Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Bill USA
Bill USA's Journal
Bill USA's Journal
July 12, 2013
DOE: Climate Change will Disrupt Energy Supply
Climate change is going to affect energy supply -- including nuclear power plants...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/11/climate-change-energy-disruptions/2508789/
The report cites prior climate-related energy disruptions. Last year in Connecticut, the Millstone Nuclear Power Station shut down one reactor because the temperature of water needed to cool the facility — taken from the Long Island Sound — was too high. A similar problem caused power reductions in 2010 at the Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station in New Jersey and the Limerick Generating Station in Pennsylvania.
Reduced snowpack in the Sierra Nevada mountains last year cut California's hydroelectric power generation 8%, while drought caused the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to stop the transport of oil and coal along the Mississippi River, where water levels were too low, according to the report. Also, in September 2010, water levels in Nevada's Lake Mead fell to a 54-year low, prompting a 23% loss in the Hoover Dam's generation.
The DOE report cites research indicating that nearly 60% of current thermoelectric power plants, which need water cooling to operate, are located in water-stressed areas.
(more)
July 12, 2013
Companies From Various Sectors Use Legal Tax Dodges to Avoid Taxes
This CTJ report illustrates how profitable Fortune 500 companies in a range of sectors of the U.S. economy have been remarkably successful in manipulating the tax system to avoid paying even a dime of tax on billions of dollars in profits. These ten corporations’ tax situations shed light on the widespread nature of corporate tax avoidance. As a group, the ten companies paid no federal income tax on $16 billion in profits in 2012, and they paid zero federal income tax on $57 billion in profits over the past five years. All but one paid less than zero federal income tax in 2012; all paid exceedingly low rates over five years.
Companies Represent Diverse Economic Sectors
The companies profiled here represent a range of segments of the U.S. economy. While General Electric, Facebook, FedEx and Pepco are fairly well-publicized tax avoiders, this report also includes:
•The oil and gas exploration company Apache, which paid no tax on $7.6 billion in pretax income over five years, enjoying a $169 million tax rebate over that period.
•Health-care giant Tenet Healthcare, which hasn’t paid a dime of federal income tax on $905 million in U.S. income over the past five years, receiving a tax rebate of $51 million.
•In the airline sector, Southwest Airlines paid no federal income taxes on $673 million in U.S. income last year, and actually received an income tax rebate of $45 million.
•The Principal Financial Group, an investment services provider, which avoided all federal income taxes on its $919 million in 2012.
•Ryder System, which provided truck rentals and services, paid a negative 2.3 percent federal income tax rate in 2012 and a negative 4.7 percent rate since 2008.
•The Interpublic Group, a marketing and communications firm, also had negative tax rates both in 2012 and over the five-year period.
All ten companies’ effective federal income tax rates for 2012 and 2008-12 are shown in the following table. (Click on table for high quality version)
(more)
Ten (of Many) Reasons Why We Need Corporate Tax Reform - Citizens for Tax Justice
http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2013/04/ten_of_many_reasons_why_we_need_corporate_tax_reform.phpCompanies From Various Sectors Use Legal Tax Dodges to Avoid Taxes
This CTJ report illustrates how profitable Fortune 500 companies in a range of sectors of the U.S. economy have been remarkably successful in manipulating the tax system to avoid paying even a dime of tax on billions of dollars in profits. These ten corporations’ tax situations shed light on the widespread nature of corporate tax avoidance. As a group, the ten companies paid no federal income tax on $16 billion in profits in 2012, and they paid zero federal income tax on $57 billion in profits over the past five years. All but one paid less than zero federal income tax in 2012; all paid exceedingly low rates over five years.
Companies Represent Diverse Economic Sectors
The companies profiled here represent a range of segments of the U.S. economy. While General Electric, Facebook, FedEx and Pepco are fairly well-publicized tax avoiders, this report also includes:
•The oil and gas exploration company Apache, which paid no tax on $7.6 billion in pretax income over five years, enjoying a $169 million tax rebate over that period.
