Tag Archives: major

Pence Isn’t Going to Solve Trump’s Money Problems

Mother Jones

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

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, known for his staid manner and his short-sleeved-shirt-and-tie combinations, might have been chosen as a steady counterweight to Trump’s flamboyant provocative style. But when it comes to adding weight to the Trump campaign’s wobbling fundraising operation, he might have been the worst pick Trump could have made. Newt Gingrich, for instance, has a devoted backer in Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson, the single biggest source of cash for Mitt Romney’s efforts in 2012 who has yet to commit significantly to Trump’s operation. And New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is known to have been a darling of some of Wall Street’s biggest names.

But Pence? He isn’t exactly a star with the party’s regular fundraisers and donors—the people who have always been the backbone of GOP financial support. It’s true that Pence has ties to both the political empire of the conservative billionaire Koch brothers and some tea party grassroots organizations. But if Trump thought he could tap into those connections to fuel his presidential campaign, he might have been mistaken.

Over the course of his career, Pence’s biggest source of campaign cash has been the Republican Governors Association, which has put more than $2.6 million into supporting his gubernatorial aspirations. The RGA’s main job is to funnel money from wealthy Republicans nationwide into potentially pivotal governor’s races, and much of the organization’s success in doing that hinges on the connections and interests of the RGA’s executive director. In 2012, the director was a party operative named Phil Cox, who went on to become a close Christie ally, running the presidential super-PAC that raised more than $20 million this year. If Cox stays with Trump, it won’t be because of Pence. (Christie’s relationship with Trump, meanwhile, may be going through a rocky stretch.)

Pence did spend 12 years in Congress, but he never really made his mark as a fundraiser there. His largest source of support, according to the campaign finance tracker OpenSecrets.org, were donations fundraised on his behalf by the Club for Growth, the tea-party-aligned group that relies heavily on its expansive grassroots fundraising operation. It’s an organization that has devoted a great deal of time and energy this election to trying to destroy Donald Trump. Almost immediately after kicking off his presidential campaign, Trump picked a fight with the group, accusing it of trying to extort him for $1 million. That’s a rift that all of Pence’s past goodwill with the group probably won’t be able to overcome.

If Trump can’t rely on Pence to hook him up with any fundraising networks, perhaps he can call on some of Pence’s sugar-daddy donors? Notably, Pence has had two billionaires backing his political aspirations, Indiana businessman Dean White and industrialist David Koch, but neither looks promising for Trump.

Koch personally contributed $300,000 to Pence’s war chest, a much more direct investment in a candidate than he usually makes. (David and his brother Charles are known to be major backers of dark-money groups that operate independent of any candidate, and their direct contributions to candidates are generally not so large.) But if part of the Trump campaign’s calculation in picking Pence is that he could rope in the Kochs, it’s probably not going to happen. Both brothers have expressed serious doubts about Trump, and almost immediately after word leaked that Pence was the choice, the Koch organization threw cold water on the idea that the move would endear them to Trump.

White, who is not a household name like Koch, is actually the individual who has done more for Pence’s political career than anyone else, according to campaign finance filings. White has shoveled at least $775,000 into Pence’s two bids for governor of Indiana, including $350,000 already this year. Those numbers, while eye-popping for the average American, are actually not that extraordinary for White, who has given hundreds of thousands of dollars in recent years to various Republican candidates in Indiana.

But despite being worth more than $2.3 billion, White is not a major player on the presidential level. The one noteworthy donation he’s made when it comes to presidential politics is a $1 million contribution in 2012 to Karl Rove’s American Crossroads super-PAC, which backed Romney. Rove’s animosity toward Trump and the fact that White also gave directly to Romney (who has spoken out against Trump) suggest that White will not automatically transfer his allegiances, or his deep pockets, to Trump.

From: 

Pence Isn’t Going to Solve Trump’s Money Problems

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Pence Isn’t Going to Solve Trump’s Money Problems

Four Ways Research Has Reframed the Abortion Debate

Mother Jones

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

There has been little or no publicly funded research on abortion in the United States, so for years basic information about abortion was lacking—from how often patients have complications to what happens to women who want the procedure but can’t obtain it. Many of the new abortion restrictions were justified by assertions that often had no scientific basis—for example that clinics were teeming with incompetent and unscrupulous doctors, that abandoned patients were flooding emergency rooms, or that the psychological damage caused by grief and regret after abortions often persist for years and ruin women’s lives. The research initiative became more urgent after the high court held in 2007 that in cases of “medical and scientific uncertainty,” legislatures could have “wide discretion” to pass laws restricting abortion. Since then, a primary objective of abortion rights supporters has been to establish a high level of medical certainty—both about the safety of the procedure and about what happens when a woman’s reproductive options are drastically curtailed or eliminated. Over the last 15 years, a number of academic institutions and private organizations have received funding for abortion research, and here are four areas where their work has changed the conversation:

Mental health

Since the 1990s, abortion opponents have worked to advance the idea that abortion causes long-lasting psychological damage based on a combination of personal stories and (widely disputed) statistical analyses showing a correlation between abortion and mental health problems. “Emotional harm” has been cited by legislators in passing parental consent, mandatory ultrasound viewing, and waiting-period laws.

