happen until after the pivotal Iowa caucus and New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida primaries were long over. This bill is practical, problem-solving and popular. Opposition to either the DISCLOSE Act or a new rule-making on disclosure at the SEC in the face of overwhelming public support can only mean one thing: the opponent thinks that large donors should be hidden from the American people and we should forget about spotlights on spending. Lisa Gilbert is the Deputy Director of Congress Watch. This post was originally posted on AlterNet.

Read the full article →

Christopher Bergin: Payroll Tax Cut Extension: Just Another Quick Fix

March 26, 2012

Policymakers of both parties may be hailing the recent bipartisan extension of the current payroll tax cut, but it’s really just one more example of the short-term tax fixes to which lawmakers have grown addicted — and that are making our tax code an increasingly undecipherable patchwork of temporary provisions. House Republicans reached the compromise by dropping their demand for spending cuts that would offset the estimated $1 billion cost of the tax measure. Economists estimate that the average American family would have seen a tax increase of more than $1,000 per year if the temporary payroll tax cut had not been extended. The payroll tax cut effectively reduces the amount that the majority of Americans pay into Social Security on their first $110,100 in wages. And while most everyone can agree on the short-term wisdom of not increasing the tax burden on Americans struggling in this difficult economy, by underfunding social security, we are stealing from Peter to pay Paul. Consider this: According to the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation , 67 tax provisions will expire at the end of this year alone. They include a deduction for elementary and secondary school teacher expenses, a deduction for qualified tuition expenses, the Work Opportunity Credit and more. And then there’s the Alternative Minimum Tax, which lawmakers “patch” every year to prevent it from causing a huge tax increase on the middle class. The latest patch has already expired for this year. Even this current payroll tax extension is a fix for a temporary, two-month extension passed in December. Short-term “fixes” for these expiring tax provisions have consumed Congress and the White House, and have led to dysfunction, gridlock, partisanship and an inability to focus on bigger policy issues. Filling the tax code with temporary measures has also led to widespread economic uncertainty and volatility that leaves taxpayers in the dark about where to invest their hard-earned dollars for the long-term or how to run their businesses. Politicians are counting on the fact that the American public wants instant gratification and is more concerned about today than the potential long-term solvency of Social Security or the bill we are leaving our children and grandchildren to pay. And then, of course, there is the issue of our ever-growing debt, which, despite lip service from both parties seems to be an issue that neither Congress nor the White House can summon the political will to address. As we head down the final stretch of a presidential election year, one thing remains clear. Tax reform is not in the foreseeable future when all parties involved have ceded tax policy for tax politics. That is why we will continue to have a tax code that is unfair, un-simple, economically inefficient and mostly temporary. Oh, and by the way, Congress, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire at the end of this year. Better get to work on another quick fix. Christopher Bergin is President and Publisher of Tax Analysts and an expert on federal tax policy. He has written extensively on federal tax issues, worked in tax publishing for almost 30 years, and is frequently cited in national media as an authority on federal tax policy. He also blogs for Tax.com. This article is reprinted from the February 27, 2012 edition of The Hill.

Read the full article →

Daniel Souweine: GM’s CEO Needs to Draw a Line on Climate Change Denial

March 26, 2012

It’s time for GM CEO Dan Akerson to show his customers, and the country, exactly where GM stands on climate change. One month ago, leaked documents revealed that General Motors was one of numerous corporations funding the Heartland Institute , a leading “think tank” for climate change denial. Forecast the Facts immediately launched a campaign calling on GM to pull its funding. Since then, more than 20,000 people, including 10,000 GM owners, have signed on. In response to the growing public pressure, GM CEO Dan Akerson told an audience of hundreds at San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club that he would review the matter personally. That was nearly three weeks ago. Since then: silence. But while GM’s public pronouncements have stopped, there has been much discussion of Heartland at General Motors HQ. GM insiders have told our campaign that Mr. Akerson did ask for a review of the Heartland funding, the review was completed, and the company does not plan to fund Heartland in the future. Let me repeat that: the decision has been made. Heartland will not get another dime of GM’s money. This is a real victory and a testament to the thousands of people who spoke out about their disappointment with GM. But our campaign is in no way over. Because those insiders also say that GM refuses to publicly disavow their Heartland donation. GM officials explained their reticence by saying they didn’t want to “flog” anyone in public. Which, of course, sounds quite respectful and proper. Except when you consider what the Heartland Institute is: a big-oil funded political operation that spends most of its time and money denying the existence of climate change, despite the overwhelming international scientific consensus. And it’s not just scientists who are convinced (as if they weren’t enough). The military is predicting a massive increase in wars fueled by climate change. The insurance industry says that climate change is the single greatest risk factor of the 21st century. Billions of people will have their lives drastically altered for the worse by unprecedented food shortages, waves of severe weather and rising seas that could drown whole metropolitan areas. Again, the primary reason that Heartland exists is to pretend that none of this is even happening. Given the irrefutable nature of the science and the incredible stakes of the issue, what Heartland does should lie completely outside the confines of reasonable political debate. Lying to the American public about climate change should be seen as equivalent to promoting eugenics or arguing that smoking does not increase the chances of lung cancer. And in most countries it is. But not in the U.S., where uncertainty about climate change remains a widely held view, and (sadly) a standard talking point for the Republican Party. That’s where GM comes in. The fortunes and identity of GM, more than any other company, are intertwined with America. What they do, and say, about climate change is singularly important — which is why quietly backing away from Heartland is simply not enough. For their decision to defund Heartland to mean anything, it must be made public. Because as long as it is considered politically and socially acceptable to say that climate change isn’t happening, or that it’s not caused by humans, or that we shouldn’t do anything about it, then, well, we won’t. This is not about “flogging” a prospective charity. It’s about taking a stand for the truth. Dan Akerson seems like he should be up to this task. He is certainly not shy in touting GM’s recent environmental achievements, including high MPG cars, the electric Chevy Volt and major manufacturing waste reductions. So why can’t he be equally vocal about pulling away from Heartland? All he has to do is say: “I found out that GM was funding a group that not only doesn’t believe in climate change, but is actively trying to convince schoolchildren that it doesn’t exist. That’s not what GM stands for, and it’s not what America should stand for, and so I want everyone to know that we won’t be giving that group any more money?” When Dan Akerson addressed the Commonwealth Club audience and pledged to review the Heartland funding, he said, “I always say, actions speak louder than words.” We couldn’t agree more. The fact that Akerson has quietly moved to cut GM’s funding of Heartland is an important step. But the question remains for Mr. Akerson — if you take an action and no one knows about it, does it even make a sound?

Read the full article →

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy: Could Connecticut Be the First to Get Serious About Shareholders Rights Post-Citizens United?

March 26, 2012

Connecticut may be the mouse that startles the lion. Connecticut is a small state, but it has a strong record of leadership in addressing the trouble posed by money in politics. Now Connecticut may be the first state to take shareholder protections seriously post-Citizens United. After a governor went to jail for corruption charges for accepting gifts from state contractors, Connecticut decided to regain its good name by getting serious about campaign finance reform. The Legislature pushed the reset button by adopting a ground breaking public financing system as well as pay to play restrictions on state contractors in 2005. Also in 2010, it adopted beefed up disclosure requirements, which require political ads to show the top five donors. This small change brings more transparency to the Connecticut elections than exists almost anywhere else in the nation, including federal elections, which are still hopelessly dark. Now in 2012, Connecticut could break ground again by requiring shareholder approval of corporate political spending. A bill pending in the Legislature would adopt this change. As I testified this morning, such a new Connecticut law would follow a best practice that has existed for a dozen years in the U.K. under the Companies Act that requires a shareholder vote to approve future political spend by U.K. companies. Citizens United v. FEC (the 2010 Supreme Court decision) allowed corporate political spending in all of the states and federal elections. Connecticut was one of a score of states that had banned corporate money from their elections. Citizens United stripped Connecticut of its ability to protect its elections from this type of spending. But Connecticut can still take steps to protect shareholders in companies that are now free to spend in Connecticut’s elections by requiring a vote by shareholders before money is spent in an election. Here, Connecticut is building on the work of its sister states Iowa, Missouri and Louisiana, which each require board approval before corporations can spend it their elections, as well as Maryland, which mandates disclosure of political spending directly to shareholders. Connecticut is in a federal circuit that is open to strong money in politics laws. For example, the Second Circuit recently upheld New York City’s ban on corporate political contributions and the City’s robust pay to play laws. In his concurrence upholding New York City’s laws, Second Circuit Judge Calabresi had these choice words referencing the Bible, about the trouble with money in politics in America today: The wider the economic disparities in a democratic society, the more difficult it becomes to convey, with financial donations, the intensity of one’s political beliefs. People who care a little will, if they are rich, still give a lot. People who care a lot must, if they are poor, give only a little. Jesus’s comment about the rich donors and the poor widow says it all. Today, the amount of an individual’s campaign contribution reflects the strength of that individual’s preferences far less than it does the size of his wallet. Given this and other recent opinions, the Second Circuit would likely defer to Connecticut’s legislative judgment. And even Citizens United itself spoke approvingly of shareholders holding corporations accountable for their political spending. As Justice Kennedy wrote, “With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions… Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits.” Connecticut has a clear path forward with the blessing of the Supreme Court. They can adopt a requirement that shareholders get a say on politics. With any hope, Connecticut can be the mouse that roars, exhibiting national leadership in this post-Citizens United America. Ciara Torres-Spelliscy is an Assistant Professor at Stetson University College of Law where she teaches Election Law and Constitutional Law. She is the Co-Author of “Shareholder-Authorized Corporate Political Spending in the U.K.” which is available here .

Read the full article →

Jamie Henn: The Keystone XL Zombie Rises

March 21, 2012

The fight against the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is starting to feel more like a bad horror movie everyday. Just when you think our heroes have struck a fateful blow, out comes a hand from the soil. “The zombie lives!” This Thursday, President Obama will travel to Cushing, Oklahoma to give a press conference in a pipe yard owned by TransCanada, the company that has been trying (and failing) to build the Keystone XL pipeline for the last few years. The president is expected to trumpet his commitment to fast-track the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline and may even go so far as to endorse the entire project itself. I’m not sure what campaign advisor convinced the Obama team that this press conference was a good idea, but they’re way off the mark. Let’s be realistic here: no matter what President Obama does, Big Oil and Republicans are going to continue to accuse him of being anti-oil development. Case in point, Obama’s speech in Oklahoma is being protested by oil workers who, no doubt, will be chanting “Drill, Baby, Drill” even though the president has opened up more drilling than any of his predecessors. Try as he might, Obama just isn’t going to get Big Oil to call off their dogs. Instead, the Cushing speech will make President Obama look like exactly what his campaign accuses Romney of being: a flip-flopper, the etch-a-sketch politician who tilts whichever way the wind blows. Instead of letting him stand on principle, Obama’s advisors are forcing him to walk a difficult tightrope. We’ve seen this circus before on health care, immigration, gay rights — come to think of it, nearly every progressive issue near and dear to the coalition that came together to elect this president in 2008 (and the coalition he needs in 2012). The press conference is especially disappointing because the president actually has plenty of accomplishments he could be celebrating. The historic fuel efficiency standards the administration has supported will do more to save consumers money at the pump than any drilling or pipelines ever could. The president’s stimulus package was the largest investment in renewable energy in our nation’s history. Just yesterday, I toured the National Renewable Energy Lab where federal dollars are funding research into thin-film solar technology and other breakthrough technologies. Imagine the press event the president could have done if his advisors weren’t convinced that more pandering to the Corporate Right would change his polling numbers. Instead of going to Cushing, President Obama could have gone to Nebraska and stood on stage with ranchers and landowners and talked about the need to stand up to a foreign oil company that’s trying to build a leaky pipeline carrying dirty oil across America’s heartland, putting our nation’s land, water, and climate at risk. He could have rallied the country to stand up to Big Oil and support a clean energy economy that could put Americans back to work and help solve the climate crisis. And he could have continued his push against the $4 billion in subsidies that Big Oil receives every year. After he leaves Cushing, the president will travel to Ohio State University, where he will quickly talk out of the clean energy side of his mouth and talk about supporting renewables and cutting subsidies. But instead of being met with cheers from environmentalists and students, the president will be met with protesters rallying against Keystone XL and fracking, another practice that the administration is tight-roping on. These protests will only continue as the election gets closer unless the president can convince these young people and advocates that he really does stand with them and not the fossil fuel industry. So, in the ongoing epic summer-blockbuster type struggle against the fossil fuel industry, where do our heroes go from here? Last week, Bill McKibben laid out some next steps in a video that’s been viewed by over 25,000 activists around the country: Going forward, we need a multi-pronged approach. We’ll keep up our strong opposition to Keystone XL, supporting efforts all along the pipeline route to block TransCanada from moving forward with the project. We’ll also go on the offensive in two key ways, first, by pushing for an end to fossil fuel subsidies, and second, by taking on other iconic fossil fuel fights across the country. Throughout, we’ll continue to remind people of the underlying goal that links all of these efforts: stopping the climate crisis. (This week, 350.org will be launching a new effort to connect the dots between extreme weather and global warming — look for more info on that soon). As Bill has said, “There are no permanent environmental victories.” The fight against Keystone XL has helped galvanize a grassroots movement across the country. President Obama and Big Oil should be under no illusion that a couple of announcements about fast-tracking half the pipe are going to slow us down. If anything, setbacks like his help energize movements and make us stronger for the fights ahead. The Keystone XL zombie may have risen again, but our heroes are regrouping all across the country. Stay tuned.

Read the full article →

Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm: Fired Up! A Thank You to Paul Ryan for the Republican Budget

March 21, 2012

Paul Ryan’s budget plan was rolled out over the past few days with two slick video trailers — Pretty unusual for a Congressional budget committee chairman. Seriously! The videos had music and beautiful shots and lots of Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan walking down the halls of Congress. Paul Ryan earnestly talking to the camera. Long on Paul but short on details. On the other hand, Paul Ryan’s budget unveiled today was clear. It presented a choice. I so love it when choices are clear! He has done us a great favor by putting it all on the table. So, here is your choice, America: Guaranteed health care benefits for seniors, or tax cuts for the wealthy? Food for poor children, or no taxes on offshore profits for multinational corporations? Increases in defense spending, or 48 million Americans keeping health care? The trade-offs are very straightforward. Mitt Romney, of course, has endorsed, full-throated, the Ryan plan. So let me be the first one to say, Paul Ryan: Thank you so much! Now for the reality check: this budget has absolutely no chance of becoming law. Everyone knows it will never see the light of day in the Senate. So, Mr. Ryan, remind me: why you did this again? Oh, of course, silly me, I forgot: you want to be on the Republican ticket as vice president! Well, call me crazy, but I’m just not sure that putting the GOP nominee in the position of supporting huge cuts to medicare is the way to help your chances. But hey, what do I know? I’m just a gal who’s grateful for the right to choose. Cross-posted at “The War Room” blog. Follow “The War Room” on Twitter and Facebook. “The War Room with Jennifer Granholm” airs live weeknights at 9/8c on Current TV.