•Health-care giant Tenet Healthcare, which hasn’t paid a dime of federal income tax on $905 million in U.S. income over the past five years, receiving a tax rebate of $51 million.
•In the airline sector, Southwest Airlines paid no federal income taxes on $673 million in U.S. income last year, and actually received an income tax rebate of $45 million.
•The Principal Financial Group, an investment services provider, which avoided all federal income taxes on its $919 million in 2012.
•Ryder System, which provided truck rentals and services, paid a negative 2.3 percent federal income tax rate in 2012 and a negative 4.7 percent rate since 2008.
•The Interpublic Group, a marketing and communications firm, also had negative tax rates both in 2012 and over the five-year period.
All ten companies’ effective federal income tax rates for 2012 and 2008-12 are shown in the following table. (Click on table for high quality version)
(more)
July 12, 2013
In a Tuesday interview, Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL) announced the introduction of a bill to dramatically expand the legal remedies available to non-union workers who are punished for workplace activism. “Retaliation in the workplace today when people exercise their right to organize is pervasive,” Grayson told The Nation, “and the law against it has become utterly impotent.”
Grayson’s bill has been referred to the Republican-controlled House Committee on Education and the Workforce, where it is virtually guaranteed to languish. “It may not pass today,” said Grayson. “It may not pass tomorrow. But it indicates the direction that we have to go in if we’re going to preserve the middle class in America.” A spokesperson for Congressman John Kline, the committee’s chairman, did not respond to a request for comment last night. The committee is scheduled to take up two GOP bills restricting union recognition tomorrow.
Retaliating against workers for engaging in protected forms of workplace collective action is already illegal under the seventy-eight-year-old National Labor Relations Act (Grayson noted that his bill “gives a broad and explicit definition” of the crime). But pro-labor advocates and academics have long argued that the law does too little to dissuade companies determined to squash organizing or suppress free speech. Communications Workers of America President Larry Cohen last year slammed existing US labor law as “a scam,” “garbage” and “a fucking lie.” Grayson’s new “Worker Anti-Retaliation Act,” which he introduced June 11 but has not previously announced, addresses several of the NLRA’s perceived weaknesses when it comes to punishing retaliation.
Whereas current law limits workers’ legal recourse for retaliation to the National Labor Relations Board—an agency whose process can take years to reinstate a fired worker—Grayson’s bill would separately guarantee most employees the right to sue their boss in civil court for retaliating, and the chance to seek an injunction to swiftly reverse the alleged retaliation. “The private right of action,” said Grayson, “means that the fact that a government bureaucrat is lazy or bored or not interested in your case,” or “hostile to workers in general,” would no longer “mean that you have no case. It means that you can take your case to court yourself.”
(more)
Read more: Grayson Announces Bill to Let Workers Personally Sue Bosses Who Retaliate | The Nation http://www.thenation.com/blog/174975/grayson-announces-bill-let-workers-personally-sue-bosses-who-retaliate#ixzz2Yrs2JGni
Follow us: @thenation on Twitter | TheNationMagazine on Facebook
Grayson Announces Bill to Let Workers Personally Sue Bosses Who Retaliate
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174975/grayson-announces-bill-let-workers-personally-sue-bosses-who-retaliate#axzz2YrrabcViIn a Tuesday interview, Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL) announced the introduction of a bill to dramatically expand the legal remedies available to non-union workers who are punished for workplace activism. “Retaliation in the workplace today when people exercise their right to organize is pervasive,” Grayson told The Nation, “and the law against it has become utterly impotent.”
Grayson’s bill has been referred to the Republican-controlled House Committee on Education and the Workforce, where it is virtually guaranteed to languish. “It may not pass today,” said Grayson. “It may not pass tomorrow. But it indicates the direction that we have to go in if we’re going to preserve the middle class in America.” A spokesperson for Congressman John Kline, the committee’s chairman, did not respond to a request for comment last night. The committee is scheduled to take up two GOP bills restricting union recognition tomorrow.