In 2008, Diana Greene Foster, a demographer and associate professor at the University of California-San Francisco, launched the Turnaway Study to examine what happens, emotionally and economically, to women who have had abortions and also to those who wanted abortions but couldn’t have them. Nearly 1,000 women seeking abortions in their first and second trimesters were recruited from 30 facilities in 21 states. About a quarter had been turned away because they just missed their clinic’s gestational limit (10 to 24 weeks). Researchers followed up every six months for five years. The key findings: Most women had abortions because they didn’t think they could afford another child, and they often turned out to be right. Of those who did have the procedure, 95 percent said it was the right decision, and their feelings—positive or negative—faded over time. Having an abortion did not lead to depression, PTSD, or other mental health problems, the project found. But being denied an abortion did seem to keep women tethered to abusive partners.

Complications

In justifying Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider laws, or TRAP laws, abortion opponents have often argued that complication rates are high—up to 10 percent—and that clinics and doctors need to be held to especially rigorous standards. Two large-scale studies from California, though, appear to counter those claims.

One study looked at whether abortions could be performed safely by health care professionals without medical degrees. Nurse practitioners, certified midwives, and physician assistants received training, then were allowed to do first-trimester vacuum-aspiration abortions at 22 sites. After monitoring more than 11,000 procedures over four years, the researchers found little difference in the rate of complications between doctors and non-doctors, which was low for both groups—0.9 percent for physicians and 1.8 percent for non-physicians. In 2013, California legislators voted to let non-doctors perform the procedure.

In a more recent study, UCSF researchers analyzed billing data for 55,000 abortions and follow-up care covered by California’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal. (California is one of 17 states that covers abortion and aftercare for Medicaid recipients.) The data showed that 6.4 percent of women who had abortions visited an emergency room within the following six weeks, but fewer than 1 percent of those visits were related to the abortion. Major complications, defined as hospitalizations, surgeries, and transfusions, occurred in fewer than one-quarter of 1 percent of all abortions.

Medication abortion

Abortion foes have watched with alarm as medication abortions have risen to nearly a quarter of all pregnancy terminations in the United States. Lawmakers have advanced measures that clamp down on how clinics prescribe the drugs and counsel patients.

One type of law has required doctors to follow outdated FDA guidelines from the 1990s for the abortion drugs mifepristone and misoprostol. Much research—some produced by the nonprofit Gynuity Health Projects, which is funded by the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation—has shown that the drugs should be taken in lower doses and could be used later in the first trimester than those guidelines indicated. Over conservatives’ vociferous objections, the FDA revised the label in March.

Meanwhile, after Planned Parenthood in Iowa began using videoconferencing to counsel rural patients on how to use abortion drugs, the state tried to prohibit the practice. In June 2015, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected that ban. A key piece of evidence was a study of 450 Iowa women by the Buffett-funded Ibis Reproductive Health that found no statistical difference in complication rates for telemed patients versus women who met with doctors in person.

Other abortion restrictions

Beyond TRAP laws, researchers are studying the effect on women that other types of state laws that restrict abortion are having.

Many of these efforts are ongoing, but a new study of Utah’s 72-hour waiting-period law, which legislators said would give abortion seekers a chance to change their minds, found that it increased costs and logistical hassles but did not persuade most women. Of 300 patients surveyed, only 8 percent decided not to terminate their pregnancies, and most had been leaning in that direction anyway. Meanwhile, the average amount of time the surveyed women had to wait to have abortions wasn’t 72 hours, but eight days.

Read article here: 

Four Ways Research Has Reframed the Abortion Debate

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, ProPublica, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Four Ways Research Has Reframed the Abortion Debate

The Trump Files: How Donald Tricked New York Into Giving Him His First Huge Deal

Mother Jones

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

Until the election, we’re bringing you “The Trump Files,” a daily dose of telling episodes, strange-but-true stories, or curious scenes from the life of presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump.

