Tag Archives: united

The Nation’s Election Watchdog Just Hit a New Level of Dysfunction

Mother Jones

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

In 2011, former Bain Capital executive Edward Conrad decided to give $1 million to the super-PAC supporting the presidential bid of his pal Mitt Romney. But he didn’t contribute the cash directly. Instead, he put the money in a generically named shell company he had recently created, which then cut a check to the super-PAC, Restore Our Future. Election law prohibits donors from taking steps to hide their identities, and campaign finance activists pressed the Federal Election Commission to investigate. Five years later, the FEC—which since at least 2010 has been existing in a fugue state of partisan paralysis—has finally rendered a decision on whether it will probe the matter, which is something of a post-Citizens United test case. Nah, we’ll pass on this one, the FEC decided on Monday.

In a letter sent to the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog that complained about the donation in 2011, the FEC reported that its six commissioners deadlocked 3-to-3 on whether to open an investigation into the donation. Keep in mind that they didn’t split on whether there had been a violation of law, or if Conrad should be punished—just whether they should open an inquiry. The FEC also informed the Campaign Legal Center that the commission had deadlocked on a similar case from 2011, involving donations made via two other shell corporations to Romney’s super-PAC.

The FEC has been mired in a messy standoff for years now. With three Republican commissioners and three Democratic commissioners, it deadlocks on nearly every question put to it, even the minor ones. But this case was essentially a big softball. Conrad eventually publicly acknowledged he was behind the shell corporation. Donations from anonymous corporations to super-PACs are becoming increasingly common, but it is rare that the original source of the money reveals himself.

The FEC’s inability to open an investigation ends this case, but it doesn’t create a legal precedent. The commission could theoretically pursue future cases over the use of limited liability companies to fund campaigns. But don’t hold your breath, says Paul S. Ryan, the deputy executive director for the Campaign Legal Center.

“We have seen a pretty dramatic increase in the use of the LLCs to contribute to super-PACs, and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon,” he says, noting that the Campaign Legal Center has filed three similar complaints in the last two weeks alone. “But I think the dismissal of these complaints from 2011 will be viewed as a greenlight to continue laundering money into super-PACs.”

For the gridlocked commission, Ryan fears that this is far from rock bottom. “I’ve thought on several occasions that we’ve reached bottom, and they continue to surprise me with greater and greater dysfunction every year. This is a new low, that’s for sure. This does seem to be a million-dollar violation with an admission, and the FEC won’t even do anything about that. If they won’t do this, what hope is there for them to do any investigations in the context of less clear-cut violations?”

Ryan says the Campaign Legal Center will decide in the coming weeks whether to sue the FEC over its failure to act in this case.

Charlie Spies, an attorney for Restore Our Future, the Romney super-PAC that took the donation, told Mother Jones that the organization had followed the law.

More here – 

The Nation’s Election Watchdog Just Hit a New Level of Dysfunction

Posted in alo, Anchor, Casio, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Nation’s Election Watchdog Just Hit a New Level of Dysfunction

Three Numbers That Explain the Modern Political Ecosystem

Mother Jones

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

If you want to understand how politicians manipulate today’s media environment, there are only three numbers you need to know:

Detroit debate viewership (TV plus streaming): 20 million
Daytime cable news viewership: 1-2 million
Print newspaper viewership: 1 million max

The last number is a guesstimate for the number of people who will see Donald Trump’s statement announcing that he’s had a change of heart about ordering the US military to torture prisoners. If anything, it’s generous. A printed statement just isn’t going to make the rounds much. Nor is it going to be a big deal on social media, especially among the Trump demographic.

So here’s what you get:

When Bret Baier asks Trump what would happen if the military refuses his order to torture prisoners, 20 million people hear and see him say, “They won’t refuse….I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it.”
The next day, 2-3 million people read (or hear a network anchor recite) a bloodless statement that says, “I do, however, understand that the United States is bound by laws and treaties and I will not order our military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters.”