Retaliating against workers for engaging in protected forms of workplace collective action is already illegal under the seventy-eight-year-old National Labor Relations Act (Grayson noted that his bill “gives a broad and explicit definition” of the crime). But pro-labor advocates and academics have long argued that the law does too little to dissuade companies determined to squash organizing or suppress free speech. Communications Workers of America President Larry Cohen last year slammed existing US labor law as “a scam,” “garbage” and “a fucking lie.” Grayson’s new “Worker Anti-Retaliation Act,” which he introduced June 11 but has not previously announced, addresses several of the NLRA’s perceived weaknesses when it comes to punishing retaliation.
Whereas current law limits workers’ legal recourse for retaliation to the National Labor Relations Board—an agency whose process can take years to reinstate a fired worker—Grayson’s bill would separately guarantee most employees the right to sue their boss in civil court for retaliating, and the chance to seek an injunction to swiftly reverse the alleged retaliation. “The private right of action,” said Grayson, “means that the fact that a government bureaucrat is lazy or bored or not interested in your case,” or “hostile to workers in general,” would no longer “mean that you have no case. It means that you can take your case to court yourself.”
(more)
Read more: Grayson Announces Bill to Let Workers Personally Sue Bosses Who Retaliate | The Nation http://www.thenation.com/blog/174975/grayson-announces-bill-let-workers-personally-sue-bosses-who-retaliate#ixzz2Yrs2JGni
Follow us: @thenation on Twitter | TheNationMagazine on Facebook
July 12, 2013
Congressional Republicans have routinely obstructed attempts to ameliorate the ongoing jobs crisis and Lesser Depression, but some members are now demonstrating apathy toward the unemployed and impoverished so extreme they want to forgo data collection on unemployment and poverty.
The Census Reform Act, introduced by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), is an insulting misnomer and a disturbing reflection of values among the House Republican caucus’s libertarian camp. As Dylan Matthews details, the bill would “reform” the Census Bureau by confining its mission to the decennial population census, in effect eliminating the Current Population Survey (CPS) and the American Community Survey (ACS)—which track the national unemployment rate and poverty rate, respectively, among other stats. All surveys conducted (more efficiently, mind you) by the Census Bureau on the behalf of other agencies would be at least temporarily curtailed—and likely de facto gutted or ended by budgetary and administrative realties—including the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, a panel data goldmine for economists and researchers.
During the Great Depression, U.S. policymakers had contemporaneous data on prices and industrial production (albeit rudimentary by modern standards), but were largely flying blind—in particular, there were no official government statistics tracking unemployment. National income accounting (e.g., the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s National Income and Product Accounts, including GDP data) wasn’t fully developed—widely attributed to Simon Kuznets and Richard Stone—until after the 1936 release of John Maynard Keynes’ General Theory. Late in the Depression, but particularly in the aftermath of World War II, Congress tried to correct this economic policymaking handicap. As such, monthly unemployment surveys began in the 1940s and CPS unemployment data are only publicly available starting in 1948. Deliberately seeking to return toward this data-constrained Dark Age is mind bogglingly ill-advised.
Regrettably, conservative anti-government fervor has already taken a toll on data collection. The Bureau of Labor Statistics eliminated its International Labor Comparison, Mass Layoff Statistics, and Green Job Measures programs because of sequestration—which the GOP extracted by hijacking the debt ceiling and then refused to replace with sensible deficit reduction. And as Matthews’ notes, the ACS came under Republican attack twice last year, as members tried to make the survey voluntary and also eliminate it entirely.