Donald Trump was a relatively small player in the New York real estate world in 1975, but the Commodore Hotel promised to put him in the big leagues. The area around the famous old hotel next to Grand Central Station was decrepit, but Trump saw a rare (and cheap) opportunity to remake the famous property and bring new business to Manhattan’s then-seedy Midtown.

The mayor at the time was Abe Beame, a Brooklyn politician who was close to Trump’s father, Fred. In talking to one of the men responsible for selling the Commodore, Beame described his relationship to the Trumps in simple terms. “Whatever my friends Fred and Donald want in this town, they get,” the mayor said, according to journalist Michael D’Antonio’s recent Trump biography, Never Enough. What Trump wanted was an option to develop the site of the hotel and an unprecedented 40-year tax abatement from the city. He got them—but not without an act of deception.

Trump had the political connections, but he didn’t have much money on hand. He reached an option agreement with the bankrupt Penn Central, which owned the Commodore, but he couldn’t even cover the $250,000 he needed to secure it. Instead, he bluffed. He falsely announced to the press that the option was a done deal and tricked the city government with a paperwork sleight of hand.

“When city officials asked for a copy of his agreement with Penn Central, he sent them the paperwork, minus the signatures that would have made it binding,” D’Antonio wrote. “This omission either went unnoticed or no one cared about it, because the bureaucracy continued to move forward, as if the parties had signed, and Trump had actually paid.” On the strength of the faked option, Trump was able to convince the Hyatt hotel chain that he was a worthy partner with whom it could build a new Grand Hyatt hotel on the site of the Commodore.

The deception worked for Trump, but it may have cost New York City millions of dollars. The city had to forgo $4 million a year over the course of Trump’s 40-year tax break. Trump insisted no other investor would be interested in the property, yet at one point at least one other developer was willing to take on the Commodore while demanding less from the city. Penn Central couldn’t entertain other proposals because Trump was holding the option, even though “Trump still hadn’t paid the option and no papers had been signed,” D’Antonio reported. But investigative reporter Wayne Barrett reported in his book Trump: The Greatest Show on Earth that according to Michael Bailkin, a City Hall official at the time, “no other party had been given an opportunity to submit a bid on the project.”

By the time Trump started knocking down the Commodore in May 1978, D’Antonio pointed out in his book, the supposed Midtown rescue project was barely necessary. Other developments in the neighborhood were already resurrecting the area. “The Chrysler Building was undergoing a $23 million restoration…Mobil and Pan Am each bought the buildings where they were primary tenants, and major work has begun on seven other sites within a few blocks of Grand Central,” D’Antonio wrote. “None of these projects had involved special help from state agencies or tax breaks from the city.”

Read the rest of “The Trump Files”:

Trump Files #1: The Time Andrew Dice Clay Thanked Donald for the Hookers
Trump Files #2: When Donald Tried to Stop Charlie Sheen’s Marriage to Brooke Mueller
Trump Files #3: The Brief Life of the “Trump Chateau for the Indigent”
Trump Files #4: Donald Thinks Asbestos Fears Are a Mob Conspiracy
Trump Files #5: Donald’s Nuclear Negotiating Fantasy
Trump Files #6: Donald Wants a Powerball for Spies
Trump Files #7: Donald Gets An Allowance
Trump Files #8: The Time He Went Bananas on a Water Cooler
Trump Files #9: The Great Geico Boycott
Trump Files #10: Donald Trump, Tax-Hike Crusader
Trump Files #11: Watch Donald Trump Say He Would Have Done Better as a Black Man
Trump Files #12: Donald Can’t Multiply 16 and 7
Trump Files #13: Watch Donald Sing the “Green Acres” Theme Song in Overalls
Trump Files #14: The Time Donald Trump Pulled Over His Limo to Stop a Beating
Trump Files #15: When Donald Wanted to Help the Clintons Buy Their House
Trump Files #16: He Once Forced a Small Business to Pay Him Royalties for Using the Word “Trump”
Trump Files #17: He Dumped Wine on an “Unattractive Reporter”
Trump Files #18: Behold the Hideous Statue He Wanted to Erect In Manhattan
Trump Files #19: When Donald Was “Principal for a Day” and Confronted by a Fifth-Grader
Trump Files #20: In 2012, Trump Begged GOP Presidential Candidates to Be Civil
Trump Files #21: When Donald Couldn’t Tell the Difference Between Gorbachev and an Impersonator
Trump Files #22: His Football Team Treated Its Cheerleaders “Like Hookers”
Trump Files #23: The Trump Files: Donald Tried to Shut Down a Bike Race Named “Rump”
Trump Files #24: When Donald Called Out Pat Buchanan for Bigotry
Trump Files #25: Donald’s Most Ridiculous Appearance on Howard Stern’s Show