Read the full article →

Philip Radford: Shell Tramples Our Civil Rights — to Do More Dangerous Drilling

March 21, 2012

Yesterday, in a small courtroom in Alaska, David met Goliath once again. Greenpeace USA’s small team of lawyers came face to face with representatives from Shell, the multinational oil company seeking one of the broadest legal injunctions ever sought against an entirely peaceful environmental group. The judge’s decision will resonate far beyond Anchorage and help determine the future of activism in this country. A little backstory is needed here. In a desperate attempt to shore up its proven reserves, Shell is betting the ranch on new drilling in Arctic waters. Its executives purr reassuringly about ‘energy independence,’ as if one more hit of the black stuff will be enough to lower gas prices, ease our financial pain and bring back the dreamy nineties. Rather than seeing melting sea ice for what it really is — a flashing warning sign of continental proportions — this increasingly desperate company wants to drill for more of the fossil fuel that is causing the problem in the first place. Forget the remoteness, fierce storms, unique species, or the handful of spill response vessels for a second. Instead close your eyes, breathe deeply, and think about what it will mean to reflect that a 21st-century company chose to put its finest engineers on a project that actually made the climate problem worse. While storms battered our coastlines and drought plagued our farmers, Shell squeezed out the last drops of oil and ignored clean energy like it was a passing fad. As you might have guessed, Greenpeace is pretty much against the gig. Our supporters across the world have sent over 250,000 emails to Shell’s executives pointing out the painful irony in their position. The actor Lucy Lawless joined Greenpeace New Zealand to prevent one of their Arctic drillships from leaving port for the long trip to Alaska. And that’s when Shell decided to pull out the big guns. Our offices in Alaska, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. were served with copies of the lawsuit simultaneously. After a quick scan our lawyers couldn’t believe the scope of these documents. Shell was basing much of its complaint against Greenpeace USA on an activity 6,000 miles away conducted by Greenpeace New Zealand. The company proposed a restraining order covering anyone acting “in concert” with Greenpeace from “tortiously or illegally interfering with Shell’s property” anywhere in the U.S. Never mind that there are already laws against interference, trespass or nuisance. What Shell wanted was an extraordinary legal hammer that could have been dropped on any one of our 500,000 email subscribers who chose to act a little more robustly than the company would have liked. The judge rejected the bulk of this draconian request, instead issuing a temporary restraining order that applies to Shell’s drilling rigs and support vessels. But today the company is back in court, asking for an injunction that would once again widen the suit to include 80-year-old grandmothers in Idaho alongside students fighting for their future with Greenpeace. It’s a mark of how effective corporations have become that in modern America protest is now seen as a dirty word. Today, any challenge to the dominant business model is condemned as unpatriotic, a slur on Milton Friedman’s great legacy. Lest we forget, an inefficient economy driven by oil was not part of the Constitution, nor is it mentioned in the national anthem. The 1% has used its power to create the illusion that there is only one way to power America’s greatness and restore the country to its proper place in the world. Somewhere along the way fossil fuels have become a pillar of democracy instead of what they really are — an enemy of the state. But something is changing. When companies like Shell use expensive and frivolous lawsuits to silence opposition to their plans, people take notice. They may have all the money in the world but there are now hundreds of thousands of people who see the folly in this doomed enterprise. Arctic drilling is one of the great mistakes of our age and it will not be allowed to happen. Whatever happens in court, Greenpeace will continue to oppose Shell’s plans peacefully and vigorously because we, the people, have truth on our side. That’s something even billionaire oil companies can’t buy. Philip Radford is Executive Director of Greenpeace USA.

Read the full article →

Kathie McClure: The Case for Cameras in the Supreme Court

March 20, 2012

At precisely 10:00 a.m. March 26, in a marble palace atop a hill in Washington, D.C., nine Supreme Court justices will emerge from behind red velvet curtains to begin an unprecedented six hours of oral argument over three days. In the case known as Florida vs. Department of Health and Human Services, the court will decide the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. At the heart of the case is the law’s individual mandate, which requires most Americans to purchase private health insurance. Opponents warn that the mandate tramples individual freedom and even threatens IHOP, White Castle and chicken nuggets. Obamacare is government run amok, so their argument goes, because there will be no limit on governmental intrusion into our lives. Not so, say Obamacare supporters, who explain that the individual mandate is necessary to fix our broken health-care system because it helps solve the problem created by the 49 million uninsured whose uncompensated care costs the rest of society more than $50 billion a year. As Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said, a mandate requires “free-riders” to take personal responsibility for their medical care rather than depending on the government. The Obamacare decision, expected in late June, may be a game-changer for those struggling to afford crippling health-care and health insurance premium costs. Thirty-two million Americans are expected to gain coverage under Obamacare, including legions of middle-class families. The law’s ban on insurance exclusions for pre-existing conditions will be welcome relief for 57.2 million non-elderly Americans with medical conditions. The decision’s long-term effect upon our individual freedom and the health of millions of ordinary Americans will pale, at least temporarily, in comparison to the fireball that will roil presidential election politics. Yet, despite the magnitude of this landmark controversy, only a scant 50 or so citizens willing to spend one or more nights sleeping on the court’s marble steps will witness the arguments each day with their own eyes, because the court does not allow cameras into its chamber. Led by C-Span CEO Brian Lamb, mainstream media have raised a cry for live television coverage of this singularly important case. The court has not responded. By thrusting itself squarely into presidential election politics, the court has once again opened itself to attacks on its legitimacy as impartial arbiter of the rule of law. We all remember Bush vs. Gore, where five justices put an end to the Florida vote count, handing the presidency to George W. Bush. And we are now witnessing the effect of the court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, which opened the floodgates for campaign contributions from corporations and unions to Super PACs that thus far have poured more than $98 million into the presidential campaign. These controversial decisions, among others, have led court observer Jeffrey Toobin to describe the court as a “partisan battlefield.” According to Drexel University legal scholar Lisa T. McElroy, the American public has a presumed right to see its government at work. Television coverage of Supreme Court proceedings would give the American people the opportunity to form their own educated opinions about the legitimacy of the court as an institution. At risk is nothing less than the public’s confidence, which according to former Justice John Paul Stevens, is the “true backbone of the rule of law.” With or without television coverage, the American people will decide for themselves whether the court’s Obamacare decision is based on the rule of law or partisan political beliefs. Allowing cameras, even if only for this case, is the court’s best chance for protecting and preserving its honor and integrity, but time is running out.

Read the full article →

Myles Boisen: Protests Shut Down Monsanto in Davis CA.

March 17, 2012

A coalition of activist organizations demonstrating at the Monsanto office in Davis CA. successfully caused a shutdown of the multinational chemical and biotech company offices there on on Saturday, March 16. The shutdown took place on the first day of a planned weekend of activities in Davis, intended to spotlight and oppose the activities of Monsanto in this country and abroad. Upon announcement of the shutdown, Monsanto instructed employees to stay away from work. Monsanto is known for developing controversial chemical products for farming, landscaping and pest-control such as DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange, rBGH (Bovine Growth Hormone), and Roundup. Over the last 20 years the corporation has shifted its research focus to bio-engineered seeds and GMOs (genetically-modified organisms). Significantly, the University of California, Davis is a top-ranked research university recognized as a leader in agriculture and sciences. Monsanto has been the target of legal action , moratoriums and/or outright bans in Brazil, Peru, Haiti, India, and several European countries including Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Switzerland, and others. So far the company has been able to operate with little resistance in the U.S., due to its multi-million dollar lobbying efforts and close ties within the White House and Food and Drug Administration. Sponsors of the weekend action included The Anti-Monsanto Project, Peace & Freedom Party, and Occupy Woodland/ Occupy Sacramento/ Occupy UC Davis. The first day’s action began at 6:30 a.m. with around 150 demonstrators picketing and setting up tents from which to distribute information. Despite the steady rain all day, a small but dedicated group maintained a vigil in front of the Monsanto complex. Tents blocked the entrances to the parking lot, and a single security guard was posted at the main entrance to the building. Many passing cars honked their horns in support of the protestors, notable in this agriculturally-dependant town. According to Steven Payan, a farm worker and organizer of the event allied with the Yolo County Peace & Freedom Party, the shutdown took place peacefully and without incident. The protest will continue on Sunday. Payan also said that the coalition’s next efforts will be to draft a set of anti-Monsanto resolutions, and to bring their demands to the United Nations.

Read the full article →

Patrick Ruffini: Unleash America’s Grassroots Investors With Crowdfunding

March 13, 2012

It isn’t often that Congress has a chance to get something really, really right. One current issue before legislators provides such an opportunity: crowdfunding. What is crowdfunding? Part of the House-passed JOBS Act, crowdfunding would allow virtually any American to invest and hold stock in a privately-held startup. Current rules limit such investments to “accredited investors” with at least $1 million in wealth or $200,000 in annual income ($300,000 for a married couple). When it comes to outside investment in startup companies, the only people who directly see the benefits are quite literally, the one percent. The House-passed crowdfunding bill would allow average Americans to invest in ideas they believe in — in any amount up to $10,000, and not to exceed 10% of annual income. This has the potential to create a boom in small business investing from friends, relatives, and crucially, from the Internet — where one will be able to literally invest in companies in the same way one figuratively “invests” with donations to nonprofits, grassroots political candidates, or arts projects — $50 and $100 at a time. Crowdfunding has enormous appeal. The House passed a standalone crowdfunding bill authored by Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) last November on a 417-17 vote. President Obama supports it. The broader JOBS Act with crowdfunding sailed through the House 390-23 last week. Yet some in the Senate are attempting to muddy the waters, and there are some indications that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will weigh in on the weakest possible crowdfunding bill, one which could create significant complications for business owners and investors alike. This version — the CROWDFUND Act, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) — would gut the promise of crowdfunding by introducing a thicket of new regulations and filing requirements on fledgling startups, and in marked contrast to the alternatives, open the door to more private lawsuits against small business owners. Crowdfunding shouldn’t be — and actually isn’t — controversial, yet some politicians are trying to stand in the way. For too many in Washington, the Internet is still a foreign land — one to be regulated and held at bay. Instead of the enormous potential for new small business growth, some politicians are demagoging the potential for fraud, though crowdfunding limits the size of investments so that no investors could lose their shirts in the same way they did with traditional investments in GM, Fannie Mae, and JP Morgan. So, why is crowdfunding important — beyond the novelty of raising capital in $50 increments on Twitter? Marci Harris, founder and CEO of PopVox , an advocacy startup, tells the story of needing to turn down investment offers from friends in her hometown of Jackson, Tennessee, because the town’s most affluent residents didn’t meet the Securities and Exchange Commission’s accredited investor guidelines. There is an enormous coastal bias in which startups get venture funding. Half the people in a Silicon Valley Starbucks make more than the $300,000 SEC threshold, Harris told me, but the doctors and lawyers of Jackson can enjoy the same comfortable living making $150,000 a year. While small angel investments are not out of reach for large numbers of people in Silicon Valley and New York, everywhere else, investment options for small entrepreneurs are much more limited. This is just one of the reasons why it’s much harder to get a startup off the ground in Iowa or Arkansas than it is in Palo Alto. Enter crowdfunding: by routing around traditional sources of seed-stage funding and raising money directly from friends or people who believe in your idea on the Internet, smart entrepreneurs in every community can have a shot. We see this already in the explosive growth of crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter , which offers rewards rather than capital stakes to skirt the current ban on crowdfunding. Kickstarter is being used to fund films, arts projects, and innovative products like the cult-favorite Olloclip for the iPhone . And unlike the go-go world of Silicon Valley venture capital, many of the most popular projects on Kickstarter hail from unlikely locales like Albuquerque, New Mexico and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Politicians should understand the idea of crowdfunding, because that’s how campaigns are funded. None understand this best than Scott Brown, author of the Senate’s Democratizing Access to Capital Act — the strongest crowdfunding bill in the upper chamber and far preferable to the Merkley bill. In 2010, my firm was involved in Brown’s special election victory when over 150,000 Americans donated $12 million on the Internet in 18 days to upend the political establishment. Support from grassroots Americans has disrupted the political process, and the time has come to let grassroots investors shake things up in our economy as well.

Read the full article →

Edward Wyckoff Williams: Romney, Santorum and GOP Snobs: The Rise of America’s Plutocratic 1%

March 12, 2012

Lately, there’s been a seismic shift in what passes for common sense in American conservative political thought. Rick Santorum received a bachelor’s degree, Juris Doctorate and MBA, but recently called President Barack Obama a “snob” for wanting every young American to have an opportunity to pursue college education. Mitt Romney, the Harvard graduate with off-shore bank accounts from Luxembourg to the Cayman Islands, has accused the President of “elitism.” The former private equity mogul went so far as to evoke the oft-quoted Marie Antoinette phrase, “let them eat cake.” On the primary campaign trail in Mississippi — among the poorest states in the union — Romney attacked President Obama’s proposal for increased taxes on the wealthy and decries “class warfare,” while awkwardly pandering to Southern sensibilities by claiming his newfound affection for “cheesy grits” and the colloquial “ya’ll.” Newt Gingrich, who holds a PhD and once bragged about being so “famous” he received “$60,000 per speech,” has unapologetically suggested that poor, inner-city children work as janitors. Gingrich now derides an “elite media” at every turn, while mostly using the largest, most-profitable, widely-watched cable network in America, Fox News, to deliver that message. And it’s worth noting that both Gingrich and Santorum enjoyed lucrative deals as political contributors to Fox News prior to being suspended last May amidst scrutiny it would result in a conflict of interests as they each announced a run for the White House. The nation has entered a twilight zone where the words ‘elite’ and ‘elitism’ only have subjective meaning. It’s an alternate universe in which the leading GOP candidate — worth as much as $250 million — can openly admit he’s “not concerned about the very poor,” and his wife can claim she doesn’t consider herself “wealthy.” All this during a time of record unemployment, following a financial crisis rivaling the Great Depression. Their mentality and disconnect from reality reflect a Reagan-Bush era abandonment of tax policies favoring the middle-class, and regulatory policies which have subsequently created an ever-widening gap between rich and poor. And the gap only gets wider. The Republican-led Florida legislature is currently considering a bill that would slash the minimum wage of restaurant servers and other tipped employees from $4.65 to $2.13 an hour, resulting in lowered net income for workers, and a greater share of the salary burden being paid by consumers. With the average yearly income of these workers being just over $18K, it’s fair to say many already constitute the working-poor, and therefore cannot afford wage cuts. Conservative supporters of the legislation cite rising healthcare costs for employers, but the National Restaurant Association — a leading lobbying group of the industry, formerly headed by one-time Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain — predicted record sales in its 2012 forecast. One of the corporate supporters of the proposed legislation is OSI Restaurant Partners, the parent company of Outback Steakhouse — which is partly owned by Bain Capital, the private equity firm responsible for a majority of Mitt Romney’s wealth. Undoubtedly, lower wages for workers at places like Outback will result in higher returns on investment for partners at Bain, and corporate executives like them. And herein lies the rub: there is an inherent disconnect in Romney’s argument that he should not be “punished for his success,” as it negates the broader reality that too many working-class and middle-income families are already being penalized for their own hard work. Success is a relative term, but reasonable-minded people can agree that men and women should benefit from their labor. If the pathway to success is eroded by policy decisions benefiting the wealthy over the working-classes, then those on the bottom and in the middle have less chance of climbing the proverbial ladder or achieving the emblematic — and increasingly elusive — American Dream. The result? An American plutocracy emerges which isn’t a consequence of unintended circumstances, but the direct result of a strategic, up-down economic policy shift. Republicans have supported the interests of big business, big oil and corporate cronyism for decades, and Democrats have either acquiesced or not provided substantial opposition, or policy alternatives to create a check and balance. In the Age of Obama, where a capable Democratic president is attacked for seeking to provide basic universal health coverage to working families, the GOP produces one multi-millionaire aspiring to the White House, completely out-of-touch with the everyday realities of average Americans; and another who despite a blue-collar background and achieving the benefits of higher education, doesn’t see the need for the same access to be available to others, and attacks those who do as “snobs.” It is worth noting Arizona is considering similar legislation to that proposed in Florida, while both states remain hotbeds on the topic of Hispanic immigrants — a group disproportionately represented among service workers. The Republican Party’s vocal opposition to illegal immigrants — especially during this primary race — has curiously been directed solely at those of Mexican descent — despite the fact illegal immigrants represent a plethora of countries, including Canada and European nations. The GOP’s unapologetic defense of lower tax rates for the wealthy, and apparent disregard for the working-classes, is not a coincidence: it is a calculated political strategy. Republicans embraced a Tea Party movement made up largely of older, white, wealthier males, but decries an Occupy Movement representing a younger, diverse, aspiring demographic — by accusing their participants of class warfare and being proponents of socialism. Hope remains in reach, but change has already come. Yet thanks to a Republican establishment more concerned with defeating the nation’s first African-American president, and protecting the financial interests of the top one-percent at the expense of the ninety-nine, that change is becoming harder to believe in.