It is often said that conservatives want to reverse the past century’s economic and budgetary policy innovations—exposed by efforts to eliminate the progressive income and estate taxes, social insurance legacies of the New Deal and Great Society, and anti-trust and other regulation. But the GOP’s efforts to castrate economic data collection in deference to some twisted libertarian concept of freedom take this regressing bent to a new extreme, entrenching the GOP as frighteningly anti-empiricist.
Flying Blind: Conservative’s Frightening Attack on Economic Data Collection
http://www.tcf.org/work/workers_economic_inequality/detail/flying-blind-conservatives-frightening-attack-on-economic-data-collection/Congressional Republicans have routinely obstructed attempts to ameliorate the ongoing jobs crisis and Lesser Depression, but some members are now demonstrating apathy toward the unemployed and impoverished so extreme they want to forgo data collection on unemployment and poverty.
The Census Reform Act, introduced by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), is an insulting misnomer and a disturbing reflection of values among the House Republican caucus’s libertarian camp. As Dylan Matthews details, the bill would “reform” the Census Bureau by confining its mission to the decennial population census, in effect eliminating the Current Population Survey (CPS) and the American Community Survey (ACS)—which track the national unemployment rate and poverty rate, respectively, among other stats. All surveys conducted (more efficiently, mind you) by the Census Bureau on the behalf of other agencies would be at least temporarily curtailed—and likely de facto gutted or ended by budgetary and administrative realties—including the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, a panel data goldmine for economists and researchers.
During the Great Depression, U.S. policymakers had contemporaneous data on prices and industrial production (albeit rudimentary by modern standards), but were largely flying blind—in particular, there were no official government statistics tracking unemployment. National income accounting (e.g., the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s National Income and Product Accounts, including GDP data) wasn’t fully developed—widely attributed to Simon Kuznets and Richard Stone—until after the 1936 release of John Maynard Keynes’ General Theory. Late in the Depression, but particularly in the aftermath of World War II, Congress tried to correct this economic policymaking handicap. As such, monthly unemployment surveys began in the 1940s and CPS unemployment data are only publicly available starting in 1948. Deliberately seeking to return toward this data-constrained Dark Age is mind bogglingly ill-advised.
Regrettably, conservative anti-government fervor has already taken a toll on data collection. The Bureau of Labor Statistics eliminated its International Labor Comparison, Mass Layoff Statistics, and Green Job Measures programs because of sequestration—which the GOP extracted by hijacking the debt ceiling and then refused to replace with sensible deficit reduction. And as Matthews’ notes, the ACS came under Republican attack twice last year, as members tried to make the survey voluntary and also eliminate it entirely.
It is often said that conservatives want to reverse the past century’s economic and budgetary policy innovations—exposed by efforts to eliminate the progressive income and estate taxes, social insurance legacies of the New Deal and Great Society, and anti-trust and other regulation. But the GOP’s efforts to castrate economic data collection in deference to some twisted libertarian concept of freedom take this regressing bent to a new extreme, entrenching the GOP as frighteningly anti-empiricist.
July 12, 2013
~~
~~
Filibuster reform needs to come with big gains in order to be worth such high costs. And so, historically, the Senate only considers major changes when the minority is obstructing something the majority really, really cares about. In 1917, it was a law that was a prelude to entering World War I. In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, it was civil rights.
What’s so odd and interesting about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s threats to eliminate the filibuster on executive-branch nominees is that the impetus is the exact opposite: The majority is considering rules changes precisely because there’s nothing more the minority can obstruct that they really, really care about.
These aren’t usual times in the Senate. So far as Reid is concerned, Republicans have already killed pretty much everything else the Democrats might want to do. When he’s been confronted with the argument that Republicans might bring everything to a stop if Democrats change the rules, I’m told Reid’s reply is sharp: “And that would be different how?”
Consider the record. Republicans abandoned a budget deal in favor of the mess that is sequestration. Gun control failed. Student loan rates doubled. Republicans are promising another debt-ceiling showdown. And now immigration looks unlikely to make it through the House.