The arithmetic here is pretty simple. There are at least 17 million people who hear Trump insist that he’s going to torture “these animals over in the Middle East” and never see the retraction. For Trump, this is a double win. His base continues to think he’s a tough guy. Elites breathe a small sigh of relief and figure that maybe this means Trump will calm down and listen to his advisors if he wins the presidency.

The exact numbers can vary, but the basic math plays out the same way all the time. Politicians have learned that they can lie without consequence. They tell the lie on television, where lots of people see it, and then count on virtually nobody seeing the earnest fact checks the next day.

Among younger voters, you probably have to factor in social media as well. But you also have to factor in the well-known evidence that fact checks rarely change anyone’s mind. Welcome to 21st century America.

UPDATE: There’s another piece of this that’s worth mentioning. Trump’s retraction was given to the Wall Street Journal, so naturally they’re playing it big on their front page. But I just checked USA Today, Fox, MSNBC, the LA Times, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, and none of them have so much as mentioned this on their home pages. This is not a coincidence. They hate having to acknowledge a competitor, and that causes them to downplay the news.

The one exception is CNN, which has plastered it at the top of their home page and mentioned it repeatedly on air. I don’t quite know why they’re the exception.

More – 

Three Numbers That Explain the Modern Political Ecosystem

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Three Numbers That Explain the Modern Political Ecosystem

California’s Bullet Train Just Gets Better and Better

Mother Jones

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

California’s bullet train gets more appealing with every new business plan:

California will need to double down on support of the bullet train by digging deeper into the state’s wallet and accepting a three-year delay in completing the project’s initial leg, a new business plan for the 220-mph system shows.

….The new plan calls for completion of the entire system by 2029, one year later than under the old business plan. Once the initial system starts showing a profit, the business plan asserts, private investors would jump in with an estimated $21 billion, based on financial calculations.

….The 99-page plan and its backup technical documents again raise questions about service and speed. A sample operating schedule does not show any nonstop trains between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The fastest travel time between the cities would be 3 hours and 14 minutes, not the 2 hours and 40 minutes many people expect.

Yes, I’m sure private investors will be panting to invest, just like they’ve invested so much in iffy high-speed rail construction elsewhere in the world. They’ll be especially eager in another few years, when this project will undoubtedly be forecast to open around 2040 or so, and estimates of LA-SF travel time will be four hours. Who could say no?

Visit link – 

California’s Bullet Train Just Gets Better and Better

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on California’s Bullet Train Just Gets Better and Better

Top Ten List of Things That Are Going Great in America

Mother Jones

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

I get requests from time to time:

I can do better than that. How about a top ten list of all the things going well in America right now?

  1. Unemployment = 4.9 percent. By virtually every measure, more people are re-entering the labor force and more people are finding work.
  2. Inflation = 1.4 percent. The annual inflation rate for food is 0.8 percent.
  3. Economic growth = 2.4 percent. This could be better, but it’s not bad: the US economy is stronger than China, Japan, or Mexico. We’re not losing, we’re winning.
  4. The average price of a gallon of gas is $1.81, its lowest price in a decade.
  5. 20 million people have gained health insurance since 2013, and health care costs are rising at the most moderate rate in decades.
  6. The abortion rate has been declining for 30 years and is now lower than at any time since the early 70s.
  7. Among teens, alcohol use is down, crime is down, violent behavior is down, illicit drug use is down, sexual intercourse is down, condom use is up, pregnancy is down, and cigarette smoking is down.
  8. High school test scores and graduation rates are up.
  9. There were only 22 US military fatalities in the Middle East in 2015, the lowest number since 9/11.
  10. Net illegal immigration has been negative for seven straight years. Since 2008, the population of undocumented workers in the US has fallen from 12 million to 11 million.

Unfortunately, there is also one big thing that’s not going so well:

  1. Despite a reasonably strong economy, wages have declined since 2000 and have rebounded only slightly over the past couple of years.

It’s quite possible that this one thing is more important than all the others put together. And needless to say, anyone can put together their own list of ten things that are going badly: police shootings, ISIS, income inequality, etc. Nonetheless, when you look at the big picture, there’s an awful lot going right at the moment.