Read the full article →

Miner Dies At West Virginia Coal Mine

March 12, 2012

NEW YORK, March 12 (Reuters) – A coal miner was fatally injured at an Alpha Natural Resources Inc mine in West Virginia over the weekend, the company said on Monday. It said the man was struck by material from the mine’s side wall during the evening shift on Saturday at the Kingston #2 mine in Fayette County, West Virginia. Alpha said operations at the mine have been idled while federal and state officials investigate. Last year, Alpha acquired Massey Energy, which had operated the Upper Big Branch mine in the state, at which 29 miners died in an explosion in 2010 — the worst U.S. mine disaster in four decades. Alpha stock slipped 17 cents or 1 percent to $16.26 in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

Read the full article →

Carl Pope: Earth to Newt: Tar Sands Oil = High Gas Prices

March 10, 2012

Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Republican Congressional leaders like John Boehner have decided that high gas prices are the key to their defense against President Obama and the Democrats — and they have decided that building the Keystone XL Pipeline is the symbol of their commitment to bringing down gas prices through “drill, baby drill” strategies. Gingrich, in particular, following in Michelle Bachmann’s earlier unsuccessful shoes, has pledged that if he is elected, gas prices will be reduced to $2 or $2.50 gallon. Were this to happen, however, no one would be more unhappy than TransCanada, the builder of the Keystone Pipeline. Because at $2 gallon, there is simply no market for its product — tar sands oil is only profitable when crude oil prices are above $70 barrel. To get gasoline down to $2, crude must fall below $50 — meaning an empty Keystone Pipeline. Gingrich also ignores the fact that building the Keystone, by enabling tar sands crude to be exported from the U.S. to higher price gasoline markets in Europe, would actually increase the price of oil in the American Midwest. How does Newt propose to deliver on his promise? Well, the first thing he promises is to increase the amount of oil the U.S. needs — by eliminating fuel economy standards , so that Americans can once again be forced to purchase cars they cannot afford to drive. So far, Newt’s proposals make us worse off. Then he wants to open up places like the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to drilling — unfortunately, the cost of extreme oil from places like the Arctic, once again, is above the $70/b mark, not the $50 Newt needs in his $2/gallon pipe-dream. None of these numbers stop Newt from claiming that, somehow, the U.S. can simply produce enough oil on its own to bring down the price of oil. No serious oil industry figure has stepped forward to validate this craziness. And if you want to see just how implausible it is, look at the following charts: The first chart shows U.S. oil production relative to world output. Relative to our reserves, we are batting above our league — we have less than 3 percent of the world’s reserves, but produce 7 percent of the world’s oil . But even a significant increase in U.S. oil production would not make a meaningful dent in the global supply and demand equation — we are simply too small a part of the total. The second chart shows what has happened to U.S. oil prices and drilling activity; it shows that as U.S. oil prices rise, so do the number of wells being drilled — but more wells do not equal lower prices . So the Drilling crowd’s plans — consume more oil by letting car companies produce more wasteful vehicles, and rely on both U.S. and imported extreme, dirty oil sources to drive down gas prices — is pure fantasy. Extreme oil plays like the tar sands and remote Arctic require EXPENSIVE, not CHEAP gas. There is of, course, always the possibility of magic. This seems to be what some of Newt’s supporters are counting on. Texas Governor and former Presidential candidate Rick Perry, for example, commented : As a matter of fact, perception is everything in this world we live in, and if the perception is Newt Gingrich could be the next president of the United States, that will have a worldwide effect, I will suggest to you, on the price of oil. This absurdity is remiscent of the comments by some Bush administration staffers that “Empires make their own reality.” But if Newt Gingrich is really Harry Potter in disguise, one imagines he might have dispatched Mitt Romney by now — Harry certainly would have! What is the public making of this? Thus far the pattern is quite different than during the oil price spikes of the Bush administration. During that period the public was angrier at both the president and the oil companies — 25 percent blamed Bush, only 18 percent blame Obama, and the oil company share is down from 31 percent to 14 percent. Far more people haven’t made up their mind yet. And most of those who blame Obama are Republicans, so there is no evidence that the Gingrich/Boehner attacks are gaining meaningful traction. Fox News and the Republicans have now taken to misquoting Energy Secretary Steve Chu has having actually coming out in favor of higher gas prices — which the record shows never happened . Fox’s attack shows that the network seems to be suffering from some form of memory loss, since back in 2008 it defended the Bush administration by arguing that “no President has the power to increase or to lower gas prices.” In the short term, of course, that is true. In the longer term, the numbers make it very clear that a U.S. President can influence the costs of gasoline — not by magically enhancing domestic supply, but by using innovation and efficiency to reduce U.S. — and therefore world — demand. Modest reductions in global DEMAND for oil translate into large savings on the COST of oil — precisely because if the world doesn’t need $80/barrel tar sands oil, prices for the conventional, low-cost sources of oil fall, and fall rapidly. So the next time you hear a presidential candidate talk about the cost of driving, make sure that he understands the ground rules of making it cheap: Don’t waste. A 50 percent improvement in fuel efficiency for vehicles equals BOTH less fuel and cheaper fuel — it’s the equivalent, at least, of cutting the price of gas from $4.00 to $2.00, Newt’s stated goal. No extreme oil allowed. No tar sands, no remote Arctic, no ultra-deep ocean — these simply cost too much. Find alternatives to oil for liquid fuels. Bio-fuels or vehicle electrification are already cheaper than80 oil, and by driving down demand, also reduced the price/barrel. A veteran leader in the environmental movement, Carl Pope is the former executive director and chairman of the Sierra Club. Mr. Pope is co-author — along with Paul Rauber — of Strategic Ignorance: Why the Bush Administration Is Recklessly Destroying a Century of Environmental Progress, which the New York Review of Books called “a splendidly fierce book.”

Read the full article →

Ship Runs Aground, Leaves Film Of Oil

March 10, 2012

OSLO, Norway (AP) — Authorities say a container ship has run aground off Norway’s southwestern coast, leaving a film of oil in the surrounding waters. Rescue service spokesman Nils-Ole Sunde said Saturday all 14 crew members, from Russia, Ukraine and the Philippines, were unharmed. Then Antigua-registered ship has 280,000 liters of oil and 67,000 liters of diesel on board. Sunde says “we haven’t been able to confirm (a leak), but there’s a film of oil on the water.” He says it does not appear the ship is at risk of sinking. It was not immediately clear what caused the 400-foot (123-meter) long Celina to hit the ground near the town of Maaloeya, some 170 miles (270 kilometers) north of Bergen, late Friday.

Read the full article →

Obama Strikes Back At GOP Critics On Gas Prices

March 10, 2012

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is hitting back at Republican criticism of his energy policies and his role in controlling gasoline prices. Obama used his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday to underscore his administration’s work to develop alternative energy sources and increase fuel efficiency. “I’m going to keep doing everything I can to help you save money on gas, both right now and in the future,” Obama said. “I hope politicians from both sides of the aisle join me.” He accused Republicans of a “bumper sticker” approach to solving the nation’s energy problems. It’s a familiar theme _Obama stuck many of the same chords during two out-of-town trips this week and during a White House news conference on Wednesday. “We can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices – not when we consume 20 percent of the world’s oil,” Obama said in the address, recorded during a visit Friday to a Virginia jet engine component plant. In the Republican weekly address, North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple accused the Obama administration of blocking projects and technology that would allow greater energy production. He singled out the Keystone XL pipeline project, which Obama deferred. “We cannot effectively market our crude oil domestically without a large north-south pipeline,” Dalrymple said. “North Dakota oil producers were scheduled to feed the Keystone pipeline with 100,000 barrels of crude oil per day.” Obama said there wasn’t enough time to properly study the project ahead of the deadline forced upon him by Republican congressional lawmakers. On Thursday, the Democratic-controlled Senate blocked another Republican bid to speed approval of the pipeline, which would stretch from Canada to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast. Also Thursday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Obama is partly to blame for higher prices at the pump. Gasoline prices paused this week in their march toward $4 per gallon. After 39 straight days of increases, prices fell nearly a penny from Tuesday to Thursday and held steady on Friday at $3.758 per gallon for the national average. The lull won’t last long, and gas is still nearly 50 cents higher than it was at the beginning of the year. Despite Romney’s assertions, economists say there’s not much a president of either party could do about gasoline prices. The current increases at the pump have been driven by fears of a war with oil-rich Iran and by higher demand in the U.S. as well as in China, India and other growing nations. ___ Online:

Read the full article →

Exxon CEO Speaks Out Against Federal Regulations

March 9, 2012

* Complex regulation hinders energy development, economy * State, local regulation sufficient * Shell, Statoil CEOs more conciliatory about regulations By Kristen Hays HOUSTON, March 9 (Reuters) – State and local regulations in shale oil- and natural gas-rich plays across the United States provide sufficient oversight, compared to the “dysfunctional” federal layers that could hinder development as well as the economic recovery, Exxon Mobil Corp Chief Executive Rex Tillerson said on Friday. Tillerson, addressing an audience of energy executives at the annual CERAWeek conference in Houston, said layers, complex regulatory processes in oil and gas development “has become an obstacle to getting anything done.” “This type of dysfunctional regulation is holding back the American economic recovery, growth, and global competitiveness,” he said. Tillerson said state and local governments needed protections sufficiently to oversee oil and gas activity while collaborating with producers. “They provide us the road map with how to get something done,” Tillerson said. “Today the regulatory process is now so complicated and so involved with so many different agencies, it’s a road map of how to not get anything done.” White House spokesman Clark Stevens said in an email to Reuters that the Obama Administration is developing “sensible standards to protect air and water quality” with input from the industry and others to ensure continued production. CEOs of two other European major oil and gas producers appeared more conciliatory about regulations when they addressed executives at the conference earlier this week, but they didn’t overtly differentiate state and local regulations from federal oversight. Peter Voser, CEO of Royal Dutch Shell said the industry can handle environmental and operational challenges of tight and shale gas production, particularly when governed by “well-targeted and robustly enforced regulations.” And Helge Lund, CEO of Norway’s Statoil, said public trust and confidence in the industry’s ability to maintain safe operations is crucial. “There is a huge upside for working to ensure we have the right regulations, rather than being perceived as the industry that fights regulations,” Lund said. Tillerson cited as an “unfortunate decision” President Barack Obama’s rejection of a federal permit to allow TransCanada to build its proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to Texas to transport Canadian oil to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries. Environmental groups and some states had opposed the pipeline on integrity concerns and whether it would increase U.S. dependence on emissions-heavy Canadian oil production. Tillerson called the rejection “a product of political calculations in Washington.” He also said the industry learns from mistakes, such as the 2010 blowout of a BP Plc deepwater well in the Gulf of Mexico that spewed more than 4 million barrels of crude into the basin. “It reminded all of us that the failure to manage risk effectively carries enormous consequences, in terms of loss of life, significant financial impact, and environmental harm,” Tillerson said.

Read the full article →

BP Settlement Lawyers Feuding Over Fees

March 9, 2012

* Lawyers position themselves for fight over settlement fees * Awards could reach into the hundreds of millions * Feud dates to 2010 By Andrew Longstreth NEW YORK, March 8 (Reuters) – The estimated $7.8 billion settlement reached last week between BP Plc and attorneys for victims of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill left many details unresolved, but at least one thing looks like a sure bet. The lawyers are gearing up for a fee fight. At the moment, there is nothing yet to battle over. It is unknown how many plaintiffs will participate in the deal and what their claims are worth. But with the pot for lawyers likely to reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars, two distinct groups of attorneys are positioned to lock horns. One set is the lawyers that negotiated the deal with BP. These attorneys are seeking to allay fears that the fees will come out of the pocket of claimants. Meanwhile, the other faction – which did not take part in the settlement talks and which has been pursuing claims for clients outside of court – is concerned the money will go to lawyers who do not deserve it. The lawyers in the second faction have been pursuing claims through the Gulf Coast Claims Facility which is backed by a $20 billion trust. “That antagonism seems to be very strong and will probably continue,” said Edward Sherman, a professor at Tulane University Law School in New Orleans. The feud actually dates to 2010, when BP set up the $20 billion trust, administered by mediator Kenneth Feinberg, to compensate victims from the spill. The point was to allow victims to settle claims quickly without the costs and risk associated with litigation. To date, the Gulf Coast Claims Facility has paid out about $6.1 billion, and resolved more than 220,000 claims. But many victims did not want just a quick payout. They wanted their day in court and chose to join a massive lawsuit against BP and its drilling partners. As is typical in such cases, the presiding judge appointed a Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee of about two dozen lawyers to gather evidence and prepare witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs. Given the lucrative nature of leading massive litigation – attorneys in leadership positions can collect between about 5 percent and 30 percent of a settlement’s value – there was fierce jockeying for the seats. Some lawyers who were not picked grumbled that the process was unfair, but eventually began recruiting clients to appear before the Feinberg facility. PARALLEL TRACKS The two factions – the Steering Committee lawyers versus the Gulf Coast Claims Facility lawyers – proceeded on parallel tracks until last Friday when BP announced a settlement in principle with the Steering Committee – just days before the case was set to go to trial on March 5. As part of the deal, BP announced plans to transition the Feinberg facility to a new structure and to use the $13.9 billion remaining in the fund to pay the estimated $7.8 billion cost of the settlement. Under the deal, victims who had not yet had their claims heard by Feinberg would be able to either appear before the new administrators, or opt out of the settlement and pursue claims against BP independently. The settlement announcement, which needs to be finalized by April 16, immediately exacerbated a rift between the two plaintiffs’ camps. Steering Committee lawyers sought to position the development as a positive one for victims who were planning to file claims with Feinberg. Claimants “will generally be paid greater benefits” than they received from Feinberg, lawyers Stephen Herman and James Roy of the Steering Committee said in a statement. Herman also sought to position the committee as not taking fees “out of the claimant’s pocket” and stated that BP has agreed to pay their legal fees on top of what is paid to victims. But lawyers who had been pursuing their clients’ claims with Feinberg, and who were not part of the settlement discussions with BP, worry that Steering Committee attorneys will receive fees that do not belong to them. “We have clients who have offers on the table that have either been accepted or are probably going to accept,” said attorney Tony Buzbee, who said he has settled about $150 million worth of claims. “If we accept these offers, lawyers who had nothing to do with it will claim they’re entitled to some of the money.” Daniel Becnel Jr, another attorney with clients who have not received payments from the Feinberg-administered fund, also criticized the settlement as a money grab. “This is all about fees,” said Becnel, who has become an outspoken critic of the Steering Committee after he was not named to the body. The proposed settlement returns the locus of power to the Steering Committee. Over the last several months, as lawyers who appeared before Feinberg collected hefty fees, lawyers on the court cases sat largely empty-handed. Finally last year, the court case lawyers asked presiding judge Carl Barbier to hold back 6 percent of Feinberg’s settlements for “common benefit fees” to be paid to the Steering Committee. The Committee argued it deserved the fees because its work had benefited fund claimants. Barbier initially granted the Steering Committee request, but amended his order in January to exempt settlements to fund claimants who never had or did not currently have claims pending in the multi-district litigation. Now, power is back in the hands of the Steering Committee, which has left attorneys who had been pursuing claims with Feinberg feeling like the rug has been pulled out beneath them. “I just feel like the interests of a lot of people are being shut out,” said Buzbee. (Reporting by Andrew Longstreth; editing by Matthew Lewis)