What exactly is left that Democrats want to get done and Republicans are likely to work with them to finish?
(more)
Mitch McConnell’s problem: How can he threaten to obstruct the Senate even more?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/11/mitch-mcconnells-problem-how-can-he-threaten-to-obstruct-the-senate-even-more/~~
~~
Filibuster reform needs to come with big gains in order to be worth such high costs. And so, historically, the Senate only considers major changes when the minority is obstructing something the majority really, really cares about. In 1917, it was a law that was a prelude to entering World War I. In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, it was civil rights.
What’s so odd and interesting about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s threats to eliminate the filibuster on executive-branch nominees is that the impetus is the exact opposite: The majority is considering rules changes precisely because there’s nothing more the minority can obstruct that they really, really care about.
These aren’t usual times in the Senate. So far as Reid is concerned, Republicans have already killed pretty much everything else the Democrats might want to do. When he’s been confronted with the argument that Republicans might bring everything to a stop if Democrats change the rules, I’m told Reid’s reply is sharp: “And that would be different how?”
Consider the record. Republicans abandoned a budget deal in favor of the mess that is sequestration. Gun control failed. Student loan rates doubled. Republicans are promising another debt-ceiling showdown. And now immigration looks unlikely to make it through the House.
What exactly is left that Democrats want to get done and Republicans are likely to work with them to finish?
(more)
July 12, 2013
‘Scandal’ Falls Flat: IRS Approved Twice as Many Conservative Groups as Liberal Groups
http://occupydemocrats.com/scandal-falls-flat-irs-approved-twice-as-many-conservative-groups-as-liberal-groups/Omar Rivero
In 2010, the IRS correctly decided that any group with the words “tea party”, “patriots” or “9-12 project” in its name was sufficient enough to raise an administrative red flag.
Of course, the very same conservatives that didn’t raise any objections when President Bush’s Justice Department was caught illegally screening their potential lawyers in order to ensure that any new hires didn’t have liberal leanings, are now throwing an epic hissy fit over a simple administrative decision taken by mid-level IRS employees in Ohio.
The Inspector General’s recently concluded report about this administrative decision included an audit of 298 groups that had applied for tax-exempt status and received special schooling me. Of these 298 groups, 96 of them were flagged due to having one of these 3 “indicators” in their name.
Unfortunately, that is all that we know at this point. We still have no clue as to how many of the 298 groups were conservative and how many were liberal, because the IRS does not publicly release the name of groups that have applied for tax-exempt status.
Fortunately, the IRS does publish the names of groups that not only received a special scrutiny, but were actually approved for tax-exempt status. They recently made public list of 176 organizations that have been approved since the year 2010.
The results are likely to confuse conservatives and validate liberal criticisms of Fox news and the Tea Party’s cynical persecution complex:
- 122 conservative groups
- 48 Liberal/nonconservative groups
- 6 unknown
(more)
In 2010, the IRS correctly decided that any group with the words “tea party”, “patriots” or “9-12 project” in its name was sufficient enough to raise an administrative red flag.
Of course, the very same conservatives that didn’t raise any objections when President Bush’s Justice Department was caught illegally screening their potential lawyers in order to ensure that any new hires didn’t have liberal leanings, are now throwing an epic hissy fit over a simple administrative decision taken by mid-level IRS employees in Ohio.
The Inspector General’s recently concluded report about this administrative decision included an audit of 298 groups that had applied for tax-exempt status and received special schooling me. Of these 298 groups, 96 of them were flagged due to having one of these 3 “indicators” in their name.
Unfortunately, that is all that we know at this point. We still have no clue as to how many of the 298 groups were conservative and how many were liberal, because the IRS does not publicly release the name of groups that have applied for tax-exempt status.
Fortunately, the IRS does publish the names of groups that not only received a special scrutiny, but were actually approved for tax-exempt status. They recently made public list of 176 organizations that have been approved since the year 2010.