From:

Top Ten List of Things That Are Going Great in America

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Top Ten List of Things That Are Going Great in America

Donald Trump Pulls Out of Conservative Conference

Mother Jones

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

Donald Trump, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, canceled his scheduled appearance at one of the largest annual gatherings of conservatives on Friday. Trump was scheduled to speak early Saturday morning at the Conservative Political Action Conference, hosted this year at a hotel conference center outside Washington, DC, but CPAC announced on Twitter that he’d bailed:

CPAC wasn’t exactly prime Trump territory—but nor was it entirely hostile. There was a lonely protester lamenting that Trump would rip apart the party on Thursday. But most CPAC attendees said that they weren’t all that concerned by his reluctance to distance himself from a white supremacist, and that they’d still support him in the general election even if their preferred nominee at the moment might be Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. Over the course of the first day of the conference, the schism in the Republican Party was largely left unmentioned, with speakers shying away from mentioning Trump by name.

But at a watch party for Thursday night’s GOP debate, the crowd titled heavily toward Cruz and Rubio, jeering each time Rubio attacked Trump. Perhaps Trump’s fans relayed the message and warned him against speaking to a potentially hostile crowd on Saturday.

Update: Trump issued a press release on Friday announcing a rally in Wichita on Kansas and citing it as his reason for withdrawing from CPAC:

The Donald J. Trump for President Campaign has just announced it will be in Wichita, Kansas for a major rally on Saturday, prior to the Caucus. Mr. Trump will also be speaking at the Kansas Caucus and then departing for Orlando, Florida to speak to a crowd of approximately 20,000 people or more. Because of this, he will not be able to speak at CPAC, as he has done for many consecutive years. Mr. Trump would like to thank Matt Schlapp and all of the executives at CPAC and looks forward to returning to next year, hopefully as President of the United States.

This article: 

Donald Trump Pulls Out of Conservative Conference

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump Pulls Out of Conservative Conference

Donald Trump’s Big Lie on Health Care

Mother Jones

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

I realize that criticizing a Donald Trump policy is pointless, but Trump’s health care “plan” deserves a bit more attention. Say what you will about his immigration policies, but at least his written plan more-or-less matched his rhetoric. His health care plan doesn’t even come close. Here are its six proposals:

  1. Allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines. Whatever you think of this idea, it only makes sense if you can truly buy a policy that’s regulated by another state. Ramesh Ponnuru: “But the plan says that people should be allowed to buy insurance out of state only ‘as long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements.’ That defeats the whole purpose of the reform, and means either that Trump is coming out for the status quo or that whoever wrote his plan garbled it.” Or that Trump has no idea what he’s talking about.
  1. Allow individuals to “fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns.” This may or may not be a good idea in concept, but implementing it as a deduction makes it meaningless for nearly everyone at the median wage or below. They already pay little or no income tax, so a deduction does them no good. This is why other Republicans have proposed doing this as a tax credit, which would benefit anyone. Even conservatives agree about this: “That’s not going to help,” said Joe Antos, a conservative health policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute.
  1. Allow individuals to use HSAs. Individuals have been allowed to set up HSAs since 2003. The only new wrinkle in Trump’s plan is that an HSA can be used by any family member. This is trivial.
  1. Price transparency. This is fine. It won’t do much to improve health care, but it’s a good idea.
  1. Block grant Medicaid. This would accomplish nothing except, probably, to make health care worse. States tend to do everything they can to use Medicaid dollars for non-health purposes, and giving them total control over Medicaid would only make this worse. Also, it would eliminate the automatic increase in Medicaid spending during recessions, when it’s needed most. Overall, this proposal would almost certainly result in less Medicaid spending and less effective Medicaid spending.
  1. Allow importation of prescription drugs. This is fine.

