Tag Archives: economy

Disability Insurance Is Going to Be a Big Deal In Next Year’s Presidential Campaign

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Another year, another report from the Social Security Trustees. Here’s the basic chart, which shows the combined Social Security Trust fund becoming insolvent in 2034, one year later than last year’s projection. At that point, if nothing is done, benefit checks will be reduced about 25 percent.

There’s not much change since 2014, as you’d expect since this stuff doesn’t change a lot from year to year. The bigger news is that if you pull apart OASI (old age benefits) from DI (disability), it turns out that DI is going to be insolvent next year. Everyone has known this for a while, so it’s no big shock. But next year is an election year, which means Congress either needs to come up with a fix this year, while everyone is mesmerized by Donald Trump, or else put it off until next year, when they’ll have to do it under the blazing white klieg lights of a presidential campaign.

It’ll probably be next year, since Social Security traditionally doesn’t get fixed until it’s literally a few days away from not sending out checks to people. That should make this a great campaign issue between Republicans, who think DI is going broke because too many lazy bums are gaming the system, and Democrats, who mostly think it’s going broke because boomers are retiring and the economy is still weak.

So who wins this argument? Republicans have a story that will appeal to their base audience, but when you finally get to the point where checks to disabled people are being reduced—or not being sent out at all—that tends to concentrate the mind wonderfully. Public opinion will likely end up on the side of the disabled, especially since the usual fix (moving a bit of money from OASI to DI) is cheap and painless.

But we’ll see. In any case, this is a fight that can’t be avoided. You can count on it becoming a focal point of next year’s campaign.

Credit: 

Disability Insurance Is Going to Be a Big Deal In Next Year’s Presidential Campaign

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Disability Insurance Is Going to Be a Big Deal In Next Year’s Presidential Campaign

Hillary Clinton’s Big Economic Speech Abridged to 500 Words

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Hillary Clinton gave her big economic speech today. As is my wont, I plowed through the transcript and excerpted only those parts that are actual policy proposals. This is sometimes a judgment call, but I think I got most of them. I didn’t include any vague prescriptions that she promised to explain in detail in later speeches.

By my count, Hillary’s laundry list includes 26 specific proposals, some with more detail than others. Not bad, even for a Clinton. So for those of you who aren’t interested in the blah blah blah, and just want the meat, here’s the Reader’s Digest version of the speech, condensed to about two minutes of reading time.

Let me begin with strong growth.

….Empower entrepreneurs with less red tape, easier access to capital, tax relief and simplification…. business tax reform to spur investment in America, closing those loopholes that reward companies for sending jobs and profits overseas….comprehensive immigration reform….infrastructure bank that can channel more public and private funds, channel those funds to finance world-class airports, railways, roads, bridges and ports….greater investments in cleaner, renewable energy right now.

….Fund the scientific and medical research that spawns innovative companies and creates entire new industries….breaking down barriers so more Americans participate more fully in the workforce — especially women….family-friendly policies….fair pay and fair scheduling, paid family leave and earned sick days, child care are essential to our competitiveness and growth.

….Beyond strong growth, we also need fair growth.

….We have to raise the minimum wage and implement President Obama’s new rules on overtime….crack down on bosses who exploit employees by misclassifying them as contractors or even steal their wages….defending and enhancing Social Security….encourage companies to share profits with their employees….reforming our tax code….Buffett Rule….closing the carried interest loophole….the decline of unions may be responsible for a third of the increase of inequality among men….we have to get serious about supporting workers.

….Every 4-year old in America should have access to high-quality preschool in the next ten years….80% of your brain is physically formed by age of three….intervention to help those often-stressed out young moms understand more about what they can do and avoid the difficulties that stand in the way of their being able to get their child off to the best start….reviving the New Markets Tax Credit and Empowerment Zones to create greater incentives to invest in poor and remote areas.

….The third key driver of income alongside strong growth and fair growth must be long-term growth.

….A new $1,500 apprenticeship tax credit….reform capital gains taxes to reward longer-term investments that create jobs more than just quick trades….Make sure stock buybacks aren’t being used only for an immediate boost in share prices….Empowering outside investors who want to build companies but discouraging “cut and run” shareholders who act more like old-school corporate raiders.