The results are likely to confuse conservatives and validate liberal criticisms of Fox news and the Tea Party’s cynical persecution complex:
- 122 conservative groups
- 48 Liberal/nonconservative groups
- 6 unknown
(more)
July 12, 2013
The House Oversight committee’s top Democrat on Friday will release new evidence that the Internal Revenue Service targeted both progressive and conservative groups for extra scrutiny during the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) said in a draft letter to committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif) that congressional investigators have discovered training materials from an July 2010 “Screening Workshop” that prove IRS agents were told to be on the lookout for groups from both sides of the political spectrum.
A PowerPoint presentation from the workshop told IRS processors to screen for names that look like “tea party,” “patriots,” ” 9/12 Project,” and “progressive.” It noted that such groups ”may be more than 50% political,” which could disqualify them from tax-exempt status.
Minutes from the training session show that the IRS also instructed agents who had any doubts about groups to “err on the side of caution and transfer to 7822,” an IRS office in Cincinnati that reviewed applications for tax-exemption.
(more)
[font size="3"] I have never seen any information on how many "Tea Party", 'anti-tax' groups there were requesting tax exempt status versus how many "liberal" sounding groups. Anybody have info on that?[/font]
Democrats offer new evidence that IRS targeted progressive groups
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/07/12/democrats-offer-new-evidence-that-irs-targeted-progressive-groups/The House Oversight committee’s top Democrat on Friday will release new evidence that the Internal Revenue Service targeted both progressive and conservative groups for extra scrutiny during the 2010 and 2012 election cycles.
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) said in a draft letter to committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif) that congressional investigators have discovered training materials from an July 2010 “Screening Workshop” that prove IRS agents were told to be on the lookout for groups from both sides of the political spectrum.
A PowerPoint presentation from the workshop told IRS processors to screen for names that look like “tea party,” “patriots,” ” 9/12 Project,” and “progressive.” It noted that such groups ”may be more than 50% political,” which could disqualify them from tax-exempt status.
Minutes from the training session show that the IRS also instructed agents who had any doubts about groups to “err on the side of caution and transfer to 7822,” an IRS office in Cincinnati that reviewed applications for tax-exemption.
(more)
[font size="3"] I have never seen any information on how many "Tea Party", 'anti-tax' groups there were requesting tax exempt status versus how many "liberal" sounding groups. Anybody have info on that?[/font]
July 12, 2013
After a failed attempt earlier, the House GOP has finally passed legislation to fund U.S. farm policy for the next five years. The only catch? This new legislation is missing the $743 billion for food stamps that had been in previous bills.
Instead, House Republicans decided to focus solely on passing a package of subsidies for farmers and agribusinesses worth about $195 billion over the next 10 years. (The final vote was 216 to 208.)
Unlike the Senate farm bill, the House version has no funding whatsoever for food stamps for the poor. The House leadership has said it will come back later this month and try to scrounge up money for food aid in a separate piece of legislation.
So what happens now? There are a few possibilities:
(more)
[font size="+1"]Whether it's 1934 or 2013 some things, like Republicans, never change.
Let student loan interest rates double rather than have Hedge fund managers lose their special tax loop-hole.
And people who can't find work because Republicans fucked the economy over the last 30 years? ......
Let'em eat dirt. [/font]
It's good for their immune system.
?itok=MTV7bjMt
?1365720068
House Republicans finally pass a farm bill — with no money for food stamps
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/11/the-house-just-passed-a-farm-bill-with-no-money-for-food-stamps-what-does-that-mean/After a failed attempt earlier, the House GOP has finally passed legislation to fund U.S. farm policy for the next five years. The only catch? This new legislation is missing the $743 billion for food stamps that had been in previous bills.
Instead, House Republicans decided to focus solely on passing a package of subsidies for farmers and agribusinesses worth about $195 billion over the next 10 years. (The final vote was 216 to 208.)