Trump has been extravagant in his promises about health care: “I would end Obamacare and replace it with something terrific, for far less money for the country and for the people.” He’s said that he would cover everyone. He’s said he would cover pre-existing conditions. He’s said he wouldn’t let people die in the streets. He’s said he would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices.

His plan includes none of that. He just flatly hasn’t kept any of his promises. Instead he’s offered up something that looks like a fourth grader cribbed it from other Republican plans without really understanding what they said. Even by GOP standards—which is a very low bar—his health care plan offers virtually nothing of substance. It’s completely hollow.

Source: 

Donald Trump’s Big Lie on Health Care

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump’s Big Lie on Health Care

Tax Plan Showdown: Hillary Clinton vs. the Republicans

Mother Jones

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

The Tax Policy Center has analyzed Hillary Clinton’s various tax proposals, which means we now have data for the top three Republican candidates and the top Democractic candidate: Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Clinton. Click the links for details. Or just look at the charts below for the nickel summary.

You don’t need to look very hard, do you? One of these things is not like the others. The Republicans all give middle-income taxpayers a tiny benefit as a sop to distract them from the humongous payday they give to the rich. Clinton basically leaves middle-income taxpayers alone and makes the rich pay a little more.

On the cost side, all of the supposedly fiscally conservative Republicans would blow a massive hole in the deficit. Clinton would actually make the deficit smaller.

Republicans will claim that their tax plans are designed to supercharge the economy and pay for themselves blah blah blah. This is BS, and they know it. They also claim they’ll slash spending. This is mostly BS too. On the other hand, Clinton says she’ll use the money from her tax plan to fund additional programs, which is entirely believable. This makes her plan deficit neutral. Basically, we have three fantasy plans and one realistic plan. The difference in fiscal responsibility is kind of mind-boggling, isn’t it?

Read original article:  

Tax Plan Showdown: Hillary Clinton vs. the Republicans

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Tax Plan Showdown: Hillary Clinton vs. the Republicans

Quote of the Day #2: "I wasn’t being held hostage"

Mother Jones

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

Chris Christie a few minutes ago:

OMG. Can you imagine a supposedly serious politician actually having to say something like this? The humiliation just never ends.

Originally from: 

Quote of the Day #2: "I wasn’t being held hostage"

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Quote of the Day #2: "I wasn’t being held hostage"

Is Europe totally unfrackable?

Is Europe totally unfrackable?

By on 2 Mar 2016commentsShare

The European Union is desperate for a good fracking. It’s had to watch the U.S. drill its way to a natural gas boom in recent years and is now looking itself in the mirror and asking: “What does old Crazypants McFatty have that I don’t?”

Well, E.U. — we hate to brag (no we don’t), but it looks like we’re simply better endowed. According to Nature, after playing — or rather, testing — the field for several years now, Europe has yet to nail down a commercial shale-gas well. The International Energy Agency, BP, and ExxonMobil have all expressed doubt about the region’s shale prospects, and at the World Gas Conference in Paris last year, one manager from the French oil and gas company Total conceded: “we are very, very far in Europe from profitability.”

Unfortunately for our friends overseas, Europe might need natural gas in order to meet energy demands while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The United Kingdom, for example, plans to eliminate all coal-fired power plants without carbon capture and storage systems by 2025, and politicians are wary that solar, wind, and nuclear power alone will be able to compensate for the loss. Which means that, while the nation already relies on foreign imports for about half of its current gas needs, it might rely on imports for as much as 75 percent of those needs by 2030, according to U.K. energy secretary Amber Rudd.

Advertisement

But as much as Europe would like to reduce its reliance on foreign gas (which mostly comes from Russia), it can only do so much when the problem is one of logistics.

In order for a country to have a successful fracking industry, it has to a) have lots of gas, b) know that it has lots of gas, and c) be able to extract said gas — safely. And according to Nature, scientists simply don’t know as much about Europe’s shale deposits as the U.S.’s, because Europe has done less onshore drilling. And even the deposits that they do know about seem to pose challenges:

The United States has large deposits of shale that are not too thick and have been folded little over time. The shale in the United Kingdom is more complicated, says petroleum geoscientist Andrew Aplin of the University of Durham, UK. “It’s been screwed around with more”, creating more folds and faults.