Read the full article →

John Horton: Drug Shortages and You: Who’s At Risk, What’s the Fix?

March 9, 2012

Imagine that you’re a cancer patient. There’s a highly effective drug for your condition, your doctor prescribes it, your health care covers it. Now the bad news: Even though it’s approved by the U.S. FDA, it’s out of stock at every pharmacy you call. Apparently, you’ll have to wait — but try telling that to your cancer. National data indicate that’s the news more and more patients are facing, with seemingly no meaningful halt to the trend. A study released by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) in December found that the number of drug shortages have tripled since 2006, with 2011 the highest year on record, beating the previous record holder, 2010. Within these data is another troubling trend. Between 68 percent and 77 percent of the shortages involved injectable drugs, including biologics — a relatively new type of medicine made from living organisms (as opposed to most prescription drugs, which are chemically-based). A good example of an injectable drug is methotrexate, which is used to treat childhood leukemia — and for some young patients is the only effective therapy. So why is this happening — and what’s the fix? According to the FDA, product quality issues — namely, microbial contamination and impurities — are partly to blame: Mostly being injectables, biologics must be highly pure to be safe, so factories have to recall or halt their sale if impurities are found. One study indicated that up to 42 percent of the shortage is due to quality issues. The GAO study similarly placed the blame on “factory flaws and shutdowns,” such as manufacturing problems. This highlights a classic problem for the FDA: balancing drug access and patient safety. As life-saving biologics have come off-patent and drug companies seek to make imitative versions (called biosimilars), a key question has been how to ensure that the copycat versions of the drug are equally safe and effective. With biologic or biosimilar drugs, the manufacturing process is arguably the biggest indicator of whether the drug will be effective, with even minuscule changes in the process potentially having a dramatic effect on the product’s safety. Thus, even if there’s a shortage, the FDA must insist that manufacturers of biologics and biosimilars not cut corners. After all, it doesn’t do much good to have adequate supply of a drug if the drug is unsafe or doesn’t work in the first place. There are some things that patients can do to be proactive, such as directly asking their prescribing physician about the issue, and asking their physician to be aware of any long-term supply issues, for example. But the GAO’s analysis suggests that a systemic, long-term solution that ensures adequate drug supply without sacrificing safety will require Congress giving additional authority to the FDA. The problem, according to the GAO report , is that the FDA can’t fix a problem it doesn’t know exists. In addition to lacking a database to track drug supply levels, the FDA has limited ability to require manufacturers to alert the FDA and the public as to impending or possible drug shortages, so the FDA is often in the dark until it’s too late. When it does know about an impending shortage, it can — for example — temporarily open the market up to, and provide safety oversight for, imported drugs that aren’t approved in the U.S. but are in other countries. It can also require that manufacturing facilities with some safety problems identify the lots that were safe and distribute those, rather than throwing out the good with the bad. But these solutions also involve some risk: How do we accurately target the “safe” batches, and ensure that imported drugs are safe? Alongside these import efforts to ensure adequate drug supply, particularly of biologics, the FDA should ensure that adequate resources are put into drug authenticity and safety monitoring programs such as “track and trace” (to monitor the integrity of drug supply chains). Drug shortages are a complex problem with multiple causes, not least of all manufacturing issues that can affect the safety of injectable medicines like biologics. As Congress considers how to ensure that patients have access to the life-saving medications they need, it must make sure that the FDA has not only the tools to foresee impending drug shortages, but also the tools to ensure that any biologics or biosimilars are actually safe and effective to help protect patients.

Read the full article →

Senate Approves Plan For Oil Spill Fines

March 9, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate approved Thursday using the bulk of water pollution fines stemming from the 2010 Gulf oil spill to pay for restoration in five Gulf states, a move hailed by environmental groups and state officials. The money is tied to a transportation bill that the Senate still must pass. BP PLC could be fined between $5.4 billion to $21.1 billion under the Clean Water Act, depending on whether the company is found grossly negligent. Clean Water Act fines typically go into a fund to pay for oil spill cleanup costs and damages, but under the Senate provision 80 percent of the fines would be divided among Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Texas. The measure cleared the Senate 76-22 as part of a larger transportation bill. Gulf Coast politicians lobbied hard to get the funds. “This bipartisan legislation directs support to the Gulf States where it is needed,” said U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss. Environmental groups called the vote a major victory. “When was the last time we had 76 votes in the Senate, let alone 76 votes on a bill to invest billions in restoring one of America’s most treasured landscapes?” said Paul Harrison of the Environmental Defense Fund. Earlier this year, the House passed a similar measure to divert the money. President Barack Obama has also called for disbursing the penalties to the states. It is uncertain when BP will be forced to pay the fines. It is possible that the Justice Department and BP could settle the case before it goes to trial or the fines could be assessed after a trial. Under the measure, the money would be spent on projects to restore the environment and the Gulf Coast’s economy. A portion of the money also would go into a science fund to study the Gulf. ____ Associated Press writer Cain Burdeau contributed to this report from New Orleans.

Read the full article →

Government Officials Protest Plan To Reduce Coal-Fired Power Plants

March 9, 2012

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Top North Dakota officials renewed their protests against a plan to discourage Minnesota utilities from meeting new energy demands by using electric power generated by burning coal. North Dakota’s Industrial Commission on Thursday approved a letter to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, arguing utilities should not incur any extra cost for using coal-fired power. At present, the cost is $9 to $34 per ton of carbon dioxide that is given off when coal is burned to provide electricity. Gov. Jack Dalrymple is the North Dakota commission’s chairman. It oversees a state coal research fund, which is financed by a share of North Dakota’s tax on lignite mining. The commission’s other members are Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem and Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring. If Minnesota regulators make it more expensive for utilities to use coal power, it will throttle the prospects of western North Dakota’s lignite industry, Dalrymple said. Coal-fueled power plants in western North Dakota already provide a major share of Minnesota’s electric supply. “It has long-term implications about the growth of the industry from where it is today,” Dalrymple said Thursday. “We feel that the time has come to clear up this issue once and for all.” The charges were established as part of a 2007 Minnesota law that requires utilities in the state to produce one-quarter of their energy from renewable sources by 2024. The law ordered Minnesota regulators to assign environmental costs to coal use, and said utilities would have to include those costs in calculating whether coal was an appropriate choice for meeting future electricity growth demands. North Dakota officials have protested the law since the Minnesota Legislature approved it. Minnesota lawmakers approved major changes last year, but Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed the revisions. Cris Kling, a spokeswoman for Fergus Falls, Minn.-based utility Otter Tail Power Co., said a residential electric customer using about 800 kilowatt-hours of power each month would see an increase in his or her monthly bill from $8 to $24 monthly if the extra costs were imposed on newly generated coal power.

Read the full article →

RUNNING SCARED? IRS Could Make Political Groups Pay Dearly for Keeping Donors Secret — And Out Them

March 9, 2012

WASHINGTON — For years, the IRS has done little or nothing to check the rise of overtly political groups that claim a special tax-exempt status in order to funnel secret money into election-related advertising. But in a sign that the agency may be waking from its slumber, the IRS has sent detailed questionnaires to several Tea Party organizations — and possibly other political groups — to determine if they truly qualify for the 501(c)(4) designation intended for groups whose exclusive purpose is to promote social welfare. Should any group currently calling itself a 501(c)(4) have its designation denied or revoked, tax experts said the consequences could be severe, including fines of 35 percent or more of the money they raised in secret. And the groups might have to make donors’ names public. Even loose talk about donor secrecy no longer being guaranteed could put a screaming halt to the extraordinary flow of money into these groups from deep-pocketed people and corporations that want to buy political ads without leaving fingerprints. “If I thought it was important to remain anonymous for my business reasons or for my personal reasons, I wouldn’t take any comfort in any assurances the organization has given me until now,” said Karl Sandstrom, a former Federal Election Commission member who now works at the Washington office of law firm of Perkins Coie. It’s not clear whether any of the major groups that identify themselves as C4s — and are well on their way toward collecting and spending tens of millions of dollars in this election cycle — have been the subject of IRS inquiries. The IRS won’t say, and it’s apparently a sensitive topic with the groups. Representatives from Karl Rove-associated Crossroads GPS, Obama-backing Priorities USA, and several others didn’t respond to requests for comment. But, said Sandstrom: “It’s hard to imagine that the IRS would take the time to make inquiries of small organizations if there are very large organizations — spending vast sums of money compared to these much smaller organizations — that are not receiving similar attention.” The tax code requires 501(c)(4) groups to be operated “exclusively” for social welfare purposes — which does not include intervention in political campaigns. The IRS has allowed the groups to engage in political activity as long as it was not their primary purpose. But for many of these groups, it’s hard to see what other purpose they could possibly have. It’s also hard to see why a political group would file under section 501(c)(4) instead of under Section 527 — the part of the tax code explicitly designed for political groups including PACs and super PACs — other than to hide its donors. Like the C4s, the 527 groups are allowed to raise unlimited funds and pay no taxes. They just have to disclose who donates money. Reform groups have been pressuring the IRS to enforce its rules for months. In February, a group of Democratic senators sent a letter to the IRS, which stated: “It is contrary to the letter and spirit of the statute for political organizations formed primarily to advocate for a political candidate or to run attack ads against other candidates to take advantage of section 501(c)(4).” Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), one the letter’s signers, praised the IRS inquiry. “The term ‘social welfare organization’ is clearly being used loosely these days,” Udall said in a statement. “Voters deserve to know who’s behind the attack ads they see on TV and we need a multi-pronged approach to get there — a tightening of regulations, disclosure legislation from Congress, and ultimately, a constitutional amendment to reduce the influence of money in our elections.” Meanwhile, a conservative legal organization representing several Tea Party groups assailed what it says “appears to be a coordinated attempt by the Internal Revenue Service to intimidate and silence these organizations in this election year.” The Tea Party groups released IRS questionnaires that requested detailed information , including lists of people invited to speak at events, their credentials, and hard copies of all handouts. “The problem here is the IRS has gone beyond legitimate inquiries and is demanding that these organizations answer questions that actually violate the First Amendment rights of our clients,” Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the evangelical interest group American Center for Law and Justice, said in a statement. But Donald Tobin, a law professor at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University, said the information requested by the IRS is perfectly normal and appropriate. “The idea is to get the proper information from the organization so you can make the proper decision,” he said. An IRS spokesman declined to comment on specific cases, but said in a statement on Thursday that “when determining whether an organization is eligible for tax-exempt status, including 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, all the facts and circumstances of that specific organization must be considered.” The statement described the agency’s procedure: In cases where an application for exemption under 501 (c)(4) present issues that require further development before a determination can be made, the IRS engages in a back and forth dialogue with the applicant. For example, if an application appears to indicate that the organization has engaged in political activities or may engage in political activities, the IRS will request additional information about those activities to determine whether they, in fact, constitute political activity. If so, the IRS will look at the rest of the organization’s activities to determine whether the primary activities are social welfare activities or whether they are non-exempt activities. In order to make this determination, the IRS must build an administrative record of the case. That record could include answers to questions, copies of documents, copies of web pages and any other relevant information. Career civil servants make all decisions on exemption applications in a fair, impartial manner and do so without regard to political party affiliation or ideology. No organization is being compelled to do anything, said Paul S. Ryan, a lawyer with the Campaign Legal Center, a group trying to reduce the influence of money in politics. “The tax-exemption of nonprofit groups amounts to a subsidy of their operations,” Ryan said. “If a group’s going to show up at the IRS with its hand out, I think the federal government is fully within the bounds of not only permissible, but desirable activities to make sure that what amounts to a subsidy is in compliance with the law. “I have no sympathy for those who are bending over backward to evade disclosure laws and complaining about the IRS simply doing its job and enforcing the laws on the books,” Ryan said. The only known previous action by the IRS came in July, when it denied C4 status to three units of Emerge America, a group that identifies and trains Democratic women to run for office. The IRS opened an examination into whether five large donors had violated the law by not declaring their contributions to political 501(c)(4) groups as gifts. But the agency stopped its inquiry after six Republican members of the Senate Budget Committee accused the IRS of pursuing a Democratic political vendetta. “The IRS was bullied by Congress and backed off immediately. It will be interesting to see if the IRS has any backbone this time,” Ryan said. Ofer Lion, a Los Angeles tax lawyer who represents tax-exempt organizations, said that even if the IRS proceeds, the agency “usually acts very slowly.” “They are now being looked to enforce these restrictions on political and lobbying activities at the pace of the campaign, which is something they’re not used to and not built for,” Lion said. The IRS move will inevitably be attacked as political, but Lion said he sees no indication of politics. “I’m not sure that it’s much more than what seems pretty plain, which is that these organizations look like political organizations,” he said. “Some of these organizations look like political parties. And a political party is not a 501(c)(4). This is just enforcing the laws on the books.” According to Sandstrom, if the IRS rejects or revokes a C4 classification, it’s likely that the group would be forcibly reclassified as a 527 — and would immediately be in violation of that section’s reporting requirements. That could result in a slap on the wrist or some sort of negotiated settlement. But technically, the statute establishes the penalty for nondisclosure as the maximum corporate tax rate (35 percent) times all the money that should have been disclosed, but wasn’t. “Failure to report involves a substantial penalty related to the activity you’re supposed to report, both on the contribution side and on the expenditure side, so the effective tax is about two-thirds of all revenue,” Sandstrom said. Huffington Post Fundrace Editor Paul Blumenthal contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