Unlike the Senate farm bill, the House version has no funding whatsoever for food stamps for the poor. The House leadership has said it will come back later this month and try to scrounge up money for food aid in a separate piece of legislation.
So what happens now? There are a few possibilities:
(more)
[font size="+1"]Whether it's 1934 or 2013 some things, like Republicans, never change.
Let student loan interest rates double rather than have Hedge fund managers lose their special tax loop-hole.
And people who can't find work because Republicans fucked the economy over the last 30 years? ......
Let'em eat dirt. [/font]
It's good for their immune system.
?itok=MTV7bjMt
?1365720068
July 12, 2013
... "In the past month, Senate Democrats lost a vote on their bill to offset the $6 billion cost of keeping student loan interest rates at 3.4 percent by closing a tax loophole on hedge funds. Senate Republicans lost a vote on their bill to offset it by stripping money from a health care prevention fund.” [LVSun] (emphasis added)
~~
~~
It is more important that the ultra-rich be protected than it is for your son or daughter to find an affordable student loan.
Oh, wait, the Republican did offer another solution — just drop the preventative health care funding from the Affordable Care Act. Stripping funding for cancer screenings, anti-obesity programs, and health care awareness for youngsters didn’t seem very popular, so now the GOP has come back with “tweaks” to the FY 13 budget for offsets. These would include requiring federal employees to contribute 1.2% more to their own retirement funds, a revision of Medicaid taxes, auditing Social Security overpayments, and changing the timeline for the accrual of student loan interest. The Republican wrote to the President, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) responded: “…if Republicans were really serious about negotiating a plan to pay for the bill, they would be meeting with Democrats on the Hill, not writing letters to the president.” [USN] Harkin also added that there was no way the Tweaks added up to a real solution.
And, what’s really interesting – is that in the past there was Republican support for closing the very loophole the Democrats are now suggesting. [USN] How do we spell O b s t r u c t i o n i s m?
Student Loan Rates Will Double So GOP Can Protect Tax Breaks for the Top 0.5%?
http://desertbeacon.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/student-loan-rates-will-double-so-gop-can-protect-top-0-5/... "In the past month, Senate Democrats lost a vote on their bill to offset the $6 billion cost of keeping student loan interest rates at 3.4 percent by closing a tax loophole on hedge funds. Senate Republicans lost a vote on their bill to offset it by stripping money from a health care prevention fund.” [LVSun] (emphasis added)
~~
~~
It is more important that the ultra-rich be protected than it is for your son or daughter to find an affordable student loan.
Oh, wait, the Republican did offer another solution — just drop the preventative health care funding from the Affordable Care Act. Stripping funding for cancer screenings, anti-obesity programs, and health care awareness for youngsters didn’t seem very popular, so now the GOP has come back with “tweaks” to the FY 13 budget for offsets. These would include requiring federal employees to contribute 1.2% more to their own retirement funds, a revision of Medicaid taxes, auditing Social Security overpayments, and changing the timeline for the accrual of student loan interest. The Republican wrote to the President, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) responded: “…if Republicans were really serious about negotiating a plan to pay for the bill, they would be meeting with Democrats on the Hill, not writing letters to the president.” [USN] Harkin also added that there was no way the Tweaks added up to a real solution.
And, what’s really interesting – is that in the past there was Republican support for closing the very loophole the Democrats are now suggesting. [USN] How do we spell O b s t r u c t i o n i s m?
July 10, 2013
Summary
The American experience with genetically modified food crops, while encouraging, does not justify complacency about potential risks for several reasons. First, our experience is quite limited in important ways. Only two traits, herbicide and insect resistance, have been significant commercial successes. Crops with other traits have failed to achieve commercial success, have been held back by companies, or never made it through the research and development pipeline.
