Tag Archives: heritage

The Koch Brothers Just Launched a Lobbying Campaign to Eliminate an Obscure Government Agency. Here’s Why.

Mother Jones

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

Koch Industries has officially entered the contentious fight over the fate of the Export-Import Bank, the independent government agency that guarantees loans and provides financing to companies doing business overseas and foreign businesses buying American products—and that has recently become a target for conservatives and libertarians who decry big-government crony capitalism.

On Tuesday, the industrial conglomerate run by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch sent a letter to Congress urging lawmakers to oppose the reauthorization of this obscure, 80-year-old institution, which otherwise will expire at the end of June. Signed by Philip Ellender, the president of Koch’s government affairs arm, the letter signals the start of a Koch lobbying effort aimed at shuttering the New Deal-era agency. The Ex-Im Bank has been living on borrowed time since September, when Congress temporarily extended its charter. But now Koch Industries wants Congress to eradicate the agency for good.

Continue Reading »

View the original here: 

The Koch Brothers Just Launched a Lobbying Campaign to Eliminate an Obscure Government Agency. Here’s Why.

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Koch Brothers Just Launched a Lobbying Campaign to Eliminate an Obscure Government Agency. Here’s Why.

10 of the Worst Congressional Acronyms Ever

Mother Jones

Ten of the worst (or possibly greatest) congressional backronyms—intentional acronyms created by attention-seeking lawmakers, or more likely, their poor staffers:

CHOMP: Consumers Have Options for Molar Protection Act, sponsored by former Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.)

STALKERS: Simplifying The Ambiguous Law, Keeping Everyone Reliably Safe Act, sponsored by Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.)

HELLO: Help Eliminate the Levy on Locution Act, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

SWEETEST: Saccharin Warning Elimination via Environmental Testing Employing Science and Technology Act, sponsored by former Rep. Joseph Knollenberg (R-Mich.)

CHURCH: Congressional Hope for Uniform Recognition of Christian Heritage Act, sponsored by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)

DRONES: Designating Requirements On Notification of Executive-ordered Strikes Act, sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)

PROSTATE: Prostate Research, Outreach, Screening, Testing, Access, and Treatment Effectiveness Act, sponsored by Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.)

STOP SMUT: Special Taxation On Pornographic Services and Marketing Using Telephones Act, sponsored by former Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.)

CAN SPAM: Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing Act, sponsored by ex-Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.)

DAIRY: Dairy Augmentation for Increased Retail in Yogurt Products Act, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)

HONORABLE MENTION
SAFETEA-LU:
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, sponsored by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) in honor of his wife, Lu

For many more wonderfully bad backronyms, check out Noah Veltman’s “congressional acronym abuse” tracker.

Credit:

10 of the Worst Congressional Acronyms Ever

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 10 of the Worst Congressional Acronyms Ever

“More fish in the sea” is not a reason to keep overfishing

“More fish in the sea” is not a reason to keep overfishing

NOAA

Yum, elongated bristlemouth.

Bristlemouth à la beurre. Miso-seared mola mola. Lanternfish tartare.

If you’ve never seen these things on a menu, that’s probably because humans don’t generally catch or eat the denizens of the mesopelagic zone, that slice of sea about 656 to 3,280 feet below the ocean surface (also known as 200 to 1000 meters, which is much easier to remember). Lying just below the pelagic, the top layer of the open sea where most of the fish we’re familiar with live, the mesopelagic is apparently much more lively than we thought.

paper published last month in the journal Nature Communications revised the estimate of biomass in this “twilight zone” of the ocean up from 1 billion tons to more than 10 billion — meaning these deep-dwellers actually make up something like 95 percent of the total fish in the sea.

This might sound like good news — lots more fish! — but it’s not nearly as good as some news outlets would have you believe. The right-wing blog Powerline optimistically asserted that “maybe overfishing of tuna won’t turn out to be quite the crisis we thought it was,” while The National Review’s Greg Pollowitz told us to stop worrying about ocean pollution since deep-water “deserts” under trash gyres turn out to be chock-full of fish. Even Popular Science overplayed the positive angle in its subhead: “Good news for fish. And humans who like fish.” (To be fair, a caveat followed in the piece itself: “This study doesn’t have much relevance for the issue of overfishing, which is an enormous and still growing problem.”)

