A Quest to Cultivate Jobs and Citizenship By Kira Zalan

The Occupy movement says big government is in bed with big business. But House Democratic Senior Whip Mike Honda [Japanese-American], who represents California’s Silicon Valley, says he advocates for the 99 percent. The six-term representative from the Golden State’s 15th District serves on the House Appropriations and Budget committees, is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and chairman emeritus of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. He recently spoke with U.S. News about his education bill, bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States, and standing up for Muslim-Americans. Excerpts:

Are there jobs open in the Silicon Valley?
Oh yeah, lots of jobs. There are probably a couple of thousand at least. I talked to Oracle and they said they had something like 1,500 jobs globally, and a good part of that was located right in the Silicon Valley.

Can these positions be filled?
The kind of jobs we have available require more training and education.

Are the needs of the high-tech job market not being met?
There’s two things. One is how we view education, and that’s why the bill I’m pushing out there addresses making sure that our youngsters get exposed to science, technology, engineering, math [STEM] issues and processes. Two, the immigration system is so screwed up right now. Ever since 9/11 we have stopped inflows of graduate students, scholars, professors from other countries. People who wanted to go to our graduate schools are now opting to go to other countries.

What is the purpose of the STEM bill?
To produce youngsters who are STEM-ready, to start in pre-kindergarten and make sure that every child has an opportunity to understand that science and technology happens every day in our homes. When you freeze water or you boil eggs, you’re doing chemistry. When kids fix their cars, they’re doing physics, putting cars on bricks rather than using jacks. You’re doing science all the time and [kids] start to readjust their understanding of what they do on a daily basis, and all of a sudden science is not a mystery anymore, and that’s the key for STEM. 

You have authored several federal education proposals. Meanwhile, some members of the Tea Party have advocated to shut down the Department of Education.
Of course they want to, because they don’t want an electorate that’s going to think, that’s going to be able to be more critical.

Is the Department of Education functioning the way that it should?
You know, [Jimmy] Carter started the Education Department because our society had reached a point where we needed to look at our public school system in a comprehensive way. We had achieved a society that’s able to communicate in real time across this country and yet we’re not achieving the equity that we need for each child. And now because it’s not been as successful, the Tea Party people want to give it up rather than achieve that dream that each child will have the right and exposure to equal opportunity education. And that should be our goal.

Is there a future for manufacturing in America?
Our companies started looking overseas to get cheaper labor and thinking that cheaper labor will give us cheaper products, and we can export our jobs overseas and then import the products. OK, that was a start, but also our country did not make [the business] environment the most productive and the most friendly because we were concerned about the environment and all that stuff. Well, we’re at a point where we understand all these things and so we can make it more streamlined.

How would you bring manufacturing back?
We can encourage manufacturers to stay in this country by providing tax credits for those companies that want to build their products here. And if we give them the proper incentives, they will stay here. If we make the environment in this country more amenable for manufacturers, then we should be able to do that.

Is this a realistic goal in an innovation-focused economy?
What Steve Jobs had done, and he’s a good example of keeping the innovation here, he created the iPod, then next came the iPhone, then next came the iPad. So he kept the innovation here, but the production of these things went overseas. So what would happen if we kept it all here—the innovation, the product development, and the manufacturing? If we kept it all here, then we’d have more jobs created here and we’d become more globally competitive.

How did the Congressional Progressive Caucus come up with the People’s Budget?
We went out and gathered information from all these viable polls that people took and we looked at it and we started hammering together a budget that was reflective of the needs of the people. Because a budget is a product and reflection of our values, and so those values are the motivation for putting the People’s Budget together. And so we put together our own budget and said this is a product that’s based upon the response of people.

Does it address entitlement programs?
We’re not going to minimize, we’re not going to voucherize, we’re not going to privatize the three things that people really don’t want to see touched. We don’t want to minimize, but strengthen Medicaid. We don’t want to voucherize Medicare, we want to build it up and make it stronger. And we don’t want to privatize Social Security. Those things remain intact because they are a contract between the people and its government.

Why is President Obama’s jobs bill stalled?
The Republican leadership don’t want him to succeed. That’s a quote from [GOP] Sen. [Mitch] McConnell. He says our goal is to make sure that President Obama is not successful. Well, if you have that in mind as the motivation, then people in this country are not part of their motivation. Their job is to make sure there’s a barrier and obstruction to what is good for this country. So everything that’s coming out of the Senate under their leadership, we can expect that it’s not going to be good. Because whatever’s good for the country is good for the president’s reputation, and something they therefore don’t want to support.