That greater complexity could pose challenges. One risk is that pumping fluid into rock can trigger earthquakes if the wells are near faults or large natural fractures. “It’s better to stay away from them, especially when they’re located near densely populated areas,” says natural-gas expert Rene Peters of the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) in the Hague. But there has been relatively little high-resolution seismic imaging in Europe, he says, so “not all these fractures are known.”

About a decade ago, Nature reports, Poland was looking to take the lead in Europe’s shale boom, handing out exploration licenses to ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Total. And in 2011, the D.C.-based consultancy Advanced Resources International (ARI) set the country’s hopes even higher by estimating that it had about 5,295 billion cubic meters of recoverable gas — enough to meet 325 years’ worth of Poland’s gas consumption.

But the following year, the Polish Geological Institute (PGI) estimated that the actual amount of gas available was just one-tenth of what ARI had estimated. And by the end of last year, only 25 of the 72 wells drilled in Poland were fracked, and overall they yielded only between one-tenth and one-third of the rate necessary to be profitable, according to Nature.

Some of Poland’s problems were purely geological: The deposits were deeper than those in the U.S.; greater concentrations of clay made the rocks difficult to drill through; a “geological barrier” prevented full access to one of the largest deposits near the Baltic Sea. As one PGI spokesperson told Nature, the prospects for Poland’s shale industry were “enthusiastic, but geologically unrealistic.”

Still, not all are deterred:

England is home to some of the few remaining attempts to tap shale gas in Europe. A handful of companies have applied for permission to drill, which could finally reveal whether the United Kingdom’s shale deposits will be a jackpot or a dud. But environmentalists have put up a strong fight, and permissions have been slow to emerge.

Just remember, England — if you do score big, use protection. As we’ve learned the hard way here in the States, fracking can come with some nasty side effects, including leakage and a bad case of the shakes. But as long as you’re careful, then drill, baby, drill!

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

Jump to original: 

Is Europe totally unfrackable?

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is Europe totally unfrackable?

Here’s how major cities measure up on climate change spending

Here’s how major cities measure up on climate change spending

By on 1 Mar 2016 5:07 pmcommentsShare

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

The headline negotiations during the Paris climate summit in December were between national governments: What would China, the United States, and other big emitters be willing to do? But just outside the spotlight, some of the most optimistic commitments to curb greenhouse gas emissions, ramp up clean energy, and invest in adaptive measures were being made by cities.

A new analysis from social scientists at University College London sheds some new light on the money behind those municipal efforts — and the results paint a highly uneven picture. The researchers compared spending on climate adaptation in 10 major global cities — that is, investments in infrastructure, public health, water systems, etc., aimed at making them more resistant to climate change. All 10 cities are members of the Compact of Mayors, an initiative that came out of Paris to hold cities to a high standard of climate action.

On average among those 10 cities, spending on climate adaptation accounted for one-fifth of one percent of GDP in 2015, or about $855 million. Not surprisingly, cities in wealthier countries such the U.S. and the U.K. spent far more than cities in African countries and Southeast Asia:

Nature

Cities in developing countries also lag behind on spending on a per-capita basis. (The Paris figure is so high in part because the study counted population just within a city’s official boundaries, not the surrounding metropolitan area, and Paris’ boundaries are relatively small) …

Nature

… and as a share of GDP:

Nature

The findings illustrate that spending on climate adaptation is more a function of wealth, and the value of local real estate, than the size of a city’s population or its relative vulnerability to climate impacts. The researchers conclude that “current adaptation activities are insufficient in major population centres in developing and emerging economies.”

That may not be very surprising — of course New York and London will be better able to rally funds for climate readiness than Addis Ababa. But it’s an important snapshot of the uphill battle developing countries face in confronting climate change.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

Source: 

Here’s how major cities measure up on climate change spending

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s how major cities measure up on climate change spending