I like fish, but I don’t expect to be picking dragonfish bones out of my teeth anytime soon. Deep-sea biologist Andrew David Thaler points out that media coverage of this study has distinctly neglected context — namely that, while this news teaches us a lot about the mechanics of the open ocean food chain, and may even explain why the sea is so good at absorbing our extra carbon, it really has little to bring to the human dinner table. Yes, there are a lot of (weird) fish out there, but that’s not a good excuse to keep dumping plastic in the Pacific or fishing bluefin tuna to extinction.

Not to mention that mesopelagic fish have been undercounted precisely because they are extraordinarily good at evading the trawl nets sent down to survey them. (So don’t get too excited about plundering this untapped food source, at least not yet.) The new research was done with sonar instead — harder to dodge that sound wave, huh, myctophids?

If these 10 billion tons really do make up 95 percent of all fish, that leaves only 510 million tons accessible to us humans — including all of our commercial fisheries. To put that in perspective, the World Bank’s 2005 estimate of all the large fishing vessels in the world suggests these high-tech boats are capable of catching more than 400 million tons of that a year. (Luckily for the rest of us, they don’t.)

So as tempting as it is to make a joke about there being plenty of fish in the sea, clearly that point needs no emphasizing.

Biodiversity Heritage Library

This is not a cookbook.

Amelia Urry is Grist’s intern. Follow her on Twitter.Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Food

Visit site: 

“More fish in the sea” is not a reason to keep overfishing

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on “More fish in the sea” is not a reason to keep overfishing

Here’s What We Can Learn About Health Care From the Mortgage Crisis

Mother Jones

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

This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website.

Health care isn’t the first boon that President Obama tried to give us through a public-private partnership. When he took office, more than 25% of US home mortgages were underwater—meaning that people owed more on their houses than they could get if they tried to sell them. The president offered those homeowners debt relief through banks. Now he’s offering health care through insurance companies.

In both cases, the administration shied away from direct government aid. Instead, it subsidized private companies to serve the people. To get your government-subsidized mortgage modification, you applied at your bank; to get your government-mandated health coverage, you buy private insurance.

Let a Hundred Middlemen Bloom

In other countries with national health plans, a variety of independent health care providers—hospitals, doctors, and clinics, among others—deliver medical care, while the government doles out the compensation. They let a hundred healthcare providers bloom, but there’s only a single payer. If the US moved to single-payer healthcare, however, what would happen to the private health insurance business?

In the 1990s, the conservative Heritage Foundation floated the idea of extending health coverage to more Americans via government exchanges or “connectors” that would funnel individual buyers to competing, for-profit health insurance companies. In other words, let a hundred middlemen bloom.

On the face of it, such a plan would seem expensive, since it means supporting two bureaucracies, one of which would be obliged to take profits for investors. Meanwhile, doctors would still have the expense of trying to collect from multiple insurers with reasons to stall. But the Heritage plan had one great advantage. Since Harry Truman, American presidents have tried unsuccessfully to get us national health care. The exchange system, however awkward it might be, pacified the insurance companies which had previously spent millions of dollars to defeat other plans for “socialized medicine.” With the support of those companies for a program that not only kept them in the picture, but also promised to deliver millions of new, subsidized customers to them, Obama gave us a national healthcare law.

The danger is that it essentially makes insurance companies our medical receptionists, a profit-making face that greets sick people whenever they try to use their government healthcare. That gives private companies a lot of power to make the government look bad.

That’s why it’s important to understand how banks used Obama’s mortgage subsidy program to sabotage debt relief and discredit government. If we grasp how they pulled that off, we may be able to protect the present health plan and someday even get genuine single-payer healthcare out of it. So here’s the story.

Continue Reading »

Visit site:

Here’s What We Can Learn About Health Care From the Mortgage Crisis

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s What We Can Learn About Health Care From the Mortgage Crisis

Brutal War Film "Lone Survivor" Will Survive its Producers’ Ties to International Drug Trade, Convicted Murderer

Mother Jones

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

Lone Survivor, written and directed by Peter Berg, has a lot going for it—especially for a film released in January, a month typically reserved by film studios for dumping less than stellar product. The movie (which gets a wide release on Friday) is a gripping, uniquely brutal portrait of warfare that dramatizes Operation Red Wings, the failed mission to capture or kill a militia leader in Afghanistan’s Kunar province in 2005.