….Serious risks are emerging from institutions in the so-called “shadow banking” system….I will appoint and empower regulators who understand that Too Big To Fail is still too big a problem….ensure that no firm is too complex to manage or oversee….prosecute individuals as well as firms when they commit fraud or other criminal wrongdoing….when the government recovers money from corporations or individuals for harming the public, it should go into a separate trust fund to benefit the public.

And the obligatory paean to bipartisanship and comity:

….You know passing legislation is not the only way to drive progress. As President, I’ll use the power to convene, connect, and collaborate to build partnerships that actually get things done. Because above all, we have to break out of the poisonous partisan gridlock and focus on the long-term needs of our country.

More:

Hillary Clinton’s Big Economic Speech Abridged to 500 Words

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hillary Clinton’s Big Economic Speech Abridged to 500 Words

Clinton Has Two Economic Messages: She’s Not Jeb Bush, and She’s a Lot Like Elizabeth Warren

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Hillary Clinton’s first major economic speech of the 2016 campaign had one clear target: Jeb Bush. The former Florida governor and top Republican fundraiser has pledged that, if elected president, he’d ensure 4 percent annual growth for the country. Clinton acknowledged the importance of growth but, without directly naming Bush, said that wasn’t enough. “I believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy,” she said. “You can’t have one without the other.”

In a speech at the New School in New York City Monday morning, Clinton laid out a broad vision of what she’d do to make the economy fairer should she win next year—though it was scant on policy details, with many promises of specific proposals to come in the next few weeks. “The defining economic challenge of our time is clear,” she said. “We must raise incomes for hard-working Americans so they can afford a middle-class life.” Clinton promised to bring more women into the workforce with family-friendly policies, amend the tax code that lets the rich pay lower rates, end the misclassification of employees and contractors, and fix business incentives to focus on the long term rather than quarterly reports.

Clinton avoided discussing her Democratic primary rivals in a speech that appeared tailored to the general election. Clinton painted Republicans as obsessed with trickle-down economics and accused Marco Rubio of promoting a tax plan that would channel money to the rich.

But Bush got the most attention. “You may have heard Gov. Bush say last week that Americans just need to work longer hours,” Clinton said. “Well, he must not have met very many American workers.” Clinton ticked off a list of professions where full-time work no longer guarantees people a sufficient livelihood. “They don’t need a lecture, they need a raise.” Clinton also defended the economic legacies of Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama with a dig at the past two Bush presidencies. “Twice now in the past 20 years,” she said, “a Democratic president has had to come in and clean up the mess left behind.”

Though she didn’t discuss Bernie Sanders or Martin O’Malley, the anti-Wall Street crusader Sen. Elizabeth Warren—a liberal favorite who declined to mount a primary challenge against Clinton—was clearly on Clinton’s mind. Clinton’s remarks came into sharpest focus when she discussed the need for Wall Street reform. “Too big to fail is still too big a problem,” Clinton said, vowing to appoint regulators who would keep the banks in check.

She borrowed one of Warren’s favorite attacks: that the Obama administration has been too deferential to banks by being unwilling to use prosecutorial powers against specific Wall Street executives. “We will prosecute individuals as well as firms when they commit fraud or other wrongdoing,” Clinton promised.

It’s not just the major banks, Clinton said, but the hedge funds and nebulous financial firms that constitute the shadow-banking sector that need to be regulated. “We have to go beyond Dodd-Frank,” she said, referring to the financial regulation law. “Too many of our major financial institutions are still too complex and too risky.”

Link to original:

Clinton Has Two Economic Messages: She’s Not Jeb Bush, and She’s a Lot Like Elizabeth Warren

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Clinton Has Two Economic Messages: She’s Not Jeb Bush, and She’s a Lot Like Elizabeth Warren

Alexis Tsipras’ Secret Plan for Bailing Out Greece Has Been Brilliant

Mother Jones

Some anonymous drone at Free Exchange notes the damage done by the Greek decision to call a referendum on the European austerity proposals:

A lamentable feature of the Greek crisis of the past few months is the extent to which it has restoked national antipathies, on the part of both the Greeks and the Germans….But it is not just political damage that the referendum has done to Greece’s cause. The decision to call it and the extraordinary uncertainty that generated at home as well as abroad inflicted a body blow to the economy by causing the banks to be closed now for two weeks as the ECB capped the emergency central-bank lending that was allowing cash to be withdrawn by anxious Greeks fearing a return to the drachma that would slash the value of their deposits. As a result Greece now needs more money and over a longer period — €53.5 billion ($60 billion) until 2018.