You’ve recently called attention to the congressional hearings on Muslim-American radicalization. Why?
The Japanese-Americans in 1942 were vilified because of the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor. We became targets and they looked at us as enemy aliens. And they wouldn’t let  us be in the military and they called us the enemy within. Now this is the same thing that [Rep.] Peter King is espousing through his use of this office and inciting fear, hysteria, and mistrust towards people who are different. A commission in 1986 said the reason why the Japanese-Americans were incarcerated was because of racial discrimination, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership. And I’ll be damned if this happens under my watch.

Any advice for the 99 percent?
The people have to go to the polls to really exercise their franchise. Every citizen has that responsibility to make sure that they cast their vote, and their voice is going to be the conscience of this country.

  U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | December 16, 2011

Christmas and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir

With the Christmas season upon us, I, of course, watched the Mormon Tabernacle Christmas Choir on PBS tonight! As usual they were wonderful.... but, actually I have seen greater performances from them in earlier years. So guess you can’t win ‘em all. But even so, there is no other spectacular as spectacular as they! They are as perfect and as in unison as the cells in our bodies or as in the rest of nature.

I’m a Humanist. I know for certain that there is not a God as most religions envision. There is no creator nor more importantly, one who “watches down upon us” nor “cares for us”.  ....sadly, nor is there a place for us after we die.

Yet.... there is a spirit, not terribly mystical, but which does bind us together as humans. It is simply us. Yes, us! Even as other animals herd do we, especially in times of trouble. We really are very little different.

We can read a book, see a play, watch a movie... and we respond as the book, play or movie touches our memories or feelings and aspirations... and we laugh, get angry or cry depending upon the story. We are all very much alike, you see.  Yes I cry when the program says to.

So at Christmas time, the time of the winter solstace, when the nights are the darkest and the sun’s warming has ebbed, we humans band together not only for warmth, but for the light and sounds of our joy of new year and the reassurance of our survival.

The Mormon Tabernacle choir fills that need more than any other single effort for joy in humanities’s darkest hours. I love watching the show every year!

Try to have a merry Christmas, everyone and may your next year be better than the last!

The Animal In Us

A new model of empathy: the RAT
By David Brown, Published: December 8
My comments:  [opinion]

At the very least, the new experiment reported in Science is going to make people think differently about what it means to be a “rat.” Eventually, though, it may tell us interesting things about what it means to be a human being.  [primarily that we're not that different]

In a simple experiment, researchers at the University of Chicago sought to find out whether a rat would release a fellow rat from an unpleasantly restrictive cage if it could. The answer was yes.  [the thing that is surprising is that the rat could figure out how to free the other rat - not that it actually wanted to]

The free rat, occasionally hearing distress calls from its compatriot, learned to open the cage and did so with greater efficiency over time. It would release the other animal even if there wasn’t the payoff of a reunion with it. Astonishingly, if given access to a small hoard of chocolate chips, the free rat would usually save at least one treat for the captive — which is a lot to expect of a rat.  [if we accidentally step on the tail of one of our cats.... all of the others are very concerned]

The researchers came to the unavoidable conclusion that what they were seeing was empathy — and apparently selfless behavior driven by that mental state.

“There is nothing in it for them except for whatever feeling they get from helping another individual,” said Peggy Mason, the neurobiologist who conducted the experiment along with graduate student Inbal Ben-Ami Bartal and fellow researcher Jean Decety.

“There is a common misconception that sharing and helping is a cultural occurrence. But this is not a cultural event. It is part of our biological inheritance,” she added.  [I think that we would actually find that our 'culture' would and does harden us to uncontrolled empathy very often... hence wars and casualties]

The idea that animals have emotional lives and are capable of detecting emotions in others has been gaining ground for decades. Empathic behavior has been observed in apes and monkeys, and described by many pet owners (especially dog owners). Recently, scientists demonstrated “emotional contagion” in mice, a situation in which one animal’s stress worsens another’s.

But empathy that leads to helping activity — what psychologists term “pro-social behavior” — hasn’t been formally shown in non-primates until now.

If this experiment reported Thursday holds up under scrutiny, it will give neuroscientists a method to study empathy and altruism in a rigorous way.

Do age and gender affect empathic behavior? Will a rat free a rat it doesn’t know? Is more help offered to individuals an animal is related to, either directly or as a member of the same genetic tribe? What are the genes, and their variants, that determine whether one animal helps another and how much? Answering those questions becomes possible now that there is an animal “model” for this behavior.

“The study is truly groundbreaking,” said Frans de Waal, a primatologist at Emory University who has written extensively about empathy. What is particularly interesting, he said, is there appears to be no clear cost benefit trade-off going on.  [in other words, rats aren't capitalists!  ....what else is new?]