Bill McKibben: Another Keystone XL Victory

March 8, 2012

Today was… quite a day. The bell that people struck last August when they sat in at the White House to block the Keystone Pipeline was still resonating. Not loudly — the oil money in Congress muffled the sound. But loudly enough that we squeaked through by a 4-Senator margin, defeating a Republican amendment mandating the pipeline’s construction. A year ago almost no one had heard of the pipeline. Even four months ago, a poll of 300 “energy insiders” still found 97 percent predicting it would get its permit. But it didn’t — TransCanada can of course re-apply, but that will be another battle, down the road. For now, people power (the largest civil disobedience action in 30 years, 800,000 messages to the Senate in a single day, bodies encircling the White House shoulder to shoulder five deep) overturned the odds. And though most Americans don’t know it, today is also International Women’s Day, appropriate in this case because many of the very strongest fighters against this project right from the beginning were women of unusual distinction. I was reminded of that earlier this week, when Debra White Plume was arrested on the Lakota reservation for blocking trucks carrying giant equipment up to the tar sands. She’s an eloquent fighter, part of the large crew of indigenous leaders who were the first to sound the alarm about the tarsands and have been at the center of the battle ever since. But this time she wasn’t outside the White House or at a Congressional hearing — she was on a lonely reservation road with a small crowd of other people facing down giant semis and tribal police. You need to read her full account of what happened, both because it’s powerful and because she’s a great writer. My favorite passage: On the ride home from jail, I shared with my children my jail time, they were curious what the cell looked like and what I did in there for 3 hours. I told them it was empty, nothing in there but a toilet, not even drinking water. I told them I just paced back and forth, and read the grafitti scratched into the walls that said “this cell is 11 by 6,” “Tristan loves Luke,” “Angel and Wildflower have outlaw love,” and “I used to work here, now I am IN here.” My teens were sad, but understood why this happened, and they were glad me and their Poppa were coming home. I thought of Women’s Day again in the afternoon, when the votes in the Senate were being tallied and we were all doing the digital equivalents of biting our nails (refreshing Twitter, mostly). After the drama of the arrests and of encircling the White House had died down some, the hard work of maintaining this victory in the oil-soaked Congress fell to a small corps of Capitol Hill environmentalists. A few were men — Jeremy Symons from National Wildife Federation, Jason Kowalski from 350.org — but at the center were several indefatigable women, like Tiernan Sittenfeld of the League of Conservation Voters, Susan Casey-Lefkowitz from the National Resources Defense Council, and Lena Moffitt from the Sierra Club. The work they did was not glamorous — it was absolutely necessary, however.Day after day they tracked how each Senator was leaning, figured out which arguments would persuade which staffer, carted around briefing books, gave powerpoints, convinced donors to call the pols they’d funded. I don’t think I could do it — the constant match of their conviction against the cynicism that rules so much of Washington seems tougher for me to endure than my three days in Central Cell Block. But they did it with quiet grace, and they won And in the end, the two events — on the Lakota Reservation, and on the Hill — were the perfect summation of the whole Keystone campaign. The most grassroots of activists meshed easily and powerfully with the most entrenched of Washington enviros; there was no bickering or infighting — people seemed naturally to take the parts they were good at and trust others to do likewise, from Jane Kleeb running the Nebraska fight to Kenny Bruno coordinating the funders. Everyone worked toward a common goal with the resources they had at hand, and together we made them enough. Just enough, mind you, and our victory may not last forever. But today big oil actually lost something big. If you want to understand how, all those women are the place to start.

Read the full article →

GOP Trying To Bury Investigation: House Dem

March 8, 2012

WASHINGTON — Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) sent a letter to House Republicans Thursday accusing the GOP of trying to keep portions of an investigation by the federal labor board’s inspector general out of public view. According to Miller, the Republican majority of the House Education and the Workforce Committee asked the inspector general to “impose restrictions” on the release of the report, the subject of which is not publicly known. “I respectfully ask that you withdraw any such request to restrict or in any way quash the Inspector General’s report,” Miller wrote to the committee’s majority leader, Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.). “In the interest of our shared oversight responsibilities, please allow him to complete his investigation unfettered.” For the past year, Republicans and Democrats in the House have been butting heads over the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the agency tasked with enforcing labor law and mediating between employers and workers. After a string of rulings seen as pro-labor, Republicans went so far as to try to defund the board, accusing it of catering to unions. The investigation in question apparently piggybacks off an earlier investigation by the board’s inspector general, according to Miller’s letter. In that earlier probe, the inspector general looked into whether the board’s lone Republican member, Brian Hayes, had been improperly urged to resign in order to kill the board’s quorum and cripple it. The inspector general found that although Hayes had discussed employment prospects with a law firm that had business before the agency, there was no evidence that Hayes had been unethically influenced to resign. Hayes had threatened to step down, but ultimately stayed on the board and finished out his term. A spokesman for Kline did not immediately return a request seeking comment on Miller’s letter. The text of the letter : March 8, 2012 The Honorable John Kline Chairman Committee on Education and the Workforce 2181 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Chairman Kline: I learned today that the majority of our Committee reportedly asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Inspector General to impose restrictions on the release of an investigative report regarding an individual or individuals at the NLRB. It is my understanding that the report you may be seeking to restrict involves a follow-on Inspector General investigation into matters related to a previously released investigative report. That previous report addressed, among other things, questions of enticements made to NLRB Member Hayes to resign last year. As you know, I referred that matter to the Department of Justice for further investigation. I respectfully ask that you withdraw any such request to restrict or in any way quash the Inspector General’s report. In the interest of our shared oversight responsibilities, please allow him to complete his investigation unfettered and produce the results of his work to our Committee and other interested parties. Sincerely, GEORGE MILLER Senior Democratic Member

Read the full article →

Rocky Kistner: Texans Fight to Protect Their Land From the Keystone XL Pipeline

March 8, 2012

Down in Texas there’s an old saying; “You can put your boots in the oven but it don’t make them biscuits.” That’s an expression Washington politicians and their Keystone XL tar sands pipeline allies should take to heart. Texas landowners say they are fed up with the exaggerated claims and false arguments that Big Oil boosters are making about pipeline plans to ship a river of toxic Canadian tar sands crude through America’s midsection to Gulf refineries. Instead, they say the $7 billion project will threaten the country’s largest drinking water aquifers and its most fertile farmlands, while producing oil products for export. Last week, Keystone pipeline builder TransCanada announced it would push ahead with plans to build the southern leg of its proposed 1,700-mile pipeline from Cushing, OK, to the Gulf, putting Texas landowners squarely in the bulls-eye of this massive tar sands battle. Many are vehemently opposed to a plan that will provide huge profits for a foreign corporation while forcing Americans to cede pipeline right-a-ways to their land –putting landowners at risk of accidents involving the nastiest oil on the planet. Watch this video of three Texas landowners’ fight against the Keystone XL pipeline:     As NRDC’s Susan Casey-Lefkowitz has blogged , TransCanada’s plan to split the giant pipeline project in two and start building the southern leg will put Texas landowners at greater risk, likely leading to even higher gas prices in the Midwest: Raw tar sands oil going from the Midwest to the Gulf for refining means serious pipeline safety issues for landowners and environmental justice impacts of tar sands refining. Concerns of Texas landowners over TransCanada’s high-handed attempts to take their land through eminent domain will all remain the same in the case of an Oklahoma to Texas tar sands pipeline. And the southern route pipeline will still provide the main service to oil companies that Keystone XL would provide: it will divert tar sands from the Midwest to the Gulf, raising American oil prices and likely also gasoline prices. An Oklahoma to Texas tar sands pipeline will mean more tar sands converted to diesel and available for export overseas. It will mean less tar sands remaining in the US, even while Americans bear the risks of the pipeline. But Texans are continuing to put up a fight. Last month, residents of the Lone Star state turned out in droves to support Paris, TX, farm-manager Julia Trigg Crawford’s eminent domain court fight to keep TransCanada’s pipeline off her property that is studded with Caddo Indian artifacts. Last week, a Texas appeals court reinstated a temporary restraining order that prohibits TransCanada from conducting pipeline construction activities on her farm.   Texas of course is not the only place where there is growing dissatisfaction on the part of local landowners and residents who say their land is being sacrificed for the profits of a private Canadian company and not the greater good of the country. Mike Hathorn, Wells, TX                            Photo: Rocky Kistner/NRDC Earlier this week, a group of protesters in South Dakota at the Oglala Sioux Tribe’s Pine Ridge Reservation formed a blockade to stop trucks they say were carrying heavy equipment destined for the massive Canadian tar sands mining operations in Alberta. A number of the protesters were arrested, including Lakota activist Debra White Plume, a leading native American opponent of the tar sands pipeline. Here’s how she was quoted in the Native Sun News: “Our Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council and the Oglala Sioux Tribe have both passed legislation against the Keystone XL oil pipeline, and have adopted the Mother Earth Accord which calls for a moratorium on the tar sands oil mine as destructive to water, Mother Earth, all animals and human beings.” Stated White Plume, “Whatever these vessels are, where ever they were going, they are too huge and too heavy, too hazardous, to be on our roads.” From the Dakotas to Texas, the tar sands pipeline struggle is still in full swing. These battles are a long ways from the political wars in the halls of Congress, an epic election-year fight that has captured the nation’s attention. But they are much more real to those who will have to live next to a heated, pressurized steel pipeline that will gush a steady stream of chemically-treated tar sands crude across their land, flowing to the Gulf for export.   As Wells, TX, landowner and welding expert Mike Hathorn says of the Keystone XL project; “Nobody wins in the end… and the American people aren’t going to win over this.” That’s some useful down home advice from the Texas frontlines that folks in Congress need to start listening to.

Read the full article →

Iowa Nuclear Power Plant Likely To Be Built

March 7, 2012

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — A legislator said Tuesday that he had struck a deal on a plan that would give MidAmerican Energy new incentives to build a nuclear power plant in Iowa. Sen. Matt McCoy, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said his panel will approve the compromise Thursday. “We have the votes,” McCoy, D-Des Moines, told The Associated Press. “We have a consumer-friendly amendment.” The compromise would require that MidAmerican, Iowa’s largest utility, have financing in place before beginning construction of a nuclear power plant. Once state regulators approve a new plant, the utility would have to carry out construction. Some legislators had worried earlier versions of the measure would allow the utility to raise rates to pay for the plant, without being committed to actually building the facility. They said consumers could end up with higher rates, and no new power plant to show for it. Lawmakers reached the agreement even as opponents held a Statehouse news conference, where they argued that nuclear plants are inherently dangerous. Sen. Rob Hogg, D-Cedar Rapids, was among the speakers at the event, timed to mark the upcoming anniversary of the March 11 meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima Dai-ichi plant. The accident occurred after a massive earthquake caused a tsunami that knocked out power to the plant. Hogg said he didn’t share McCoy’s confidence that the Iowa measure would be debated on the Senate floor. “I would be surprised if it moved, but it’s obviously still a live round,” Hogg said. Francis Thicke, a farmer and environmental activist from Fairfield, said the compromise backed by McCoy only dealt with the potential financial risks of the proposed nuclear plant. “My concern is the whole environmental issue and they are not addressing the environment,” Thicke said. The incentives for developing another nuclear power plant cleared the House last year, but the proposal has been stalled in the Senate and backers had feared it wouldn’t be approved as the Legislature moved toward adjournment next month. MidAmerican spokeswoman Ann Thelen was cautious about the agreement, saying the deal was just struck Tuesday and officials have not had a chance to review it. As head of the Commerce Committee, McCoy controls which issues are debated, and he’s scheduled his panel to take up the nuclear plant bill Thursday. Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, said no decision had been made about the measure if it wins committee approval. “It’s available for the rest of the session,” Gronstal said. “We may or may not debate it.”

Read the full article →

Romney: Tax Plan ‘Can’t Be Scored’

March 7, 2012

BOSTON — Mitt Romney is acknowledging that it’s impossible to know how his tax plan will affect the federal budget deficit. In an interview Wednesday on CNBC, the former Massachusetts governor scoffed at outside groups who have said his plan to lower marginal tax rates would increase the deficit. Romney said he was surprised that such assertions were being made because his plan “can’t be scored.” He says he’ll have to work with Congress on the details before he can estimate how much the plan will cost. “It is essential to me that we not place a larger share of the tax burden on middle-income taxpayers, so that means that we’re not going to end up with very high-income taxpayers taking a smaller share,” said Romney. “We’re going to have to limit the deductions and exemptions in such a way — again, limiting them more toward high-income folks, so that high-income folks don’t pay a smaller share of the total, they continue to pay the same share they pay now, same thing with the middle-income folks.” Romney previously has insisted that his plan to cut marginal individual tax rates by 20 percent won’t increase the deficit because he would limit deductions and exemptions for the wealthy. He hasn’t outlined what those changes would be, and says he’ll work with Congress. A study by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said that Romney’s plan would increase the national debt by about $2.6 trillion. A Tax Policy Center analysis said that the Romney plan would add $480 billion to the deficit in 2015 alone, and wealthier Americans would get more of a tax cut than middle-income earners.

Read the full article →

Huge Transportation Bill Hits Senate Roadblock

March 6, 2012

WASHINGTON — A transportation bill worth $19 billion and an estimated 3 million jobs stalled in the Senate on Tuesday amid battles over amendments that have little or nothing to do with transportation. Efforts to begin considering the measure were delayed by a failed 52-44 vote to end debate, when 60 votes were required. Republican sources said that their side had settled on the amendments they want — including certain unrelated ones — but that Democrats could not agree on their amendments. Democrats declined to elaborate. However, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said before the vote that it was time to move ahead and blamed the GOP for pushing a stack of amendments that would, among other things, ease air pollution restrictions on incinerators. “I am, for lack of a better word, disappointed,” Reid said. “These amendments are going to do nothing to advance the work product of almost 3 million Americans — none of them. We should just invoke cloture,” he added, using the technical phrase for ending debate. “I ask my Republican colleagues, ‘Break this impasse, do something that is good for the American people, invoke cloture. Stop a filibuster, another one.’” For his part, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) suggested Democrats were as much to blame for the hold-up and predicted the bill will get passed. “I would point out there are demands for amendments on both sides here,” McConnell said. “We’re very close to getting an agreement. And I think a ‘no’ vote on cloture is not the end of this bill but the beginning, and it gives us an opportunity to go on and wrap up discussions that have gone on entirely too long, it seems to me. “I know the majority leader’s been frustrated by it, and so have I. But we’re very close to getting an agreement on a list of amendments and should be able to finish this bill by the end of the week,” McConnell added. Reid was still peeved, though, and complained specifically about environmental and oil-drilling amendments. “These amendments deal with clean water standards, deal with clean air standards,” Reid said. “Nothing in this bill should deal with having Americans having to breathe more mercury, more lead. And then just for good measure, how about some arsenic?” he complained. “The amendment that I’ve looked at from my friend from Louisiana [Sen. David Vitter (R)] calls for drilling for oil any place there’s water. Next they’ll be going to Lake Meade outside Las Vegas.” Democrats had predicted that Republicans would obstruct the bill, especially in the House, and suggested they would face political consequences for doing so. Reid argued that the first consequence would be fallout from putting thousands of people out of work after the current transportation act expires on March 31. “It will be April Fool’s Day for a lot of people in America because we will lose almost 800,000 jobs on April 1,” Reid said. “Why can’t we get seven Republicans to break from the pack over here and say not everything we do has to be an arm-wrestling contest?” Michael McAuliff covers politics and Congress for The Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook.