Such is the bad blood on both sides, particularly the Greeks and the Germans, that there is still scepticism about whether they can come together at this latest eleventh hour.

Hmmm. Here’s a Slatepitchy suggestion. Maybe it’s all going according to plan. Consider this. It’s late June and prime minister Alexis Tsipras is trying to negotiate an agreement with the Europeans. It doesn’t go well, but he knows he has no choice but to swallow hard and accept their terms. As galling as it is, it’s the only way to save Greece. But he knows that if he simply signs off on the agreement, his party will revolt and parliament will reject it. So he comes up with a cunning plan.

The plan is this: piss off the Germans beyond the bounds of reason. Step 1: denounce the European proposal and call a referendum. Step 2: Go home and campaign loudly for a No vote on the proposal. Step 3: The Germans, now so angry they’re practically shaking with rage, press the ECB to cut off Greek banks, causing economic chaos. Step 4: Tsipras wins the referendum, thus getting the backing of his people. Step 5: Tsipras cools his heels for a day or two to let the economic chaos really sink in. Step 6: Tsipras heads to Brussels. After making everyone wait a few more days just to show that he can’t be pushed around, he tables an austerity plan that essentially caves in completely to the European proposal that he knew he’d have to accept eventually. Step 7: Tsipras returns home to Athens, where economic chaos has become so severe that no one cares anymore what’s in the damn proposal he just agreed to. They just want the banks to open and the local pharmacies to have stocks of insulin. Step 8: He signs the proposal. Step 9: The ECB opens the spigots, life gets back to normal, and Tsipras is a hero.

Not likely, you say? Tsipras isn’t that smart? Probably so. Still, it’s quite likely that Tsipras isn’t as stupid as some people are making out. He knew perfectly well that defaulting would lead to economic chaos and an exit from the euro, but he also knew that Greeks didn’t really believe this in their guts. They needed a demonstration. So he gave them one. If his goal all along wasn’t Grexit, but (a) an agreement with Europe that (b) would be accepted by the Greek population, he did a pretty good job.

Very clever, Mr. Tsipras!

Original source:

Alexis Tsipras’ Secret Plan for Bailing Out Greece Has Been Brilliant

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Alexis Tsipras’ Secret Plan for Bailing Out Greece Has Been Brilliant

Fossil fuels are terrible investments, says top energy economist

Fossil fuels are terrible investments, says top energy economist

By on 9 Jul 2015commentsShare

A lot of things are better when tapped at the source. Spring water. Maple syrup. Apple advice from the Genius Bar. So when the chief economist at the International Energy Agency warns that you might be making a bad energy investment, it’s worth listening up.

Speaking in Paris today at the largest climate conference before December’s flagship U.N. climate negotiations, Fatih Birol, also the agency’s incoming executive director, dealt some strong words to energy companies and groups invested in fossil fuels. In a nutshell: As climate policies change, fossil fuel investments are likely to tank.

The Guardian reports:

“Any energy company in the world, whatever they do – oil, gas, renewables, efficiency, coal – climate policies will impact their business,” said Birol. “So in order not to make the wrong investment decisions, in terms of making the investment decisions which may not bring the right returns, or in terms of missing investment opportunities, businesses may need to take climate policies and the impact for their businesses more seriously. Without solving the carbon [emissions] in the energy sector, we have no chance to solve the climate change problem.”

The World Bank and Bank of England have already warned of the serious risk climate action poses to trillions of dollars of fossil fuel investments and the G20 is investigating the risks. The think-tank Carbon Tracker has estimated that over $1tn (£0.6tn) of oil investments and $280bn of gas investments would be left uneconomic if the world’s governments succeed in their pledge to limit global warming to 2C.

Also known as stranded assets, these uneconomic investments arise when demand and price drop at the same time — exactly the effect predicted for fossil fuels as the world transitions to a low-carbon economy and regulatory environment.