Visit source:

The Trump Files: How Donald Tricked New York Into Giving Him His First Huge Deal

Posted in ATTRA, bigo, Casio, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Trump Files: How Donald Tricked New York Into Giving Him His First Huge Deal

In Paris, bicycle highways are trés chic

a la mode

In Paris, bicycle highways are trés chic

By on Jul 2, 2016Share

This story was originally published by CityLab and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Paris has inaugurated its first bike highway. Opening last May, the 0.5-mile stretch of freshly paved road alongside the Bassin de l’Arsenal is part of the Réseau express vélo (“REVe”), an initiative to build fast-track bike lanes free of motorized vehicles. It’s only the first section of the soon-to-be 28-mile network of bike highways that will cross the city by 2020.

In 2015, the city voted unanimously to spend €150 million ($164.5 million) on expanding and improving its biking infrastructure, including REVe (which translates to “dream” in French). Cyclists will benefit from more bike-friendly rules — including the freedom to turn without waiting for a green light at every intersection — as well as new bike stands and two-way bike lanes on one-way streets.

Sandrine Gbaguidi, a local biking blogger, rarely leaves home without her bike, using it to run errands, get to work, or just find a nearby park. But that wasn’t always the case. When Gbaguidi moved to Paris from Dakar six years ago, she first used public transit to get around because she was too afraid to bike. She bought a bike after three years in Paris — and, as she feared, there was a steep learning curve. “You’re constantly on your guard and annoyed or irritated,” says Gbaguidi. “Biking is supposed to be fun and relaxing.”

The plan for the new REVe network.Mayor of Paris

Gbaguidi’s initial fears are not unique. In 2014, bikes amounted for only 5 percent of daily traffic in the city, accounting for about 225,000 trips. Although that number is growing annually, it still doesn’t compare to the 15.5 million daily trips by car, tallied in 2012. Meanwhile, other European cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam report 55 and 43 percent, respectively, of their daily traffic happening on bikes.

Charles Maguin, president and co-founder of Paris en Selle, a biking association, says one reason people don’t bike in France’s capital is that they don’t feel safe competing with motorized vehicles on the road. Paris en Selle was founded in 2015 when Maguin noted the lack of biking groups advocating for the cyclist’s safety in terms of laws and infrastructure. “Parisians would rather take the Metro for a short commute than bike to work,” says Maguin.

But the Metro, while popular, is not valued for comfort or cleanliness, especially during rush hour. Commuters breathe in more pollution using the Metro than while riding a bike, according to a study conducted in 2009 by Airparif, an association monitoring atmospheric pollution in the greater Paris area.

Above ground, Maguin says that since the automobile became popular in the 20th century, the city has continued to prioritize cars over bicycles and pedestrians. To this day, there‘s a persisting stereotype of an average cyclist as a Parisian “bobo,” or hipster, biking in the city with a baguette in their front basket. But Maguin stresses that this cliché is outdated as more people consider biking for getting around the city. All that’s missing is the right infrastructure to encourage more riders.

By 2020, Paris will double its bike lanes, from 435 to 870 miles.Hélène Bauer

Riding a bike in Paris is as much a mental workout as it is a physical one. Although there are bike lanes on most roads in the city today, cyclists are still being pushed out by other vehicles that share the same lane. Sharing the road with motorized vehicles creates a sense of insecurity, says Maguin.

The new REVe network aims to counter that. With these new bike lanes, the city hopes to see daily bike trips increase from 5 to 15 percent by 2020. The initiative will not only build highways for bikes, but it will also double the number of bike lanes from 435 to 870 miles, making the system more efficient and inclusive. And with the creation of 7,000 more advanced stop lines at red lights (with priority given to bikes at every intersection), cyclists won’t be as restricted by car traffic.

Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo’s initiative to create a more bike and pedestrian-friendly city is part of a multi-year plan to make the city greener, including goals to reduce car traffic on its roads and the air pollution it creates. One of Hidalgo’s projects even involves turning major boulevards like the Champs Élysées into pedestrian streets.

Paris en Selle salutes the mayor’s effort to incorporate cyclists into city planning, but wants to push these initiatives even further. “I hope that biking gets to be considered as a viable alternative means to get around the city, and not just a project run by green parties for the Parisian hipster,” says Maguin.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Continued here – 

In Paris, bicycle highways are trés chic

Posted in alo, Anchor, eco-friendly, FF, GE, Green Light, Hagen, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on In Paris, bicycle highways are trés chic

UN Report Says UK Economic Policies are a Violation of Human Rights

Mother Jones

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

The hits keep on coming for the UK. Amid swirling acrimony and indignant finger-pointing in the aftermath of the nation’s vote to leave the European Union, a UN body piled on this week with a damning assessment, declaring the UK’s austerity policies to be in breach of international human rights obligations.

The UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights wrote that it was “seriously concerned about the disproportionate adverse impact that austerity measures, introduced since 2010, are having on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups.” After fielding testimony from the Just Fair Consortium, a human rights alliance representing over 80 British and international charities and community groups, the committee issued an unequivocal assessment, condemning austerity policies for their impact on homelessness, unemployment, health care access, and discrimination against women and minorities, among other things. The report catalogs various concerns, including:

• “Persistent discrimination against migrant workers in the labour market”
• The minimum wage, which “is not sufficient to ensure a decent standard of living…does not apply for workers under the age of 25”
• A rise in “temporary employment, precarious self-employment, and ‘zero hour contracts'”
• “The increase to the inheritance tax limit and to the Value Added Tax, as well as the gradual reduction of the tax on corporate incomes,” leading to “persistent social inequality”
• “Persistent underrepresentation of women in decision-making positions in the public and private sectors”

Economic anxieties and Britain’s austerity regime provided a key backdrop for last week’s Brexit referendum, and may have motivated many who voted to leave the EU.

This is Britain’s first review by the UN body since 2009, whose report is one verdict on the austerity agenda pushed by many countries in the wake of the financial collapse. According to a statement from Jamie Burton, chair of Just Fair, the UN’s conclusions are beyond argument: “It is clear that since 2010, ministers were fully aware that their policies would hit lower income groups hardest…without offering any long term gain for the pain they inflicted.”

The verdict also gives extra firepower to those questioning austerity measures already imposed on the economies of Greece and Argentina, or that might be put in place in debt-wracked Puerto Rico. Despite the resounding terms of the UN’s report, Mark Blyth, Eastman professor of political economy at Brown University and author of Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea, doubts it will convince countries to reconsider deep cuts to social spending. “This is just more evidence that should matter—if evidence mattered,” Blyth told Mother Jones.

More:  

UN Report Says UK Economic Policies are a Violation of Human Rights

Posted in alo, Brita, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on UN Report Says UK Economic Policies are a Violation of Human Rights

Does Exxon Have a Constitutional Right to Deny Climate Change?

Mother Jones

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

Does Exxon Mobil have a constitutional right to sow doubt about climate science? That’s the subject of a high-stakes legal battle playing out between dozens of state attorneys general, members of Congress, corporate executives, and activists.

Last fall, investigations by Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times revealed that the oil giant has decades of internal documents showing that its own scientists and executives knew fossil fuels contributed to climate change. Publicly, the company argued that the threats posed by global warming were far from certain, presumably as part of an effort to fight off regulations.

A March 2000 Exxon Mobil ad about climate science. (Click here for a larger image.) Greenpeace

The revelations have sparked a barrage of legal actions. The attorney generals of Massachusetts, California, and New York launched investigations of Exxon, while Democratic AGs from other states have expressed their support. Some have drawn parallels to the tobacco industry’s deception on the dangers of smoking. Exxon has countered that the investigations are unconstitutional and has filed motions asking courts to block the subpoenas. “This…is about freedom of political speech,” the company recently argued in the Massachusetts case.

In March, US Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker served the company with a subpoena seeking records that he claimed might prove that Exxon had defrauded consumers and the government by “misrepresenting its knowledge” that its fossil fuels contribute to climate change. Walker specifically pointed to a state racketeering statute that prohibits obtaining money by false pretenses. He demanded any documents detailing Exxon’s knowledge of climate change and its strategies to address it, including research studies, publications, statements, and communications with outside groups. Exxon responded by filing a lawsuit against Walker to block the subpoena. Exxon prevailed on Wednesday, when Walker agreed to withdraw the subpoena.

Exxon received some unusual assistance in its victory in the Virgin Islands case. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a tea-party-aligned Republican, went so far as to formally intervene—that is, he asked the court to allow the state of Texas to become a party to the case. Exxon, he wrote, had a First Amendment right to withhold the documents Walker was seeking. The brief was also signed by Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange (R). (Paxton and Strange also objected to Walker’s use of a private law firm to help conduct the investigation.)

In a press conference in May, Paxton had called Walker’s investigation “a fishing expedition of the worst kind” and said it represented “an effort to punish Exxon for daring to hold opinions on climate change that differ from theirs.”