“We are entering a distinctly psychological realm of emotions and reactions to the emotions of others, which is where most human altruism finds its motivation.”

Jeffrey S. Mogil, the McGill University neuroscientist who showed emotional contagion in mice in 2006, said that “what is amazing about this is that it shows empathy in such a robust way. This is not something that rats would otherwise be doing.”  [really?]

A major question that needs to be answered next is whether the free rat liberates the captive one to relieve its own stress or the stress of the other animal.

“It’s more likely to be the former,” Mogil said. “But even if it is the former, I’m not sure that’s so different from humans.”  [We usually call that "guilt"]

In the new experiment, the pairs of rats were put in the experimental condition for an hour a day for 12 days. (They had previously spent two weeks together in a cage and knew each other.) The rat opened the door to the trapped rat’s cage by chance the first time, usually freezing in fright when it fell over noisily. In an average of seven days, however, it had learned to open the door intentionally and was no longer spooked when the door fell over.

In 13 percent of the sessions, the trapped animal gave an alarm call, but vocalized distress was clearly not necessary to put the free rat to work. When the cage was empty or occupied by a rat doll, the free rat sometimes opened it, but over the course of days lost interest in doing so.

After liberation, the rats nuzzled and explored the experimental arena. But when the setup was changed so that the captive exited into a different area, the free rat still opened the door for the captive one.

When a cage with five chocolate chips was added to the arena, the free rat opened it, too. That animal consumed all the treats if the other cage was empty. But if it contained a captive rat, the free rat shared the chocolate about half the time, letting its compatriot have 11 / 2 pieces on average.

“To actually share food — this is a big deal to a rat,” Mason said. “I didn’t think they would do that.”  [Capitalist!]

Mason sees two processes at work. The first is one animal’s ability to identify and share another animal’s stress. But equally important is the ability to control the “acquired” stress and keep from becoming overwhelmed. But that was something not every rat could do. All six female rats in the experiment learned to open the captive’s cage, but seven of 26 males never did.  [guys never cry]

“I don’t think it’s because they didn’t have empathy. I don’t think they had the ability to down-regulate their own stress and act on the empathy,” she said.

Mason thinks that empathy and altruism evolved with females caring for helpless offspring. Natural selection favored those maternal traits, which then became generalized to both sexes. They helped forge social bonds that aided the survival of individuals and groups. She suspects the behavior is “sub-cortical” — closer to a reflex than a thought, and driven by ancient parts of the brain. De Waal, who in 2009 wrote a book called “The Age of Empathy” whose cover featured a chimpanzee shaking hands with a man, agrees up to a point.  [Most of us function day-to-dat using only the ancient parts of our brains... yes, we can think on higher planes, but only when necessary or for entertainment]

“It is an intelligent response, but the motivation is, as in humans, an empathic process that is fairly automatic,” he said.  [as I said before, it feels like guilt]

Jaak Panksepp, a neuroscientist at Washington State University who wrote an accompanying commentary in the journal, said that many people still doubt that animals have emotional lives that can be studied.  [I feel sorry for them never having had animals for friends... even best friends]

“Some skeptics are bound to say that this interpretation is a bit far-fetched,” he said in an interview. “What this provides is reasonably good evidence for empathy, and a model system to study the underlying processes further.”

A Peaceful Revolution

I would really hate to see my nation involved in any form of armed rebellion. It was necessary for us to become independent from the British Empire but I think we were unwise not to allow the Confederate States to secede from the United States if they so wished... I think they had the right and the societal differences between the North and the South were very great! So now I worry that there is much too much power in the hands of those who promote the idea of unfettered Capitalism... otherwise known as pure Greed... where the few gain at the expense of the many.

Fortunately, I don't think this will come to military action where as in our Civil War, families were split apart depending upon which side mirrored their beliefs. There is the peaceful power of passive resistance exercised by Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and for example the demonstrators in Egypt, which simply, through discipline and numbers, allowed justice to prevail!

I think the hope for our present economic crisis can be settled by the Occupy movement which is gradually maturing and learning to walk and speak. Eventually, I think it will prevail and I hope our president is wise enough to support the effort. I found the following very enlightening piece posted on Yahoo News: 
 