Second, the U.S. government provides very little post-market oversight of biotech foods. A recent report by the U.S.-based Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (cited above) questions the ability of the government's weak monitoring and enforcement systems to detect unexpected human health and environmental problems and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.59 In fact, the current "don't look, don't find" approach to monitoring is likely to detect only the most dramatic, highly visible effects.
Third, the scientific underpinnings of risk assessment and risk management are chronically and severely underfunded. Compared with the amount of U.S. taxpayer funds spent on biotech product development and related research, very little is earmarked for research on risks of engineered products. For example, in the 11-year period of 1992 to 2002, the USDA spent approximately $1.8 billion on biotechnology research and approximately $18 million on risk-related research.60 Many features of genetically modified food crops, for example, impacts of stacked genes and unresolved issues about Bt allergenicity, raise concerns that have simply not been adequately investigated.
Fourth, the diversity promised in future products and the new, more complex issues they are likely to raise are expected to severely challenge a regulatory system already straining under the comparatively light weight of today's products. This point is made by a trio of studies produced by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The first report, Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation, after reviewing the risks of crops engineered to produce insecticidal toxins and evaluating the EPA's program for regulating these crops, recommended that the agency strengthen its oversight.61
~~
~~
Finally, the scientific evidence available to date, while encouraging, does not support the conclusion that genetically modified crops are intrinsically safe for health or the environment. The next generation of products—crops engineered to produce drugs and industrial chemicals64 and crops engineered to alter regulatory and metabolic pathways65—offer far more numerous traits and appear to be more obviously dangerous than Bt and herbicide-tolerant crops. It would be a serious misstep to overread the positive early experience with Bt and herbicide-tolerant crops and conclude that the weak regulation currently in place will suffice to control the risks of these and other new crops.
Union of Concerned Scientists study: current scientific evidence does not assure the safety of GMOs
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/environmental-effects-of.htmlSummary
The American experience with genetically modified food crops, while encouraging, does not justify complacency about potential risks for several reasons. First, our experience is quite limited in important ways. Only two traits, herbicide and insect resistance, have been significant commercial successes. Crops with other traits have failed to achieve commercial success, have been held back by companies, or never made it through the research and development pipeline.
Second, the U.S. government provides very little post-market oversight of biotech foods. A recent report by the U.S.-based Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (cited above) questions the ability of the government's weak monitoring and enforcement systems to detect unexpected human health and environmental problems and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.59 In fact, the current "don't look, don't find" approach to monitoring is likely to detect only the most dramatic, highly visible effects.
Third, the scientific underpinnings of risk assessment and risk management are chronically and severely underfunded. Compared with the amount of U.S. taxpayer funds spent on biotech product development and related research, very little is earmarked for research on risks of engineered products. For example, in the 11-year period of 1992 to 2002, the USDA spent approximately $1.8 billion on biotechnology research and approximately $18 million on risk-related research.60 Many features of genetically modified food crops, for example, impacts of stacked genes and unresolved issues about Bt allergenicity, raise concerns that have simply not been adequately investigated.
Fourth, the diversity promised in future products and the new, more complex issues they are likely to raise are expected to severely challenge a regulatory system already straining under the comparatively light weight of today's products. This point is made by a trio of studies produced by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The first report, Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation, after reviewing the risks of crops engineered to produce insecticidal toxins and evaluating the EPA's program for regulating these crops, recommended that the agency strengthen its oversight.61
~~
~~
Finally, the scientific evidence available to date, while encouraging, does not support the conclusion that genetically modified crops are intrinsically safe for health or the environment. The next generation of products—crops engineered to produce drugs and industrial chemicals64 and crops engineered to alter regulatory and metabolic pathways65—offer far more numerous traits and appear to be more obviously dangerous than Bt and herbicide-tolerant crops. It would be a serious misstep to overread the positive early experience with Bt and herbicide-tolerant crops and conclude that the weak regulation currently in place will suffice to control the risks of these and other new crops.
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 05:25 PMNumber of posts: 6,436