“This is about the criminalization of speech and the criminalization of thought,” he said.

Two days later, Republican members of the House Science Committee sent letters to Walker and 16 Democratic attorneys general requesting documents related to the various Exxon investigations. They followed up with additional letters in June.

On June 15, Paxton and 12 other GOP attorneys general signed a letter criticizing the Exxon investigations. The letter laid out a free-speech argument in stark terms, saying, “Actions indicating that one side of the climate change debate should fear prosecution chills speech in violation of a formerly bi-partisan First Amendment consensus.”

Exxon, which is headquartered in Texas and is a major employer in the state, did not respond to a request for comment. The company’s former vice president of public and government affairs, Kenneth P. Cohen, previously told the New York Times, “We unequivocally reject the allegations that Exxon Mobil has suppressed climate change research.”

Paxton’s involvement in the case alarmed some environmentalists, who note that attorneys general are charged with enforcing state laws and regulations. It’s unusual for a state to intervene in support of a company that is under investigation, said Stacey Geis, managing attorney at Earthjustice, an environmental law organization.

It’s as if Paxton were trying to act as Exxon’s lawyer, she said.

Paxton’s deputy Brantley Starr disputed that allegation.

“If we were intervening on behalf of someone, it would be the Constitution,” he said in a phone interview.

Michael McConnell, a Stanford law professor and senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution, agreed that Paxton’s intervention was “highly unusual.” Nevertheless, he added in an email that Walker’s subpoena was “quite possibly unconstitutional.” Exxon, he said, has “a right to have a position on global warming.”

Other scholars and activists reject that argument. Naomi Ages, a project leader at environmental advocacy group Greenpeace, called the Virgin Islands investigation “legitimate” and said Paxton’s intervention was “unprecedented” and based on “pretty specious legal grounds.”

Robert Post, the dean of Yale Law School, argues that it is “irresponsible to invoke the First Amendment” to defend Exxon. “There are circumstances when scientific theories must remain open and subject to challenge, and there are circumstances when the government must act to protect the integrity of the market, even if it requires determining the truth or falsity of those theories,” wrote Post in a Washington Post op-ed last week. “Public debate must be protected, but fraud must also be suppressed.”

Starr counters that the Texas AG’s office was not claiming corporations can never be investigated for fraud, but rather that an investigation cannot be based on a public policy debate. “What we shouldn’t do is investigate public debate and say that there’s only one side of the public debate that we’re investigating,” he said.

Paxton has received nearly $1 million dollars in contributions from the oil and gas industry during his seven runs for public office, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. During a recent event at the conservative Heritage Foundation, he warned that the investigation of Exxon could have resulted in job losses in his state, though he declined to provide a specific estimate of how many jobs were in jeopardy.

Meanwhile, Paxton is facing legal challenges of his own. The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against him in April, alleging that he had recruited investors for a company without disclosing that he was receiving compensation in the form of stock in the company. This complaint followed three state criminal indictments on charges of securities fraud and failing to register as an investment adviser.

In a video released by his campaign in May, Paxton called the charges “false” and “politically motivated.”

When asked for comment on the SEC investigation at the Heritage Foundation event, Paxton declined to answer.

On Thursday, Paxton released a statement hailing the withdrawal of Walker’s Exxon subpoena as a triumph for free speech.

“The so-called ‘investigation’ by Walker was a constitutionally improper attempt to suppress the freedom of speech based only on the content being communicated. In America, we have the freedom to disagree, and we do not legally prosecute people just because their opinion is different from ours.”

This article has been updated.

View article – 

Does Exxon Have a Constitutional Right to Deny Climate Change?

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Does Exxon Have a Constitutional Right to Deny Climate Change?

Trump Duly Slapped, Elizabeth Warren Returns to What She Does Best

Mother Jones

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

Fresh from her first appearance on the campaign trail with Hillary Clinton, Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday returned to her favorite activity: going after Wall Street. With Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), Warren submitted a bill aimed at strengthening regulation of the derivatives market, now notorious for its contribution to the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008. Derivatives are contracts whose value is derived from (and changes according to) the value of other assets, which allows parties in the contract to speculate, sometimes wildly, on the underlying asset’s value.

“The only way to make sure that derivatives can never lead to a financial crisis and taxpayer bailouts again is to put in place clearer rules and stronger oversight,” Warren said in a press release. A 2011 government report on the sources of the financial crisis found that a key role was played by so-called over-the-counter derivatives. The lack of regulation of these derivatives was the direct result of government policy: a bill passed in 2000—over the warnings of Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) chair Brooksley Born—that banned state and federal regulation of OTC derivatives.