Read the full article →

Obama Holds First News Conference Of 2012

March 6, 2012

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama declared Tuesday that diplomacy can still resolve the crisis over Iran’s possible pursuit of nuclear weapons, and he accused his Republican critics of “beating the drums of war.” “Those folks don’t have a lot of responsibilities,” Obama said. “They are not commander in chief.” Tension with Iran, and Obama’s preference for restraint, dominated his first full news conference of the year, held on the same day that Republican Super Tuesday voting was drawing attention as well. On politics, Obama said that higher gasoline prices as a result of Mideast worries would be a bad idea for any president running for re-election, and he also said he was working to expand America’s energy base. He called violence in Syria “heartbreaking” but showed no new willingness for military involvement in that Mideast country. Obama said his critics are forgetting the “cost of war” in their rush to punish Iran and defend Israel, which sees a nuclear Iran as a mortal threat in its Mideast neighborhood. Rhetoric on the right is “more about politics than about trying to solve a difficult problem,” Obama said. He said he is focused on “crippling sanctions” already imposed on Iran and on international pressure to keep that nation from developing a nuclear weapon. Obama said his private meetings with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu this week carried the same message as his public pronouncements. And he implied that Israeli pressure for urgent action was not supported by the facts, saying that a decision was not necessary within the next weeks or months. He added that Iranians need to show how serious they are about resolving the crisis. He said there are steps the Iranians can take “that are verifiable” and will allow it to be “in compliance with international norms and mandates.” On gas prices, Obama dismissed as laughable the suggestion by some Republican critics that he actually wants increases. He said no president facing re-election would want to see gas prices rise because of the hardship that would cause to American families, and that he’s asking his attorney general to examine whether speculation in the oil markets is driving up oil prices. In the past month, gasoline prices have risen by more than 28 cents per gallon, making gasoline the most expensive ever for this time of year. On Tuesday, the nationwide average for regular unleaded slipped less than a penny to $3.764 per gallon, ending a string of price increases that began on Feb. 8.

Read the full article →

Tom Fox: Do Women Feel Less Empowered in Your Federal Agency?

March 6, 2012

Do men and women working for the federal government have different perceptions of their jobs and work environments? This is one of the questions that my organization, the Partnership for Public Service, set out to answer in Gender Gaps and Racial/Ethnic Divides , a new Best Places to Work in the Federal Government analysis, based on data from the Office of Personnel Management’s 2011 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. The analysis found that women, who comprise about 44 percent of the federal workforce, offered more positive views about their jobs and workplaces than men did. This government-wide view represents a shift from 2010, when the workplace satisfaction score for men was higher. But on specific issues of fairness and empowerment in the workplace, men were still more satisfied than women. As always, government-wide scores tell one story, but the agency-specific information may offer another perspective. I encourage federal managers to take a look at the analysis and federal survey data to see how your agency stacks up and, if needed, to take action to improve the work environment. Here is some advice to help get you started: Diagnose the problem. A good employee survey will not give you all the answers, but it will help you to know what questions to ask. So, in looking at the data underlying the current Best Places rankings and comparing responses by gender, race and national origin, the first step is to identify any major discrepancies. For example, does it show in your agency that male employees are significantly more likely to report that they feel empowered in the workplace and involved in decision-making than women report they are? If yes, look further. Is this difference in perceptions widespread in the organization or is it isolated in particular subcomponents? Talk to employees and ask for their help interpreting the results. Is there reason to believe that it reflects reality? Is there data outside of the survey that might lend support to the possibility that there is a problem that needs to be addressed? For example, are your agency’s turnover rates higher for women than men, or are more formal complaints being filed by one group or the other? Develop hypotheses. Once you have determined that there is a problem, try to determine what may be causing it. In research terms, you should develop one or more hypotheses and then test each to see if a potential cause could be real. For example, one might assume that women are concentrated in lower grade levels than men and, thus, are less involved in decision-making. That’s a hypothesis that — in part at least — is fairly easy to examine. Are there proportionally more women at lower grade levels compared to men? If yes, take a look at your survey data to see if women at higher grades differ in their perceptions from women in lower grades. If they are no major differences among women based on their level in the organization, perhaps something else is at play. Might the differences be driven by differences in the occupations held? Might one or two senior managers be disproportionately involved? Are resources divided unequally? Act on what you’ve discovered. There may not be any easy answers for addressing the problems you have uncovered, but there may be some “low-hanging fruit” in terms of actions that can be taken. You don’t have to do everything on your own. Delegate and assign accountability focused on results. There may be a number of paths that can take you to the same objective. If possible, let subordinate managers or employees determine which path might work best for them or for the organization. Be transparent and follow through. Let employees know what you plan to do. Then do it, and be sure employees know that it’s been done. Maybe it’s a change in policy. Perhaps it’s a new system to proactively gather employee ideas. Ask for feedback and be persistent. Change takes time and not everything works as intended. Be ready to adapt as needed. Have you as a manager dealt with issues of gender inequality in the federal workplace or as an employee felt less empowered and a sense of unfairness based on your gender? Please share your experiences and ideas by leaving a comment or emailing me at fedcoach@ourpublicservice.org . This post originally appeared on WashingtonPost.com

Read the full article →

Tom Fox: Catching a Financial Thief

March 6, 2012

James H. Freis, Jr. was appointed in 2007 as director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), an agency that establishes and implements regulatory policies, and analyzes financial transactions, to help detect and deter money laundering, terrorist financing and other financial crimes. He previously served as deputy assistant general counsel for enforcement and intelligence at the Treasury Department, worked as senior counsel in the legal service of the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland and at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. This interview was conducted by Tom Fox, who writes the Washington Post ‘s Federal Coach blog . What are some of the leadership lessons you gained during your time in government? I have learned the importance of building consensus and generating buy-in from different groups of stakeholders. When I came to Treasury, I started dealing with national security matters and law enforcement cases and instantly the stakes became much higher. Today, as the director of FinCEN, part of finding the right answer is working with people who have important pieces of information, opinions or experience that will help us come to the correct conclusions. How do you keep your employees motivated? The most consistent and gratifying aspect of working with the people here is how overwhelmingly motivated they are by FinCEN’s mission. Again and again, day after day, it’s what’s brought them here and what keeps them here. One of the most fundamental aspects of our mission is to “follow the money.” By following the money, we help catch the criminals. We have only a small component, so we are handing that information over to criminal investigative officers and they have to do the rest. But seeing that we gave the investigators and prosecutors the tools to put bad guys away shows us that we’ve achieved our mission. The other part is the preventative side. By looking at the vulnerabilities to criminal abuse in our financial systems, we use our regulatory authorities to work with the financial industry to help them mitigate the risks that criminals would otherwise exploit. To close that vulnerability, to mitigate that risk, is extremely gratifying. What are the challenges you face on the workforce management front? As a small agency, we have to determine our priorities. We have to continually reevaluate where we want to bring to bear our legal authorities, specialized talents and unique resources. In approaching that challenge, we engage with our law enforcement counterparts, regulators, financial institutions and others focused on their specialized areas of respective responsibility. FinCEN must then step back to see the broader picture of risk and criminal activity, and try to find the right balance among the sometimes differing interests among our stakeholders, to further the one common goal of protecting against criminal abuse. We’re continually trying to find ways to engage with others and depend heavily on their cooperation. We need to see what might be coming down the pike, and that affects how we focus and manage our challenges. What do you do to encourage cooperation within your agency? One of the most important things is to make sure people never lose sight of the common purpose. When I bring people together at our quarterly town hall meetings with either the entire agency or smaller groups, the questions that I personally try to throw out there are: Why are we here? What are we trying to achieve? I never let them forget that we are strongest when we work together. What tricks or methods have you developed to manage your time more effectively? I am very decisive. Once we have the information that we need, we make a decision and move swiftly toward implementation. One of the things I try to do when I’m flooded with new tasks or decisions, is to prioritize my time and my order of responses to the questions coming in. I put first those items to which other people are waiting on my response. If they need the decision to take path A or path B, and they might otherwise have downtime waiting for that response, I immediately put forward those items. When you think about your path to leadership, what has helped you the most? The life experience that I’ve found most influential is the international exposure that I’ve had. I’ve had the privilege of working abroad for almost eight years and dealing with people from around the world. It has brought a whole other dimension of additional experiences and alternative viewpoints. If you could find one additional hour in your busy day, how is it you might spend your time? I’d love an additional hour just to talk with people. We want to learn from the experiences of others, and we have to build relationships of trust. So, being out there and talking with counterparts is critical. This post originally appeared on WashingtonPost.com

Read the full article →

Occupy Eyes 2012 Comeback

March 6, 2012

For some months now, the allure of the general strike has quietly persisted in the Occupy movement. In recent weeks, calls for a nationwide general strike on May 1 have grown louder; more than two months in advance of the date, a deluge of propaganda – posters, banner drops and short online videos – portends a May Day that promises to up the Occupy ante.

Read the full article →

EPA Heightens Scrutiny of PA Fracking

March 5, 2012

DIMOCK, Pa. (AP) — Tugging on rubber gloves, a laboratory worker kneels before a gushing spigot behind Kim Grosso’s house and positions an empty bottle under the clear, cold stream. The process is repeated dozens of times as bottles are filled, marked and packed into coolers. After extensive testing, Grosso and dozens of her neighbors will know this week what may be lurking in their well water as federal regulators investigate claims of contamination in the midst of one of the nation’s most productive natural gas fields. More than three years into the gas-drilling boom that’s produced thousands of new wells, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the state of Pennsylvania are tussling over regulation of the Marcellus Shale, the vast underground rock formation that holds trillions of cubic feet of gas. The state says EPA is meddling. EPA says it is doing its job. Grosso, who lives near a pair of gas wells drilled in 2008, told federal officials her water became discolored a few months ago, with an intermittent foul odor and taste. Her dog and cats refused to drink it. While there’s no indication the problems are related to drilling, she hopes the testing will provide answers. “If there is something wrong with the water, who is responsible?” she asked. “Who’s going to fix it, and what does it do to the value of the property?” Federal regulators are ramping up their oversight of the Marcellus with dual investigations in the northeastern and southwestern corners of Pennsylvania. EPA is also sampling water around Pennsylvania for its national study of the potential environmental and public health impacts of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the technique that blasts a cocktail of sand, water and chemicals deep underground to stimulate oil and gas production in shale formations like the Marcellus. Fracking allows drillers to reach previously inaccessible gas reserves, but it produces huge volumes of polluted wastewater and environmentalists say it can taint groundwater. Energy companies deny it. The heightened federal scrutiny rankles the industry and politicians in the state capital, where the administration of pro-drilling Gov. Tom Corbett insists that Pennsylvania regulators are best suited to oversee the gas industry. The complaints echo those in Texas and in Wyoming, where EPA’s preliminary finding that fracking chemicals contaminated water supplies is forcefully disputed by state officials and energy executives. Caught in the middle of the state-federal regulatory dispute are residents who don’t know if their water is safe to drink. EPA is charged by law with protecting and ensuring the safety of the nation’s drinking water, but it has largely allowed the states to take the lead on rules and enforcement as energy companies drilled and fracked tens of thousands of new wells in recent years. In Pennsylvania, that began to change last spring after The Associated Press and other news organizations reported that huge volumes of partially treated wastewater were being discharged into rivers and streams that supply drinking water. EPA asked the state to boost its monitoring of fracking wastewater from gas wells, and the state declared a voluntary moratorium for drillers that led to significant reductions of Marcellus waste. Yet a loophole in the policy allows operators of many older oil and gas wells to continue discharging significant amounts of wastewater into treatment plants, and thus, into rivers. The state’s top environmental regulator, Michael Krancer, says Pennsylvania doesn’t need federal intervention to help it protect the environment. He told Congress last fall that Pennsylvania has taken the lead on regulations for the burgeoning gas industry. “There’s no question that EPA is overstepping,” Katherine Gresh, Krancer’s spokeswoman, told the AP. “DEP regulates these facilities and always has, and EPA has never before shown this degree of involvement.” The American Petroleum Institute urged the Obama administration last week to rein in the 10 agencies it says are either reviewing, studying or proposing regulation of fracking. “The fact is that there is a strong state regulatory system in place, and adding potentially redundant and duplicative federal regulation would be unnecessary, costly, and could stifle investment,” API Vice President Kyle Isakower said in a statement. EPA says public health is its key focus and insists it is guided by sound science and the law. “We have been clear that if we see an immediate threat to public health, we will not hesitate to take steps under the law to protect Americans whose health may be at risk,” said Terri White, an EPA spokeswoman in Philadelphia. The EPA investigations are being conducted amid reports of possibly drilling-related contamination in several Pennsylvania communities. In recent years, methane migrating from drill sites into private water supplies has forced scores of residents to stop using their wells and rely on deliveries of fresh water. Some residents complain the state agency has failed to hold drillers to account. In heavily drilled Washington County, near the West Virginia border, EPA staff are inspecting well pads and natural gas compressor stations for compliance with water- and air-quality laws. In Dimock, a village about 20 miles south of the New York state line, EPA stepped in after a gas driller won the state’s permission to halt fresh water deliveries to about a dozen residents whose wells were tainted with methane and, the residents say, heavy metals, organic compounds and drilling chemicals. Dimock holds the distinction of being Pennsylvania’s top gas-producing town, yielding enough gas in six months to supply 400,000 U.S. homes for a year. Some residents contend their water wells were irreversibly contaminated after Houston-based Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. drilled faulty gas wells that leaked methane into the aquifer 7/87/8— and spilled thousands of gallons of fracking fluids that residents suspect leached into the groundwater. Cabot first acknowledged, then denied responsibility for the methane it now contends is naturally occurring. It also asserts that years of sampling data show the water is safe to drink. The EPA looked at the same test results and arrived at a different conclusion. The well water samples “led us to conclude that there were health concerns that required action,” White said. EPA said its tests showed alarming levels of manganese and cancer-causing arsenic and that Cabot’s own tests found minute concentrations of organic compounds and synthetic chemicals, suggesting the influence of gas drilling. Cabot says its drilling operations had nothing to do with any chemicals that have turned up in the water. It points to a Duke University study last year that found no evidence of contamination from fracking. Yet the company racks up state violations at a far higher rate than its competitors in the Marcellus — 248 violations at its wells in Dimock alone since late 2007 — most recently last month, when the company was flagged for improper storage, transport or disposal of residual waste. State regulators levied more than $1.1 million in fines and penalties against the company between 2008 and 2010. And it is still banned from drilling any new wells in a 9-square-mile area of Dimock. While EPA agreed last month to deliver water to four homes along Carter Road, the agency said the tests did not justify supplying water to several other residents who had been getting their water from Cabot and who have filed suit against the company. The plaintiffs still don’t trust their wells, instead relying on water from the nearby Montrose municipal supply. Twice a day, six days a week, Carter Road resident Ray Kemble drives about eight miles to a hydrant in Montrose, fills a 550-gallon tank strapped to the back of a donated truck, and delivers water to as many as five homes — including his own. Anti-drilling groups are footing the bill, estimated at $500 per week. Kemble said his well water turned brown and became unusable in 2008, shortly after the gas well across the street was drilled and fracked. At his home, he filled a large plastic container dubbed a water buffalo from the tank on the truck. “Never had a problem before until Cabot came in,” Kemble said.