The film has earned generally positive reviews. It’s a riveting story of Americans, as well as Afghan, courage. It features solid performances, particularly from Mark Wahlberg as Navy SEAL and lone survivor Marcus Luttrell (the film is based on the book he co-wrote). And the film has received its fair share of support from US servicemembers. For instance, the Army provided four helicopters (two Apaches and two Chinooks, along with their crews) shown in a scene where Army Rangers attempt to rescue the SEAL team, and ex-congressman and Iraq War vet Patrick Murphy introduced and praised the film at a special screening at the US Navy Memorial Heritage Center in Washington, DC, in December.

But earlier this month, the people behind Lone Survivor got the kind of publicity that no studio or filmmaker wants to receive right around the time of their film’s premiere. On January 2, LA Weekly published their investigation into Remington Chase and Stepan Martirosyan, two Hollywood financiers and Lone Survivor executive producers who just so happen to come with the baggage of separate convictions for cocaine trafficking. Oh, and both have them have worked as federal informants, and have gone by multiple aliases. (The LA Weekly also details an allegation the producers faced from a convicted murder who, imprisoned for a violent robbery plot that he correctly suspected Chase had helped expose, sought to convince police Chase and Markosian had hired him to execute a contract killing in Russia. A spokesman for the local US Attorney later said “justice was best served by dismissing the charges.”) Here’s an excerpt from the incredible story, focusing on the pair’s drug connections:

In May 1993, Martirosyan arranged financing and traveled to Costa Rica to check on suppliers. Unfortunately for him, the DEA had infiltrated the suppliers. Over the course of several meetings with an undercover agent, he agreed to help transport 800 kilos to St. Augustine, Fla. They agreed that Martirosyan would send $200,000 from L.A. to Colombia, and that the cocaine would be shipped from Colombia to Costa Rica and on to Florida. Instead, in September 1993, he was arrested in a St. Augustine hotel room.

In all, nine people were indicted. In Costa Rica, the head of the federal police held a press conference and announced that the group had controlled much of the Costa Rican drug trade, according to an article in La Nación.

Naturally, the producers went into damage control mode. They hired crisis lawyer Howard Weitzman, whose clientele has included O.J. Simpson, Justin Bieber, Marlon Brando, and the Michael Jackson estate. One of Chase and Martirosyan’s pending film projects at the time of this story breaking was the big-screen adaptation of the Hasbro board game Hungry Hungry Hippos.

So this is all terrible news for the producers, and not-so-great news for the movie. Sure, some Hollywood producers have had insane lives, but most of them manage to stay far away from stuff like this. But there’s so far no indication that the negative press has yet to hurt Love Survivor, which has earned plaudits for depicting a true story of survival and remarkable heroism. Advance tickets sales have been strong, and the film is predicted to bring in about $15 million during its first weekend in wide release. (Some have estimated closer to $30 million.) Observers are expecting the picture to do particularly well in red states.

Universal, which distributed Lone Survivor, did not respond to a request for comment, but Army personnel weighed in a bit. “The bad publicity is not a concern of mine, and not something that I’m even aware of it,” Ken Hawes, an Army public-affairs officer who visited the filming of Lone Survivor, said. “Our involvement begins and ends when the Army is on the scene during the act of filming,” Lt. Col. Steven Cole, an Army film and television liaison in Los Angeles, says. “We don’t deal with the ins and outs of the industry.”

View original: 

Brutal War Film "Lone Survivor" Will Survive its Producers’ Ties to International Drug Trade, Convicted Murderer

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Brutal War Film "Lone Survivor" Will Survive its Producers’ Ties to International Drug Trade, Convicted Murderer

Quote of the Day: Paul Ryan Continues to Pretend He Wants to Fight Poverty

Mother Jones

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

From Paul Ryan, who’s apparently hard at work on a conservative plan to fight poverty:

You cure poverty eye to eye, soul to soul. Spiritual redemption: That’s what saves people.

Well, maybe so. But here on Earth, money helps out too. The quote above is from a Washington Post story about Ryan’s newfound focus on poverty, and Jared Bernstein reads through the rest looking for some more worldly policy recommendations. He doesn’t come up with much:

Then you read page after page, trying to figure out what the dude is actually saying he’d do to lower poverty, and here’s what you’re left with: vouchers, tax credits, and volunteerism.