The business case for fossil fuel divestment and clean energy and infrastructure investment has been made most recently by groups and publications like the New Climate Economy report, Risky Business (convened by billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson), and the We Mean Business coalition. You wouldn’t invest in compact discs after witnessing the rise of the iPod, the argument goes. Why invest in fossil fuels when we’re on the edge of a clean energy revolution?

More, from The Guardian:

Professor Frank Geels, from the University of Manchester, told the Paris conference that many technological transitions involve “creative destruction”, with new businesses replacing old ones.

“But we have not focused enough on the destruction part. The fossil fuel companies are some of the most powerful companies in the world and it is going to be very difficult to persuade them to keep it in the ground, but not impossible,” he said. “In many transitions you need to compensate the losers, or they will fight tooth and nail.” Geels cited the example of the Dutch government paying for workers in closing coal mines to be retrained.

Persuasion, compensation, destruction. It’s true that turning the tide is no easy task, but as fossil fuel divestment momentum builds, it will only get easier.

And on the off-chance that you were hinting at creative destruction in “Wrecking Ball,” here’s to you, Miley.

Source:
Fossil fuel firms risk wasting billions by ignoring climate change, says IEA

, The Guardian.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Read this article:

Fossil fuels are terrible investments, says top energy economist

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Fossil fuels are terrible investments, says top energy economist

Obama’s Controversial Trade Deal Is Back From the Dead

Mother Jones

Things were looking grim for the Trans-Pacific Partnership—Obama’s controversial trade deal—after House Democrats turned on the president earlier this month and struck down a major provision in the “Fast Track” Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), a bill that would enable the president to complete trade-deal negotiations and present trade accords to Congress for an up-or-down vote with no amendments. But, in a stunning turnaround, the Senate voted 60-37 today to end debate on the fast-track legislation, a clear indication that it will pass and clear the way for Obama’s trade deal to move forward.

Fast-track legislation is nothing new. This type of authority has been granted to every president since Gerald Ford. But what makes it controversial is that it paves the way for negotiations to continue on the secretive and sweeping trade deals, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which have been met with heavy criticism from both liberal advocacy groups and Republicans who are concerned with granting the executive more power.

House Democrats nearly derailed the fast-track legislation earlier this month when they helped to vote down a measure, known as Trade Adjustment Assistance, that had been appended to the bill. By knocking down the TAA, a program widely supported by Democrats, House Dems gambled that their Senate counterparts would balk at passing the fast-track bill without the assistance program. But on Tuesday they lost that bet, when 13 Senate Democrats joined with their Republican colleagues to end debate on the TAA-less fast-track bill, which is expected to come to a final vote tomorrow. (The assistance program has been attached to another, more popular trade bill that will be voted on later this week.)

Visit site: 

Obama’s Controversial Trade Deal Is Back From the Dead

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama’s Controversial Trade Deal Is Back From the Dead

No Matter How You Slice It, Obamacare Reduces the Federal Deficit

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

We now live in the blessed era of dynamic scoring, something that Republicans have lusted over for decades. When the Congressional Budget Office makes economic projections, it can no longer just look at spending and taxes and subtract one from the other to get deficits. No siree. First they have to pay homage to the Laffer Curve and acknowledge that lower taxes will supercharge the economy and higher taxes will tank the economy. Then they recompute how much tax revenue they’re really going to get.

Anyway, CBO is now required to do this, so here’s their projection about how Obamacare will affect the federal deficit. Under the old-fashioned method, it will lower the deficit by $118 billion in 2025. But using the sleek new dynamic scoring system insisted on by Republicans, the truth becomes evident and Democratic evasions are exposed for all the world to see. Obamacare will, um, still reduce the deficit. But only by $98 billion.

In truth, this stuff is so open to interpretation and assumptions (and future congressional action) that neither number means much. Still, if you want to know if Obamacare pays for itself using our best estimates, it does. Even using dynamic scoring, it pays for itself. That’s more than Republicans ever do with their programs.

Read the article:

No Matter How You Slice It, Obamacare Reduces the Federal Deficit

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on No Matter How You Slice It, Obamacare Reduces the Federal Deficit

House Set to Vote on Fast-Track Trade Authority

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The House is expected to vote today on the “fast track” trade authority bill that would allow the Obama administration to finish negotiating several major trade agreements now under discussion, including the divisive Trans-Pacific Partnership.