Read the full article →

BP Begins To Put Oil Spill Behind It With Settlement

March 3, 2012

NEW YORK — BP’s settlement deal with thousands of victims of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill is a major step toward putting the worst oil spill in U.S. history behind it. BP says it will not have to increase the $37.2 billion it has set aside to pay for the spill, and analysts say the settlement could allow BP to quickly resolve outstanding claims by states and the federal government. If approved by a federal court in New Orleans, Friday’s deal would settle lawsuits filed by some 100,000 individuals and businesses affected by the spill. They include fishermen who lost work, cleanup workers who got sick and others who claimed harm from the oil giant’s April 20, 2010, disaster. The accident destroyed a drilling rig called the Deepwater Horizon, killed 11 workers, spilled an estimated 200 million gallons of oil and disrupted thousands of Gulf Coast lives. The spill soiled sensitive tidal estuaries and beaches, killed wildlife and closed vast areas of the Gulf to commercial fishing. The momentous settlement announced late Friday will have no cap to compensate the plaintiffs, though BP PLC estimated it would have to pay out about $7.8 billion, making it one of the largest class-action settlements ever. The settlement would come out of a $20 billion trust the company had established to pay these types of claims. The trust has $9.5 billion in assets. Whatever remains in the trust after victims are paid out would come back to BP. The settlement does not resolve state claims against the company or federal fines and penalties that could total $20 billion to $25 billion. BP is also mired in lawsuits with some of its partners in the Macondo project in the Gulf. Also, individual victims are not required to agree to terms of the settlement and they could choose to bring separate cases. But analysts say individual claims aren’t expected to amount to much, and they now expect BP to be able to move quickly to settle the rest of the claims against it. “They are clearing the decks for a potential deal with the government that would end this litigation and enable them to move beyond the Gulf oil spill,” said David Uhlmann, a University of Michigan Law School professor who served as chief of the Justice Department’s environmental crimes section. Uhlmann called the deal fair for both sides and said it cleared what appeared to be the biggest hurdle to a global settlement in the case. “The only trial I thought we would see in this case is the one that just went away,” he said. Fadel Gheit, an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co., said the settlement shows BP is willing to pay in order to try to put the oil spill behind it. That willingness, he said, will help the company reach deals with governments and other plaintiffs. BP is the largest oil producer in the Gulf, and it needs to be able to continue to drill for oil there to ensure its future, he said. “They have been telling the government: `We’ll do whatever it takes. We’re just going to pay and get this over with. We want to be back in business,’” Gheit said. The main targets of litigation resulting from the explosion and spill were BP, Transocean, cement contractor Halliburton Co. and Cameron International, maker of the well’s failed blowout preventer. BP, the majority owner of the well that blew out, was leasing the rig from Transocean. The Justice Department sued some of the companies involved in the ill-fated drilling project, seeking to recover billions of dollars for economic and environmental damage. The department opened a separate criminal investigation, but that probe hasn’t resulted in any charges. The companies also sued each other, although some of those cases were settled last year. In one of the pending lawsuits, BP has sued Transocean for at least $40 billion in damages. A series of government investigations have spread blame for the disaster. In January 2011, a presidential commission found that the spill was caused by time-saving and money-saving decisions by BP, Halliburton and Transocean that created unacceptable risk. But the panel also concluded that the mistakes were the result of systemic problems, not necessarily the fault of any one individual. In September 2011, however, a team of Coast Guard officials and federal regulators issued a report that concluded BP bears ultimate responsibility for the spill. The report found BP violated federal regulations, ignored crucial warnings and made bad decisions during the cementing of the well a mile beneath the Gulf of Mexico. BP has repeatedly said it accepts some responsibility for the spill and will pay what it owes, while urging other companies to pay their share. ___ AP Writer Michael Kunzelman contributed to this story from New Orleans.

Read the full article →

Romney Urged Obama To Embrace Individual Mandate In 2009

March 3, 2012

In July 2009, Mitt Romney called on President Obama to require Americans to buy insurance as part of his health care plan, using “tax penalties” as a backstop – in other words, the individual mandate that Republicans virulently oppose.

Read the full article →

BP Strikes Settlement Over Gulf Oil Spill

March 3, 2012

NEW ORLEANS — BP PLC has agreed to settle lawsuits from thousands of fishermen who lost work and others who claimed they were harmed by the oil giant’s 2010 Gulf of Mexico disaster, in the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history. The oil giant said Friday it expects to pay out at least $7.8 billion dollars as part of the settlement. It says it expects the money to come from the $20 billion compensation fund that it previously set out. BP still has to resolve claims by the U.S. government, Gulf states and its partners in the doomed Deepwater Horizon project, in which pressure from a well a mile below the ocean’s surface blew up a massive drilling rig, killing 11 men and spewing oil into the sea for nearly three months.

Read the full article →

Iowa Criminalizes Recording Animal Abuse

March 3, 2012

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa became the first state Friday to make it a crime to surreptitiously get into a farming operation to record video of animal abuse. Republican Gov. Terry Branstad signed the law despite protests, letters and campaigns launched on Twitter and Facebook by animal welfare groups that have used secretly taped videos to sway public opinion against what they consider cruel practices. But Branstad’s action wasn’t a surprise. Iowa is the nation’s leading pork and egg producer, and the governor has strong ties to the state’s agricultural industry. He signed the measure in a private ceremony and issued no statement about his decision. Legislatures in seven other states — Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York and Utah— have considered laws that would enhance penalties against those who secretly record video of livestock, though the efforts have stalled in some states. Iowa’s law makes lying on a job application to get access to a farm facility a serious misdemeanor, punishable with up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $1,500. A second conviction carries harsher penalties. It won overwhelming approval in the Iowa Legislature on Tuesday. Animal rights groups had called on Branstad to veto the bill, saying it ignores strong public sentiment that favors proper treatment of animals and methods of oversight that ensure safe food. “Iowans deserve to know where their food is coming from, they deserve to know how the animals they’re consuming have been treated, they deserve to have the farms held accountable for the conditions in these facilities,” said Suzanne McMillan, spokeswoman for the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. “He’s really going against all those concerns and priorities that Iowans hold.” But John Weber, who grows grain and raises hogs near Dysart, about 100 miles northeast of Des Moines, said most farmers don’t abuse or mistreat their animals and there are systems in place to deal with mistreatment when it’s reported. He called the new law a good piece of legislation. “It will give some protection for farmers from people who enter their facilities fraudulently,” he said. Iowa farmers have felt under attack since activists distributed a series of videos that they claimed showed the mistreatment of animals, from pigs being beaten to chicks being ground up alive. The state typically has more than 19 million hogs and 54 million egg-laying chickens in barns and confinement buildings. Sen. Joe Seng, a Davenport Democrat and veterinarian who sponsored the bill, said the measure strikes a balance by discouraging animal activists from sneaking into livestock facilities but not prohibiting someone who legitimately works there from reporting animal abuse. The bill that passed was changed from an earlier version due to concerns that language making undercover video recording illegal could violate free speech protections in the U.S. Constitution. Craig Hill, president of the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, has said he hopes Iowa’s action can lead the way for other states to pass similar legislation. The Utah House has approved a bill that would make it a misdemeanor to film on private agricultural property without the owner’s consent, and the measure is now awaiting debate in the Senate.

Read the full article →

James Kwak: Fiscal Affairs: Democrats and the Bush Tax Cuts

March 2, 2012

Mark Thoma provides an excerpt from Noam Scheiber on Peter Orszag’s attempt to let all of the Bush tax cuts expire. In short, Orszag wanted to extend the “middle-class” tax cuts for two years (letting the tax cuts for the rich expire); then he expected the middle-class tax cuts to expire as well. President Obama was interested in the plan, which Scheiber takes as evidence that “the president is a true fiscal conservative.” Thoma frames this as a bad thing: The explanation, of course, is that despite hopes to the contrary (and denial by some), the president is, ‘a true fiscal conservative’ — it’s not just an act in an attempt to capture the middle — and that could be bad news not just for middle class tax cuts, but also for important social insurance programs such as Social Security. I like and respect Mark Thoma a great deal, and I generally think of him as a mainstream Democrat on economic issues, neither a socialist nor a “moderate Democrat” (what we used to call a Republican). To me, his post is evidence that many Democrats think that most of the Bush tax cuts were and are a good thing. This confuses me. When did we become the party of tax cuts? Let’s leave aside the question of whether Barack Obama is a fiscal conservative (and whether that term has any meaning anymore) and focus on the narrower question of whether it would be good to let the “middle class” tax cuts (usually defined as tax cuts for married couples making less than $250,000) expire. There are three logically separable issues here. The first is whether, leaving aside considerations of the business cycle, we would be better off with the Clinton tax code (mainly set in 1993, tweaked in 1997) or the Bush tax code (set in 2001 and 2003, extended in piecemeal fashion during the Bush administration, and finally extended in 2010 through 2012). On this question I think the answer has to be that the Clinton tax code is preferable, at least for people with generally Democratic preferences. One way to think about it is this: In 2001 and 2003, did you think the Bush tax cuts were good policy? If you didn’t think they were good policy then, why would they be good policy now? If you can’t remember what you thought about them then, let me remind you. EGTRRA and JGTRRA were huge tax cuts for the rich and small tax cuts for the middle class and the poor. EGTRRA was passed at a time when large majorities of the country wanted to bolster Social Security and Medicare rather than cut taxes;* JGTRRA was passed after a recession and September 11 had already wiped out the Clinton-era surpluses and less than two months after the invasion of Iraq. More generally, tax cuts always have to be paid for, one way or another, in lower transfers, fewer services, or higher taxes in the future. Since the poor and middle class are net beneficiaries of transfers and services, the Bush tax cuts were, on balance, bad for the poor and the middle class (unless they would be paid for by tax increases that made the tax code even more progressive than before — an unlikely prospect). For a quantitative analysis, see Elmendorf, Furman, Gale, and Harris (2008) . (I’m not going to bother rebutting the supply-side justification for the tax cuts since, for now, I’m talking to Democrats; I know why Republicans liked the tax cuts.) If the tax cuts were bad a decade ago, what has changed since then (for now, leaving aside cyclical issues)? We have had one more decade of aging and health care inflation (and war), so the long-term budget outlook looks considerably worse. The need to ensure the long-term survival of Social Security and Medicare is greater. Increased income inequality has made provision of basic safety net services even more important. These are all things that demand more tax revenue, not less. The case against the Bush tax cuts has only become stronger. Assuming you’re with me so far, the second issue is whether it would be good to have just the middle-class tax cuts and not the tax cuts for the rich, which is what President Obama has proposed. (Leave aside for now the question of whether this would be politically feasible with today’s Republican Party.) This is a closer call, but I still think the right answer is no tax cuts. To begin with, who among you (again, I’m aiming this at Democratic policy wonks) thought that the thing we needed in 2001 was a middle-class tax cut? Not many, if I recall correctly. Democrats wanted more money for education, infrastructure, job training, and child care. We wanted better health care. We wanted to set aside money for Social Security and Medicare. We didn’t want tax cuts. Again, I think the past decade has just strengthened all of these concerns. Yes, the middle class is struggling with stagnant wages and rising economic insecurity. But in aggregate, middle class families need robust social insurance programs to protect them from falling into poverty more than they need a few hundred dollars of after-tax income. And given the current political climate, that is the choice we face. The third issue is whether, given the actual business cycle, we should raise taxes on the middle class right now. Here I will go along with Thoma and DeLong and Krugman and all the rest and agree that it might not be good to raise taxes on the middle class on January 1, 2013. If I were king, I might extend the middle-class tax cuts for another two years and then let them expire. But this “if I were king” stuff is meaningless. First of all, if I were actually king, I would still let all the tax cuts expire; then I would use the additional revenues to increase government spending. (Remember, fellow Democratic policy wonks, we usually say that spending has a higher multiplier than tax cuts.) Second, I’m not king, and neither are you. We are dealing with a Republican Party that will block any package that raises taxes on anybody. They will block any tax increase, even if it hurts them in the general elections, because they are completely locked in by the Grover pledge and the Koch brothers. The only choice we have is between extending all of the tax cuts and complete gridlock, which means that they all expire. And if we extend the Bush tax cuts, we are just four Senate seats away from making them all permanent.** Given that choice, I vote for gridlock. I understand the counterargument: tax increases would weaken the recovery and increase unemployment in the short term. But those tax revenues are crucial to the long-term health of the middle class. Ending the Bush tax cuts will slash projected deficits and push right-wing claims about the bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare decades into the future. Yes, conservatives will always want to privatize Social Security and dismantle Medicare, but they only have a chance of actually succeeding when government deficits make those programs seem unsustainable, bringing so-called centrists over to their side. So, for me, letting all the tax cuts expire on December 31 is better than making them permanent. Letting them all expire is also better than making just the “middle-class” tax cuts permanent. (Another note to Democrats: since when do we push for tax cuts for families making $200,000 a year?) There’s one more option you may say you prefer: letting the tax cuts for the rich expire, extending the middle-class tax cuts for another two years, and then letting them expire (assuming we are back to trend growth). As I said above, I don’t think this is politically feasible, given who’s in charge of the Republican Party. But if that’s what you want, that’s also what Peter Orszag wanted and Barack Obama seriously considered. So why are they the bad guys?*** (Note that I’m not defending Obama’s willingness to negotiate away Social Security and Medicare, which I do not agree with.) In the end, I think the Bush tax cuts were one of the two most catastrophic policy decisions of this century (the other was the Iraq War). They were a terrible idea then and they are a terrible idea now. I think letting them all expire would be good for the world and for the middle class. And whether or not that makes me a “fiscal conservative,” I think it makes me a Democrat. * See Hacker and Pierson, Off Center , pp. 49-53. ** Does anyone think Obama would veto a bill passed by both houses that locks in lower taxes? *** You could say that Orszag wanted to implement this policy two years ago, which meant a tax increase in 2013, while you want to implement it now, which means a tax increase in 2015. I see the point, but that’s a tactical distinction, not a difference of philosophy. James Kwak is the co-author of White House Burning: The Founding Fathers, Our National Debt, and Why It Matters To You , available from April 3rd. This post is cross-posted from The Baseline Scenario .