All sizzle, no steak.

And is that not the story of Rep. Ryan? His is the classic example of the adage that if you’ve got a reputation for being an early riser, you can sleep til noon….His proposals to block grant major safety net programs (freeze their spending levels and hand them over to states), like SNAP and Medicaid, would gut their critical countercyclical function (as was the case with TANF). He used the Heritage Foundation’s economic wizards to predict the his budget would reduce unemployment to less than 3% (don’t look for this forecast, though–his team pulled it once they actually, you know, looked at it).

For the life of me, I can’t figure out the media’s love affair with Ryan. Sure, he’s young, fit, good looking, and he’s not a screamer. He’s also a smart guy who understands the details of the federal budget. But everything he’s ever done—everything—boils down to a single sentence: reduce taxes on the rich and reduce spending on the poor. That’s it. There’s literally nothing else he’s ever seriously proposed.

It doesn’t even take much digging to figure out that this is what he’s saying. You only have to be barely numerate, just enough to draw the obvious conclusions from his budget proposals (conclusions that he’s very careful not to draw himself). When you do that, you find that his budgets always propose lower taxes and lower domestic spending. Much lower. How is it that so many people seem so willing to pretend otherwise?

Continue reading here:  

Quote of the Day: Paul Ryan Continues to Pretend He Wants to Fight Poverty

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Quote of the Day: Paul Ryan Continues to Pretend He Wants to Fight Poverty

House Dems Can Block GOP Food Stamp Cuts—by Killing the Farm Bill

Mother Jones

The food stamps program—which helps feed 1 in 7 Americans—is in peril. Republicans in the House have proposed a farm bill—the five-year bill that funds agriculture and nutrition programs—that would slash food stamps by $40 billion. But by taking advantage of House Republicans’ desire to cut food stamps as much as possible, Democrats might be able to prevent cuts from happening at all.

To pull it off, Democrats would have to derail the farm bill entirely, which would maintain food stamp funding at current levels. Here’s how it would work, according to House Democrats who’ve considered the idea.

It’s an idea rooted in the last food stamp fight: In June, the House failed to pass a farm bill that cut $20 billion from the food stamp program. The bill went down because 62 GOP conservatives thought the $20 billion in cuts weren’t deep enough, while 172 Democrats thought they were too drastic. After the bill failed, House conservatives passed a much more draconian food stamps bill with $40 billion in cuts. But that bill was dead-on-arrival in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

CHARTS: The Hidden Benefits of Food Stamps

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has vowed to pass a farm bill. To win agreement from the Senate and President Barack Obama, he’s going to have to bring forward a bill with much shallower food stamp cuts. But introducing a farm bill with less than the full $40 billion in food stamp cuts will cost Boehner a lot of Republican votes—especially because conservative groups, including Heritage Action, the Club for Growth, and Americans for Prosperity, have been urging House Republicans to vote no.

That means Boehner is going to need some Democratic votes. His problem is the same as it was in June: math. He needs 216 votes to pass a bill. In June, 62 Republicans voted against a bill with $20 billion in cuts. If Boehner loses the same 62 Republicans this time around, he’ll need at least 47 Democrats to vote yes. But just 24 Democrats voted for the June bill. So Boehner will likely have to introduce a bill with lower cuts—costing him more Republican votes. The more Republicans Boehner loses, the more Democrats he’ll need.

And as Boehner saw in June, winning House Democrats’ votes for a bill that slashes food stamps by billions of dollars is a heavy lift—after all, if no farm bill passes, food stamps spending would remain at current levels. Why compromise when you can win by doing nothing at all? “It would make sense,” emails a House Democratic aide, “for progressives to vote against the farm bill. Makes me think of this”:

Some House Democrats are already publicly skittish about voting for any level of food stamp cuts. “Many progressive members of Congress, especially those of us who represent areas with high levels of unemployment and food insecurity, may have a hard time voting for additional cuts to federal nutrition programs,” Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the ranking member of the powerful judiciary committee, explained in an email. A staffer for Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), who is part of the farm bill negotiating committee, says the congressman is “willing to compromise,” but “will not vote for a bill that makes hunger worse in America.” A staffer for Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) says that the lawmaker doesn’t want to get into “hypotheticals,” but that DeLauro does not support any further cuts to the food stamp program.