While every other president from Ford onward has been granted similar powers, today’s vote has turned out to be anything but routine. Critics who oppose the TPP and other pending agreements are working to stop the bill—and thwart the anticipated trade deals.

The fast-track process was set out in 1974’s Trade Act, which empowered Congress to pass Trade Promotion Authority bills—like the one slated to be voted on today—that allow presidents to negotiate and sign trade deals with less involvement from the legislative branch. Congress still gets to vote yes or no on any final agreement, but amendments are generally prohibited. In exchange, TPA bills let legislators lay out trade priorities and negotiating objectives for the president, and set requirements on how and how often the administration must check in while negotiations are underway.

This TPA, if passed, will guide presidential trade negotiations through 2021. It builds upon a bill that expired in 2007, and is likely more complex than any other in history, expanding congressional oversight and consultation while including new provisions on intellectual property, cross-border data protection, and the environment and human rights. It also increases transparency, requiring presidential administrations to make agreements public 60 days before signing them.

Though it passed the Senate by a vote of 62 to 37 in May, today’s House vote is expected to be much closer. Some Republicans have said they may vote against fast-track authority because they aren’t eager to hand over more power to the Obama administration. Many Democrats are opposing the bill, citing concerns that it doesn’t do enough to prevent overly secret deals and the expanded corporate power that could come with them.

If the House does vote to reestablish fast-track authority, it would likely ease the finalization of several notable trade agreements, including the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, a new agreement with the European Union; the Trade in Services Agreement, an initiative being negotiated between 23 economies focused specifically on service industries like telecommunications and tech; and, of course, the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership, a secretive trade agreement involving 12 countries that together account for 40 percent of global GDP.

Unions, environmentalists, digital rights advocates, and other advocacy groups have campaigned heavily against the Pacific deal—and the TPA that would allow negotiations to move forward. Critics have suggested the trade deal could bring environmental and labor abuses, reduce internet freedom, increase the cost of certain medications, and expand “investor-state-dispute settlements”—tribunals where companies can seek damages from taxpayers when US regulations interfere with their business. Backers of the Trans-Pacific Partnership insist that the agreement will be huge boon for the economy and increase the US national income by $77 billion annually.

Despite the opposition, House Republicans are confident the bill will pass. If it fails, its possible that negotiations on the TPP could continue—but not without major complications.

This article: 

House Set to Vote on Fast-Track Trade Authority

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on House Set to Vote on Fast-Track Trade Authority

Republicans Trashed Democracy in Michigan. Now They Want To Trash It in Your State, Too.

Mother Jones

This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website. Photos and reporting by Eduardo García

Something is rotten in the state of Michigan.

One city neglected to inform its residents that its water supply was laced with cancerous chemicals. Another dissolved its public school district and replaced it with a charter school system, only to witness the for-profit management company it hired flee the scene after determining it couldn’t turn a profit. Numerous cities and school districts in the state are now run by single, state-appointed technocrats, as permitted under an emergency financial manager law pushed through by Rick Snyder, Michigan’s austerity-promoting governor. This legislation not only strips residents of their local voting rights, but gives Snyder’s appointee the power to do just about anything, including dissolving the city itself—all (no matter how disastrous) in the name of “fiscal responsibility.”

If you’re thinking, “Who cares?” since what happens in Michigan stays in Michigan, think again. The state’s aggressive balance-the-books style of governance has already spread beyond its borders. In January, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie appointed bankruptcy lawyer and former Detroit emergency manager Kevyn Orr to be a “legal adviser” to Atlantic City. The Detroit Free Press described the move as “a state takeover similar to Gov. Rick Snyder’s state intervention in the Motor City.”

And this spring, amid the hullabaloo of Republicans entering the 2016 presidential race, Governor Snyder launched his own national tour to sell “the Michigan story to the rest of the country.” His trip was funded by a nonprofit (fed, naturally, by undisclosed donations) named “Making Government Accountable: The Michigan Story.”

To many Michiganders, this sounded as ridiculous as Jeb Bush launching a super PAC dubbed “Making Iraq Free: The Bush Family Story.” Except Snyder wasn’t planning to enter the presidential rat race. Instead, he was attempting to mainstream Michigan’s form of austerity politics and its signature emergency management legislation, which stripped more than half of the state’s African American residents of their local voting rights in 2013 and 2014.