Read the full article →

New Wind Energy Bill

March 2, 2012

PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — A measure that would refund about half the construction taxes for large wind energy projects and an environmental upgrade at Big Stone Power Plant now awaits the signature of South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard. The House voted 52-16 to accept the Senate’s version of the bill, which would provide tax refunds beginning in January 2013 for wind energy projects or environmental upgrades at power plants costing more than $50 million. Supporters said it would usher along a couple of wind energy projects and would help Big Stone Power Plant make environmental upgrades required by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. The bill would not interfere with a public vote in November on a more general economic incentive plan that the Democratic Party referred to the ballot. That law would use a different method of refunding construction taxes to a wider range of projects. Rep. Roger Solum, R-Watertown, said South Dakota’s sales taxes and contractor’s excise taxes during construction are far higher than those in surrounding states. Until the state’s tax bill is lowered, he said, companies may build large wind energy projects elsewhere. “These things are taken into consideration when they start making a decision to build a wind farm,” Solum said. Rep. Steve Street, D-Revillo, said the state needs to assist the Big Stone Power Plant with the $500 million of environmental upgrades to its coal-fired plant on the South Dakota-Minnesota border. Construction taxes would be passed on to the plant’s electricity customers, so a tax break will help many families in the state, he said. But House Democratic Leader Bernie Hunhoff of Yankton said the tax refunds for the Big Stone project could amount to $10 million or more, which means the state will have less money to spend on schools and other priorities. Hunhoff said he has no problem with the part of the bill giving tax breaks to wind farm projects, but the Legislature should wait until next year to deal with the issue. The bill approved by the House on Thursday would take effect next year regardless of the outcome of November’s vote on the referred law. Daugaard and others have said the ballot measure for the new business grant program has created uncertainty about state incentives that could hurt South Dakota’s efforts to attract new companies and help existing ones expand. Current South Dakota law gives partial refunds of sales taxes and contractor’s excise taxes to large construction projects, but that law expires Dec. 31, 2012. Last year, the Legislature approved Daugaard’s plan to replace the refund law with a new program that would take 22 percent of the receipts from the contractor’s excise tax — about $16 million a year — and put the money into a fund that a state board could use to give grants to large construction projects. The state Democratic Party collected enough petition signatures to put the new grant law to a public vote in the November election. Democrats argue that taking 22 percent of the contractor’s excise tax each year forfeits money that should go to other priorities. A House committee last week passed a bill that would have repealed last year’s law and replaced it with a similar one. That move would have cancelled the November vote, but earlier this week, the House killed that proposal.

Read the full article →

Jared Bernstein: Inequality, Poverty, and Why We’re Definitely Not Broke

March 2, 2012

I participated in a debate Thursday morning on the role of government in poverty reduction. A couple of “curious” points came up from the conservative side which I keep hearing lately and which make little sense to me. First, on inequality, Michael Tanner from the Cato Institute couldn’t understand why I kept going on about inequality. It doesn’t have anything to do with poverty (Scott Winship of the Brookings Institution made a similar argument in a Senate hearing a few weeks back). Tanner argued that if everyone’s income doubled, poverty would go down but inequality wouldn’t change, so inequality must not matter. Um… ok… but that’s a total non-sequitur. What’s been happening for most — not all — of the past 30 years is the pattern of real income growth you see here, from a recent CRS study . Sure, if everyone’s income grew at the overall average of the first bar-20%-we’d have less poverty and less inequality. But in the real world, average income grew 20%, fell 6% at the low end, and was up 60% for the top 1%. Source: CRS, link above. That’s how you get results like the ones shown here where the change in poverty over the past few decades is decomposed into the roles of growth, education, race, family structure, and inequality, the latter of which is the single largest factor. In fact, for a few years in the latter 1990s, inequality between the middle and low end of the income scale actually compressed — the very top still pulled ahead, based on large gains in capital income. But low wages actually rose at the rate of productivity growth for a few years there, something that hasn’t happened since. And what happened to poverty rates in those years? They fell quite steeply. This isn’t rocket science. If growth reaches the bottom, there’s less poverty. If inequality diverts growth from the bottom, poverty goes up. The other mishap in the discussion was the claim that we really can’t do anything to help the poor because we’re broke. No, we’re not. It is implausible to argue that the US economy will somehow stop growing. No one knows how fast, but CBO has GDP growing about a third over the next decade (2012-2022), and that translates into per capita growth of about 22% (see EPI’s take on this here ). We may well be unwilling to raise the revenue we need to fight poverty, invest in poor kids, fix up our infrastructure, push back on climate change, and ensure secure retirements for our elderly. But it won’t be because we’re broke. This post originally appeared at Jared Bernstein’s On The Economy blog.

Read the full article →

Alex Nowrasteh: Liberals Need to Choose: Welfare State or Immigration

March 2, 2012

Overcoming the costs of the welfare state is the biggest challenge faced by proponents of immigration reform. The perception that immigrants use and abuse the welfare state is prevalent just about anywhere you look. Many voters and politicians believe that immigrants drain the welfare state. So the thinking goes, any increase in immigration will increase the number of people on welfare which will increase taxes for Americans. Very few people would want to pay more taxes in that scenario, so most people are skeptical of immigration. Even Milton Friedman once famously said , “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.” Unfortunately, many people have seized on that observation to conclude that we need to restrict immigration to keep the welfare state from collapsing. They ought to look at what else he went on to say about immigration : “It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as it’s illegal . . . Because as long as it’s illegal the people who come in do not qualify for welfare, they don’t qualify for Social Security, they don’t qualify for the other myriad of benefits that we pour out from our left pocket to our right pocket.” However, Friedman need not have worried. The American welfare state is designed to aid the elderly, female, and sick. Immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants, are young, male, and healthy. Therefore, undocumented immigrants account for a much smaller share of welfare spending than their population size would suggest. All immigrants are less likely to move to states with large welfare programs in recent years. A 2006 RAND Corporation study , published in Health Affairs, found that in Los Angeles County immigrants, especially the undocumented, were about half as likely as natives to have chronic health conditions. Furthermore, while immigrants were almost half of L.A. County’s population, they accounted for only one third of the region’s total health care spending. A 2007 study in the Archives of Internal Medicine showed that Mexican and other Hispanic immigrants had many fewer doctor and hospital visits on average than native-born Americans. Another 2007 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that low-income immigrants primarily relied upon clinics and health centers for care and used emergency rooms less often than American citizens. The 1996 welfare reform law cut back welfare access for legal immigrants and virtually ended it for all undocumented immigrants with some exceptions for emergency care. Yet even among eligible immigrants, consumption of welfare services is lower than among citizens. More recently, 57 percent of citizens eligible for Medicaid had enrolled in the program, compared to only 30 percent of eligible immigrants. And, contrary to the fear-mongering claims of “welfare rights” activists, these cutbacks have not harmed immigrants. On the contrary, child poverty rates decreased for immigrants relative to natives after the 1996 welfare reform. That may have had a lot to do with the growing economy, but it demonstrates that limiting immigrant welfare use does not necessarily increase poverty. It turns out that a growing or shrinking economy has more to do with poverty than the welfare state. That also presents a simple solution to the immigration impasse: Build a wall around the welfare state. Short of the preferable goal of eliminating the American welfare state, further restricting its use by immigrants, making them wait longer before they can access it, or making sure that immigrants pay a certain amount in taxes before using it, would go a long way toward convincing Americans that immigration benefits them, as well as the newcomers. Liberals who actually care about immigration should sacrifice the welfare state , or at least immigrant access to it, as the price for allowing more immigration. That will go a long way toward convincing American voters to allow more legal immigration. Politically, our welfare state is incompatible with increased legal immigration. The welfare state is supposed to decrease poverty, but all too often fails to do so. The average immigrant can expect a five-fold increase in his or her wages just by moving here. If liberals are concerned about poverty, and not just the relative “poverty” that exists in America, they should realize that free emigration is the best anti-poverty tool for the world’s poor .

Read the full article →

Bill Clinton’s Private Equity Career Short-Lived

March 2, 2012

WASHINGTON — Former President Bill Clinton has ended his paid relationship with the global financial consulting and private equity firm Teneo Capital, he confirmed in a statement Thursday night. Clinton’s statement was in apparent response to a New York Post report that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had forced her husband to leave the firm to avoid the perception of conflicts of interest. The Post also reported that longtime Clinton aide Douglas Band was leaving the Clinton Global Initiative to focus on Teneo. Band, in fact, is not leaving the Clinton Global Initiative, said Clinton. As for his own situation, “I did not sever my financial relationship with Teneo. I changed it,” Clinton said. “Because of the invaluable help I continue to receive with my business relationships and speaking engagements, as well as with CGI and other philanthropic activities, like the Ireland investment conference, I felt that I should be paying them, not the other way around.” In November, The Huffington Post first reported Clinton’s professional relationship with Teneo, founded by Band and Declan Kelly. The Post report said Secretary Clinton believed “the former president has ‘damaged’ the ‘Clinton brand’ by entangling himself and his organizations in arrangements that could appear questionable.” As HuffPost reported in November, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was also brought on by Teneo to serve on its paid advisory board. Kelly, born and raised in Ireland, is a former top State Department envoy who served under Secretary Clinton and was a major donor to her presidential campaign and longtime friend. The collapse of MF Global, a bankrupt hedge fund run by Jon Corzine, a top Democrat and former New Jersey governor, further damaged the Clinton brand. In November, HuffPost reported that Teneo’s senior vice president, Tom Shea, was an aide to both Corzine and then-President Clinton and a onetime high-level State Department official. In December, the Post followed up with a scoop that Corzine’s firm had been paying Teneo $125,000 a month for consulting services. In February, Politico reported that Clinton was altering his relationship with Teneo. On Thursday, the Post reported that President Clinton told Band, his longtime adviser and founder of the Clinton Global Initiative, to choose between CGI and Teneo. Band chose Teneo, the newspaper said. In his statement Thursday evening, Clinton said, “I hope and believe” Band is staying at the Clinton Global Initiative. Band told HuffPost that he is, in fact, staying. “I couldn’t have accomplished half of what I have in my post presidency without Doug Band,” Clinton said. “Doug is my counselor and a board member of the Clinton Global Initiative, which was created at his suggestion. He tirelessly works to support the expansion of CGI’s activities and my other foundation work around the world. In our first 10 years, Doug’s strategic vision and fundraising made it possible for the foundation to survive and thrive. I hope and believe he will continue to advise me and build CGI for another decade.” The former president also responded indirectly to the Post’s report that Hillary Clinton was preparing to “nest” at the Clinton Global Initiative after her term as secretary of state expires, perhaps in preparation for a presidential bid. “The foundation’s rapid growth, the management strains caused by our work in Haiti — following similar efforts in the Gulf after Katrina and in Southeast Asia after the tsunami — and the fact that our Chairman Bruce Lindsey and I aren’t getting any younger, convinced me to undertake a management review to clarify what we needed to do as an organization to assure another decade of success,” Clinton said in his statement. “The review produced several positive suggestions, the most important of which was that we hire a full-time, New York-based foundation president, which we are currently in the process of doing. Outside of my foundation work, my personal office will handle special projects like Haiti and my work for Ireland, as well as my political and business activities.”

Read the full article →

Robert J. Cabin: Carbon Canopy: A Model for Solving Problems by Protecting Rather Than Destroying Our Natural Resources

March 1, 2012

A consortium of forward-thinking environmental groups led by the Dogwood Alliance , major corporations such as Staples and Coca Cola , and large and small private landowners is demonstrating that even in today’s tough economic times and post-post partisan political landscape, it is possible to create a thriving economy by protecting rather than destroying our natural resources. Working as partners rather than foes, this consortium has launched a paradigm-shifting project called the Carbon Canopy that is attracting international attention. In February, the World Resources Institute , one of the largest environmental policy think tanks in the world, issued a brief highlighting the broader importance of the Carbon Canopy’s work in the Southern Appalachians. Highly endangered spruce-fir forest. Photo courtesy Barrett Walker The Carbon Canopy is developing markets that advance forest preservation and sustainable management by compensating landowners for the environmental benefits created by healthy forests that we all enjoy (removing and storing atmospheric carbon, providing timber and other forest products, renewing and filtering water and maintaining biodiversity, to name a few). Here’s how it works: In the Carbon Canopy, large U.S. corporations pay landowners to enhance a forest’s ability to remove and store carbon. This is done through leaving more trees intact during harvest operations, expanding protected areas, and avoiding damaging logging practices such as clear-cutting and converting natural forests to tree plantations. In return, these corporations receive valuable carbon credits towards meeting their own voluntary greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, and bask in the resulting positive publicity. These corporate investments will bring urgently needed new revenue sources to landowners that commit to long-term forest conservation via a conservation easement or 100 year agreement. At a time when federal and state funding has been dwindling, Carbon Canopy is driving new private investment in forest conservation. Perhaps even more importantly, this project offers a feasible new model that makes protecting rather than destroying our natural resources a sound financial decision. This kind of green capitalism is potentially applicable to a wide variety of environmental goods and services generated by ecosystems all over the world. At present, however, Carbon Canopy is focusing their efforts on the carbon services provided by forests in the Southern U.S. This is because although this region is home to the most biologically diverse forests in North America, it is also home to the world’s most extensive industrial logging operations. In fact, although the Southern U.S. contains only 2 percent of the earth’s forests, it supplies 20 percent of the world’s wood and paper products and is the main reason why the U.S. has the highest percentage of forest cover loss on the planet. A recent U.S. Forest Service Report concluded that forests play an even greater role in climate change than previously thought. The impacts of the South’s intensive logging operations have been severe: Millions of acres of healthy, diverse, natural forests have been converted into degraded, low-diversity industrial pine plantations. Unique ecosystems such as the once extensive native long-leaf pine forests have been virtually eliminated, and species that depend on these ecosystems such as the red cockaded woodpecker have been driven to the edge of extinction. The massive loss of formerly forested coastal wetlands has led to increased and costly flooding. Adding insult to injury, rather than providing good jobs and a decent standard of living, economists have found a direct correlation between forest degradation and poverty throughout the rural South. But we don’t have to keep doing things this way. Mark Buckley, VP of Environmental Affairs at Staples, believes the alternative Carbon Canopy approach offers a win-win solution: “Staples and other buyers can purchase carbon offsets and the fiber supplied by engaged woodland owners,” he said , “and, in turn, woodland owners are financially compensated for providing valuable benefits to society, which helps protect forests.” At present, Carbon Canopy is developing projects with large and small private landowners across the Southern Appalachians. Their long-term goal is to use the developing markets for carbon and other ecosystem services to catalyze the sustainable stewardship of an additional 20 million acres of Southern forests within the next 20 years. “We’re building a new paradigm for landowners,” noted Andrew Goldberg, Director of Corporate Engagement at Dogwood Alliance. “Now they can actually profit from improving forest management practices that protect our climate, water and biodiversity.”

Read the full article →

← Previous Entries