This changed with the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, which brought the OTC derivatives market under regulatory scrutiny. Warren’s bill, the Derivatives Oversight and Taxpayer Protection Act, now aims to build on that regulatory framework despite stiff opposition in the Republican-controlled Congress, where GOP lawmakers are working in the opposite direction. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, proposed legislation earlier this month aimed at dismantling large portions of Dodd-Frank. Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump says he will dismantle Dodd-Frank if elected (although his statements have been short on detail).

A key provision in Warren’s proposal is aimed at increasing funding for the CFTC, which has seen its budget stagnate even as the markets it is supposed to monitor balloon. The agency has been complaining of inadequate funding for years: In 2013, former chairman Gary Gensler—now the Clinton campaign’s chief financial officer—told Bloomberg Businessweek that the agency needed “hundreds of more people to swim through all this data.” This April, the agency’s new chair, Timothy Massad, urged a Senate subcommittee to increase the budget allocation for his agency.

Warren’s bill would allow the commission to collect user fees from the financial firms that it monitors, much like the Securities and Exchange Commission does, and thereby escape the uncertainty of the appropriations process. President Barack Obama first proposed switching to this kind of structure in 2011, but Republicans in Congress have opposed the plan, claiming that the appropriations process keeps the commission accountable to lawmakers.

The measure also attempts to address another of Massad’s complaints: The fines the CFTC is permitted to levy are not large enough to discourage wrongdoing. It raises the civil penalty per individual to $1 million and the civil penalty for other entities to $10 million. (Fines could be larger depending on the size of a person’s monetary gain or the losses caused by their actions.) It also closes a key loophole that has allowed US banks to move billions of dollars in swaps offshore, out of the eyes of US regulators. If the bill comes to a vote, this provision would likely face opposition; according to a Reuters investigation, major banks lobbied heavily to obtain the loophole in the first place. Other provisions would bring certain foreign exchange swaps under the CFTC’s supervision and put an end to the preferential treatment of derivatives in bankruptcy proceedings—an arrangement that critics say encourages Wall Street firms to enter into risky contracts.

All of this may seem somewhat technical and arcane—but as Warren sees it, the alternative to reform is a repeat of the 2007-08 crisis. Without further regulation, she said, “big financial firms will be able to rake in billions when things go well, then come back to taxpayers with their hands out when things come crashing down.”

Excerpt from: 

Trump Duly Slapped, Elizabeth Warren Returns to What She Does Best

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump Duly Slapped, Elizabeth Warren Returns to What She Does Best

Is the Senate About to Put a Halt to GMO Labeling?

Mother Jones

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

As recently as two weeks ago, the food industry was preparing to place labels on food products that contain genetically modified ingredients. But if a bi-partisan deal cobbled together last Thursday in the Senate Agriculture Committee gets signed into law, widespread labeling likely won’t come to pass. Instead, food companies will have the option of disclosing GM ingredients on their products with QR codes that can be read by smartphones, accompanied by only the words “scan here for more food information”—without direct on-package mention of GMOs.

The fight centers on a Vermont law, due to go into effect on July 1, that would require labeling in that state. Rather than go through the trouble of segregating out and labeling products destined for a state with a population 626,000, many huge food companies had instead resigned themselves to labeling nationwide. In recent months Mars, General Mills, Kellogg, ConAgra and Campbell Soup all announced plans for labeling.

The looming prospect provoked a massive legislative effort, spearheaded by the Grocery Manufacturers Association, to pass a bill in Congress to nullify state labeling initiatives, full stop. Ever since that bill failed to gain traction in the Senate in March, Senate Ag Committee Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and ranking Democrat Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) began working to cobble together a compromise. Under their bill, products that contain GM ingredients will only have to include a QR code, which in-the-know consumers with smartphones can scan.

This week, Roberts and Stabenow began pushing hard for the full Senate to consider their compromise bill, reports Politico’s Helena Bottemiller Evich. They have industrial agriculture interests at their backs, Evich adds, noting that the American Soybean Association urged its members to email and call their senators “repeatedly until this legislation passes.” Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont), meanwhile, has vowed to “do everything I can to defeat this legislation.”

The Senate deal is widely viewed as a defeat for labeling advocates and a victory for the seed/pesticide industry. Andrew Kimbrell, a long-time industry critic and executive director of the Center for Food Safety, denounced the bill in an emailed statement. “This is not a labeling bill; it is a non-labeling bill,” he wrote. “Clear, on-package GE food labeling should be mandatory to ensure all Americans have equal access to product information.” Meanwhile, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a deep-pocketed trade group called funded by major food processors as well as agrichemical/GMO titans like Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow, praised it as the “commonsense solution for consumers, farmers and businesses.”