As the governor jaunted around the country, Ann Arbor-based photographer Eduardo García and I decided to set out on what we thought of as our own two-week Magical Michigan Tour. And while we weren’t driving a specially outfitted psychedelic tour bus—we spent most of the trip in my grandmother’s 2005 Prius—our journey was nevertheless remarkably surreal. From the southwest banks of Lake Michigan to the eastern tips of the peninsula, we crisscrossed the state visiting more than half a dozen cities to see if there was another side to the governor’s story and whether Michigan really was, as one Detroit resident put it, “a massive experiment in unraveling US democracy.”

Stop One: Water Wars in Flint

Just as we arrive, the march spills off the sidewalk in front of the city council building.

“Stop poisoning our children!” chants a little girl as the crowd tumbles down South Saginaw Street, the city’s main drag. We’re in Flint, Michigan, a place that hit the headlines last year for its brown, chemical-laced, possibly toxic water. A wispy white-haired woman waves a gallon jug filled with pee-colored liquid from her home tap. “They don’t care that they’re killing us!” she cries.

A Flint resident at the march demanding clean water. Eduardo García

We catch up with Claire McClinton, the formidable if grandmotherly organizer of the Flint Democracy Defense League, as we approach the roiling Flint River. It’s been a longtime dumping ground for the Ford Motor Company’s riverfront factories and, as of one year ago today, the only source of the city’s drinking water. On April 25, 2014, on the instruction of the city’s emergency manager, Flint stopped buying its supplies from the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department and started drawing water directly from the river, which meant a budgetary savings of $12 million a year. The downside: people started getting sick.

Since then, tests have detected E. coli and fecal bacteria in the water, as well as high levels of trihalomethanes, a carcinogenic chemical cocktail known as THMs. For months, the city concealed the presence of THMs, which over years can lead to increased rates of cancer, kidney failure, and birth defects. Still, it was obvious to local residents that something was up. Some of them were breaking out in mysterious rashes or experiencing bouts of severe diarrhea, while others watched as their eyelashes and hair began to fall out.

As we cross a small footbridge, McClinton recounts how the city council recently voted to “do all things necessary” to get Detroit’s water back. The emergency manager, however, immediately overrode their decision, terming it “incomprehensible.”

“This is a whole different model of control,” she comments dryly and explains that she’s now working with other residents to file an injunction compelling the city to return to the use of Detroit’s water. One problem, though: it has to be filed in Ingham County, home to Lansing, the state capital, rather than in Flint’s Genesee County, because the decision of a state-appointed emergency manager is being challenged. “Under state rule, that’s where you go to redress grievances,” she says. “Just another undermining of our local authority.”

In the meantime, many city residents remain frustrated and confused. A few weeks before the march, the city sent out two notices on the same day, packaged in the same envelope. One, printed in black-and-white, stated bluntly: “Our water system recently violated a drinking water standard.” The second, in flashy color, had this cheery message: “We are pleased to report that City of Flint water is safe and meets US Environmental Protection Agency guidelines… You can be confident that the water provided to you today meets all safety standards.” As one recipient of the notices commented, “I can only surmise that the point was to confuse us all.”

McClinton marches in silence for a few minutes as the crowd doubles back across the bridge and begins the ascent up Saginaw Street. Suddenly, a man jumps onto a life-size statue of a runner at the Riverfront Plaza and begins to cloak him in one of the group’s T-shirts.

“Honey, I don’t want you getting in any trouble!” his wife calls out to him.

He’s struggling to pull a sleeve over one of the cast-iron arms when the droning weeoo-weeooo-weeoo of a police siren blares, causing a brief frenzy until the man’s son realizes he’s mistakenly hit the siren feature on the megaphone he’s carrying.

After a few more tense moments, the crowd surges forward, leaving behind the statue, legs stretched in mid-stride, arms raised triumphantly, and on his chest a new cotton T-shirt with the slogan: “Water You Fighting For?”

Stop Two: The Tri-Cities of Cancer

The next afternoon, we barrel down Interstate 75 into an industrial hellscape of smoke stacks, flare offs, and 18-wheelers, en route to another toxicity and accountability crisis. This one was caused by a massive tar sands refinery and dozens of other industrial polluters in southwest Detroit and neighboring River Rouge and Ecorse, cities which lie along the banks of the Detroit River.