All this leaves Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the Democratic minority leader, in the driver’s seat. If she wants to deliver 75 or 80 Democratic votes for a farm bill that cuts food stamps, she probably could. But so far, she hasn’t committed to asking her caucus to vote for a farm bill—even one with lower cuts. And she’s already demonstrated that she can unify her caucus against a farm bill with cuts she thinks are too deep. Without Pelosi pushing for a yes vote, a compromise farm bill could go down again.

Stopping the farm bill could backfire on Dems. If the bill passes, the funding levels it sets for food stamps would be locked in for the next five years. But if the bill doesn’t pass, Republicans on the appropriations committee would have to approve continued funding for food stamps. Usually, appropriators from both parties simply continue funding programs at previously authorized levels unless or until the law changes. However, they do technically have the power to refuse to approve new funding. That scenario “is pretty much unthinkable,” though, argues another Democratic aide.

New legislation could also end up shrinking the food stamp program—without a five-year bill locking in current funding, a future budget deal could more easily include food stamp cuts.

If Dems succeed in piggybacking on Republican opposition, and kill the farm bill, other important programs and key agriculture reforms will be neglected. Funding for conservation programs and for organic and small farms would dry up, for example. Wasteful subsidies to Big Ag would continue. But these things “are not life or death” like food stamps are, argues the second Dem staffer.

Conyers feels the same way. “As much as I support some of the needed reforms to wasteful direct payment programs and subsidized crop insurance,” he says, “I’m not willing to balance our budget by taking food out of the mouths of children.”

Read original article: 

House Dems Can Block GOP Food Stamp Cuts—by Killing the Farm Bill

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on House Dems Can Block GOP Food Stamp Cuts—by Killing the Farm Bill

Rose Petal Jam Recipe

Nicole W.

on

What Are Heritage Grains — And How Can They Help Us?

41 minutes ago

customize your newsletter

causes & news
animal welfare
global warming
environment & wildlife
human rights
women’s rights
news
submit news story
healthy living
food & recipes
health & wellness
healthy home
family life
true beauty
pets
shopping
take action
browse petitions
create a petition
daily action
volunteer
jobfinder
click to donate
community & sharing
people
groups
singles
photos
blogs
polls
ecards
my care2
my account
my groups
my page
my friends
my petitionsite
my messages
join care2
about us
advertise
partnerships
careers
press
contact us
terms of service
privacy
subscription center
help
rss feeds

Copyright © 2013 Care2.com, inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved

healthy living
food
health
love + sex
nature
pets
spirit
home
life
family
green
do good
all recipes
appetizers & snacks
basics
desserts
drinks
eating for health
entrees
green kitchen tips
raw
side dishes
soups & salads
vegan
vegetarian
videos
ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES
AYURVEDA
CONDITIONS
DIET & NUTRITION
FITNESS
GENERAL HEALTH
HEALTHY AGING
Mental Wellness
MEN’S HEALTH
NATURAL REMEDIES
WOMEN’S HEALTH
VIDEOS
dating
friendship
relationships
sex
videos
environment
lawns & gardens
natural pest control
outdoor activities
wildlife
videos
Adoptable Pets
Animal Rights
Behavior & Communication
Cats
Dogs
Everyday Pet Care
Humor & Inspiration
Less Common Pets
Pet Health
Cute Pet Photos
Safety
Wildlife
Remedies and Treatments
Videos
Biorhythms
Deepak Chopra’s Tips
Exercises
Global Healing
Guidance
Inspiration
Peace
Self-Help
Spirituality & Technology
Videos
home
life
family
beauty
green
do good
crafts & designs
news
videos
conscious consumer
blogs
astrology
my favorites
my Care2 main
my account
my butterfly rewards
my click to donate
my eCards
my friends
my groups
my kudos
my messages
my news
my page
my petitionsite
my photos
my sharebook
my subscriptions
my thank you notes

Follow this link – 

Rose Petal Jam Recipe

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Rose Petal Jam Recipe

Big Sugar could get a big government bailout

Big Sugar could get a big government bailout

Trigger warning, healthy eaters. The USDA is considering a big sugar bailout. Here’s how that would work: The agency would buy 400,000 tons of sugar from surprisingly productive sugar companies in order to give those sugar companies enough cash to pay back the the $862 million they borrowed from the USDA last October. And then you would riot in the streets because what the hell is going on, USDA?!