If the proposed QR-code solution passes, it will preempt Vermont’s law. Whether it will pass the full Senate and House and be signed by President Obama remains to be seen. Stabenow had opposed previous efforts to preempt state labeling laws, so getting her on board was a big step closer to putting a halt to GMO labeling.

Source:

Is the Senate About to Put a Halt to GMO Labeling?

Posted in FF, food processor, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is the Senate About to Put a Halt to GMO Labeling?

TransCanada’s latest move perfectly illustrates why so many people hate free-trade deals

Ceci n’est pas une pipeline

TransCanada’s latest move perfectly illustrates why so many people hate free-trade deals

By on Jun 27, 2016Share

TransCanada is demanding that the U.S. fork over $15 billion to make up for the fact that the company didn’t get to build the Keystone XL pipeline. That’s one damned expensive temper tantrum.

On Friday, TransCanada filed a formal request under NAFTA seeking to recover costs and damages related to the thwarted pipeline project, following through on a threat it made in January. The Canadian firm claims that the Obama administration’s decision to reject the pipeline was unjustified and violated the U.S.’s obligations under NAFTA. “[T]he rejection was symbolic and based merely on the desire to make the U.S. appear strong on climate change,” TransCanada complained in its filing.

Climate activists and other environmentalists say this is a perfect example of why they oppose many trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which Obama is currently trying to get approved. “The TPP would empower thousands of new firms operating in the U.S, including major polluters, to follow in TransCanada’s footsteps and undermine our critical climate safeguards in private trade tribunals,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club.

The State Department argues that the Keystone rejection was consistent with NAFTA requirements, but some trade experts say there’s a real chance TransCanada could win its case.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Continue reading here – 

TransCanada’s latest move perfectly illustrates why so many people hate free-trade deals

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on TransCanada’s latest move perfectly illustrates why so many people hate free-trade deals

Don’t Worry Super-Rich, Paul Ryan’s Tax Plan Still Has Your Back

Mother Jones

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

House Republicans rolled out a roadmap for tax reform Friday that drastically cuts corporate taxes and benefits high-income taxpayers—but not nearly as much as the plan proffered by the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Donald Trump.

House Speaker Paul Ryan unveiled the GOP proposal—the sixth and final policy blueprint that the House GOP has issued this month under Ryan’s direction—at a news conference in Washington. The plan would slash corporate rates from the current 35 percent to 20 percent and lower the top individual rate from 39.6 to 33 percent. (Trump has proposed cuts to 15 and 25 percent, respectively.) The blueprint also eliminates the estate tax, long a target of Republicans in Congress, and lowers the tax rate on income from investments.

“The way I’d sum it up is: We want a tax code that works for the taxpayers—not the tax collectors,” Ryan said. “We want to make it simpler, flatter, fairer…Make it so simple that the average American can do their taxes on a postcard.”

Since taking the House in 2011, Republicans have repeatedly promised to overhaul the tax system, which hasn’t seen a major update since 1986. But they have stumbled over a political roadblock: Every major deduction or tax credit has a devoted constituency who would be enraged were it to be eliminated. The last comprehensive Republican proposal was submitted in 2014 by retired Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. His scheme varied significantly from the new blueprint. It lowered the corporate rate to 25 percent rather than 20 percent and cut the top individual rate just to 35 percent, while at the same time sacrificing popular deductions on charitable giving and mortgage interest. It failed to attract much support within the party and never received a vote.

The new blueprint is more circumspect, maintaining the mortgage and charitable deductions, as well as the Earned Income Tax Credit, a key poverty-fighting tool, and a deduction for spending on higher education. It leaves it to the Ways and Means Committee to reform these programs. Otherwise, the plan makes an effort to simplify the system, replacing itemized deductions with a higher standard deduction and eliminating most business tax breaks. It also reduces the number of income tax brackets from seven to three.

It is not yet clear whether the plan would add to the deficit. But as Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center writes, “It is hard to imagine how these tax cuts could pay for themselves.” The House GOP’s scheme is bound to cost less than Trump’s tax cuts. Experts estimate that the presumptive nominee’s plan would shrink revenues by $9.2 trillion over 10 years, forcing draconian cuts in government spending.

Link – 

Don’t Worry Super-Rich, Paul Ryan’s Tax Plan Still Has Your Back

Posted in ATTRA, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Don’t Worry Super-Rich, Paul Ryan’s Tax Plan Still Has Your Back