Already with a slight headache from a haze of emissions, we meet photographer and community leader Emma Lockridge and her neighbor Anthony Parker in front of their homes, which sit right in the backyard of that tar sands refinery.

In 2006, the toxicity levels in their neighborhood, known simply by its zip code as “48217,” were 45 times higher than the state average. And that was before Detroit gave $175 million in tax breaks to the billion-dollar Marathon Petroleum Corporation to help it expand its refinery complex to process a surge of high-sulfur tar sands from Alberta, Canada.

The Marathon tar sands refinery in southwest Detroit. Eduardo García

“We’re a donor zip,” explains Lockridge as she settles into the driver’s seat of our car. “We have all the industry and a tax base, but we get nothing back.”

We set off on a whirlwind tour of their neighborhood, where schools have been torn down and parks closed due to the toxicity of the soil, while so many residents have died of cancer that it’s hard for their neighbors to keep track. “We used to play on the swings here,” says Lockridge, pointing to a rusted yellow swing set in a fenced-off lot where the soil has tested for high levels of lead, arsenic, and other poisonous chemicals. “Jumping right into the lead.”

As in other regions of Michigan, people have been fleeing 48217 in droves. Here, however, the depopulation results not from deindustrialization, but from toxicity, thanks to an ever-expanding set of factories. These include a wastewater treatment complex, salt mines, asphalt factories, cement plants, a lime and stone foundry, and a handful of steel mills all clustered in the tri-cities region.

Continue Reading »

Originally posted here: 

Republicans Trashed Democracy in Michigan. Now They Want To Trash It in Your State, Too.

Posted in alo, FF, Free Press, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Trashed Democracy in Michigan. Now They Want To Trash It in Your State, Too.

These Are the Jobs Robots Will Take From Humans, According To Researchers With Jobs…For Now

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The coming robot invasion is suddenly a hot topic again. This week, Fresh Air interviewed Martin Ford, whose book Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future was just reviewed in the New York Times by Barbara Ehrenreich. The Harvard Business Review published a long article with advice for protecting your career from super-smart robots. And NPR’s Planet Money has been producing a series of stories on how machines are getting really good at doing tasks from serving food and writing news articles to reading emotions.

As MoJo‘s Kevin Drum, who’s been following this rapidly emerging trend for while, explains, by 2030 or 2040 we could see a major economic shift in which robots and computers start to make significant chunks of the human workforce obsolete: “When the robot revolution finally starts to happen, it’s going to happen fast, and it’s going to turn our world upside down.”

So just how worried should you be that a bot or app is about to force you into early retirement? Planet Money made a nifty tool that spits out the chances that your job may soon be done by robots or computers. Some selected results:

Telemarketers: 99.0% chance of being automated

Umpires and referees: 98.3%

Cooks: 96.3%

Manicurists and pedicurists: 94.5%

Roofers: 89.7%

Janitors: 66.3%

Massage therapists: 54.1%

Programmers: 48.1%

Historians: 43.9%

Judges: 40.1%

Actors: 37.4%

Dancers: 12.7%

Writers: 3.8%

Chief executives: 1.5%

Foresters: 0.8%

Preschool teachers: 0.7%

The numbers, based on a 2013 study by an economist and a machine-learning prof from Oxford, are all over the board. In general, jobs that require negotiation, creativity, and people skills tend to have a lower chance of being done by a robot. So dancers and preschool teachers can sleep easy. As can CEOs, who will no doubt find a way to provide essential oversight of the new 24-7, benefit- and bathroom break-free workforce.

Some of the findings seem to push the bounds of what we’re currently willing to let machines do. Robocalling people during dinnertime, sure. But will we really see a robot ump calling the 2040 World Series? In theory, a computer can call a strike more accurately than a person, but what’s the fun in shouting “Get your vision algorithm debugged!” at a camera behind home plate?

Only a mindless machine would read these as precise probabilities. “The researchers admit that these estimates are rough and likely to be wrong,” Planet Money concedes. Now if only there were a machine that was good at analyzing data to make reliable estimates…

See original article:  

These Are the Jobs Robots Will Take From Humans, According To Researchers With Jobs…For Now

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on These Are the Jobs Robots Will Take From Humans, According To Researchers With Jobs…For Now