The Wall Street Journal reports on the part before the rioting:

The USDA makes loans to sugar processors annually as part of a program that is rooted in the 1934 Sugar Act. The loans are secured with some 4.1 billion pounds, or 2.05 million tons, of sugar that companies expect to produce from the current harvest. That comes to almost a quarter of total U.S. output that the USDA forecasts for this year.

If domestic sugar prices bounce back before a final decision [on the bailout] is made, the USDA would back away from plans to intervene in the market, [said USDA economist Barbara Fecso]. A final decision could come as early as April 1. …

The loan program was designed to operate at no cost to taxpayers. A June 2000 study by the Government Accountability Office, then called the General Accounting Office, estimated the program’s cost to the U.S. economy at $700 million in 1996 and $900 million in 1998.

The bailout would help bolster the price of sugar, therefore driving up the cost of sweetened goods. But even if you hate sugar and all the terrible things it does to our bodies, you’re still paying for it.

Is that enough, though, to ally carrot and cupcake lovers in what New York Magazine wishes were a militant social movement?

Big Sugar has spent decades paying its way into politicians’ hearts, demanding price controls and tariffs that boost profits and artificially inflate sugar prices, and using its political clout to establish a permanent life-support mechanism for an industry whose major product is causing many Americans to die.

Why wait? Let’s Occupy Sugar, and Occupy it now.

Speaking of unholy alliances, New York points to a 2012 report by the Heritage Foundation. Free-market-loving Heritage hates Big Sugar. The foundation points to big political spending by sugar companies, just the kind of sweet stumping that killed New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s soda ban.

Heritage Foundation

Not feeling riled yet? Maybe have an angry-making Coke first.

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Food

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Excerpt from:  

Big Sugar could get a big government bailout

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Big Sugar could get a big government bailout

California high-speed rail construction not exactly moving at high speed

California high-speed rail construction not exactly moving at high speed

The Golden State is set to begin construction on its much-vaunted (and much-moneyed) high-speed rail project this summer, a line that would run from Southern California to the San Francisco Bay Area. Amtrak is on board and the Department of Transportation is pumped, but despite having less than six months to go until they break ground, California hasn’t bought the land where the train is supposed to go yet. Like, none of it, not “a single acre.” Oops.

California High Speed Rail Authority

The Los Angeles Times reports:

The complexity of getting federal, state and local regulatory approvals for the massive $68-billion project has already pushed back the start of construction to July from late last year. Even with that additional time, however, the state is facing a risk of not having the property to start major construction work near Fresno as now planned.

It hopes to begin making purchase offers for land in the next several weeks. But that’s only the first step in a convoluted legal process that will give farmers, businesses and homeowners leverage to delay the project by weeks, if not months, and drive up sales prices, legal experts say.

If the first 130 miles of rail aren’t completed by 2018, at a spendy rate of $3.6 million each day, the project stands to lose federal funding.

One major roadblock will be Central Valley farmland that has been skyrocketing in value due to a booming global tree-nut market. The longer California drags its feet, the more expensive those farms, and in turn that train, will turn out to be. The first stretch of the project is only 29 miles, but involves the purchase of about 400 different parcels, many of them fancy farmland that owners are reluctant to part with.

Anja Raudabaugh, executive director of the Madera County Farm Bureau, which is suing to halt the project under the California Environmental Quality Act, said the rail authority will face strong opposition to condemnation proceedings in the Central Valley. The bureau has hired a condemnation expert to help battle the land seizures.

“It is a harried mess,” she said.

She noted that agricultural land prices rose rapidly last year across the nation. In the Central Valley, the average price of farmland is $28,000 per acre, while the rail authority’s budget anticipates an average price of $8,000 per acre, she said.

Kole Upton, an almond farmer who leads the rail watchdog group Preserve Our Heritage, questioned the rail agency’s expertise in conducting complex appraisals of agricultural land that has orchards, irrigation systems and processing facilities.

“I am not sure this thing has been well thought out by people who have a deep understanding of agriculture,” Upton said.

This ride will be long, uncomfortable, bumpy, and expensive. Kind of like all American train rides, come to think of it.

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Cities

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Source – 

California high-speed rail construction not exactly moving at high speed

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on California high-speed rail construction not exactly moving at high speed