Yahoo News:
ORLANDO, Fla. -- The Republican Governors Association met this week in Florida to give GOP state executives a chance to rejuvenate, strategize and team-build. But during a plenary session on Wednesday, one question kept coming up: How can Republicans do a better job of talking about Occupy Wall Street?
"I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death," said Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist and one of the nation's foremost experts on crafting the perfect political message. "They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism."
Luntz offered tips on how Republicans could discuss the grievances of the Occupiers, and help the governors better handle all these new questions from constituents about "income inequality" and "paying your fair share."
Yahoo News sat in on the session, and counted 10 do's and don'ts from Luntz covering how Republicans should fight back by changing the way they discuss the movement.
1. Don't say 'capitalism.'
"I'm trying to get that word removed and we're replacing it with either 'economic freedom' or 'free market,' " Luntz said. "The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we're seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we've got a problem."
2. Don't say that the government 'taxes the rich.' Instead, tell them that the government 'takes from the rich.'
"If you talk about raising taxes on the rich," the public responds favorably, Luntz cautioned. But  "if you talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no. Taxing, the public will say yes."
3. Republicans should forget about winning the battle over the 'middle class.' Call them 'hardworking taxpayers.'

"They cannot win if the fight is on hardworking taxpayers. We can say we defend the 'middle class' and the public will say, I'm not sure about that. But defending 'hardworking taxpayers' and Republicans have the advantage."

4. Don't talk about 'jobs.' Talk about 'careers.'
"Everyone in this room talks about 'jobs,'" Luntz said. "Watch this."
He then asked everyone to raise their hand if they want a "job." Few hands went up. Then he asked who wants a "career." Almost every hand was raised.
"So why are we talking about jobs?"
5. Don't say 'government spending.' Call it 'waste.'
"It's not about 'government spending.' It's about 'waste.' That's what makes people angry."
6. Don't ever say you're willing to 'compromise.'
"If you talk about 'compromise,' they'll say you're selling out. Your side doesn't want you to 'compromise.' What you use in that to replace it with is 'cooperation.' It means the same thing. But cooperation means you stick to your principles but still get the job done. Compromise says that you're selling out those principles."
7. The three most important words you can say to an Occupier: 'I get it.'
"First off, here are three words for you all: 'I get it.' . . . 'I get that you're angry. I get that you've seen inequality. I get that you want to fix the system."
Then, he instructed, offer Republican solutions to the problem.
8. Out: 'Entrepreneur.' In: 'Job creator.'

Use the phrases "small business owners" and "job creators" instead of "entrepreneurs" and "innovators."
9. Don't ever ask anyone to 'sacrifice.'
"There isn't an American today in November of 2011 who doesn't think they've already sacrificed. If you tell them you want them to 'sacrifice,' they're going to be be pretty angry at you. You talk about how 'we're all in this together.' We either succeed together or we fail together."
10. Always blame Washington.
Tell them, "You shouldn't be occupying Wall Street, you should be occupying Washington. You should occupy the White House because it's the policies over the past few years that have created this problem."
BONUS:
Don't say 'bonus!'
Luntz advised that if they give their employees an income boost during the holiday season, they should never refer to it as a "bonus."

"If you give out a bonus at a time of financial hardship, you're going to make people angry. It's 'pay for performance.'"

The South and Religious Tolerance?

I've had for many years, a jaded view of Southerners, their culture, and especially their intolerance of racial and religious differences. So I was very surprised in reading my "This Day in U.S. Military History" calender for November 21, 1861 about Judah Benjamin.

Judah was a Sephardic Jew from South Carolina.  As a young man he moved to a Jewish community in New Orleans.... and married the daughter of a wealthy Catholic family!

Benjamin practiced law, bought a sugar plantation near New Orleans, and became a representative in the Louisiana state legislature in 1842.  In 1852 he was elected to the U.S. Senate where he became a close friend to Jefferson Davis from Mississippi!

After the South's secession from the U.S., Davis selected Benjamin to be the Confederacy's first Attorney General and was Davis' most trusted adviser. After the disastrous battle at Bull Run the then Secretary of War, Leroy Walker resigned and Davis appointed Benjamin to that post despite his having no military experience! By so doing, President Davis was able to dominate the Confederate military.

In our present day of investigative reporting, the Internet, and TV news which is forced to keep on talking when there is nothing left to say, I'm not certain that such a relationship between Jew and Gentile could take place in the South considering that even a "Christian" and a Mormon can't find common ground.... but who knows?  Perhaps the South will bend once more in the style of Benjamin/Davis in view of their impending Armageddon which is just after the 2012 elections.

Immigration -- Illegal, of course....

As a relatively independent observer of American politics and immigration policies in that I am certainly as American as anyone else in this nation and I'm not personally affected by how many immigrants, legal or otherwise, this nation has, I feel quite free to express my unbiased opinion on this subject. I should mention that my ancestors were here well over one hundred years before the United States became a nation since they arrived here in the mid 1600's when we were yet an English colony.  

Over the couple of centuries our nation has existed, there have been many influxes of immigrants, legal and otherwise to help create the nation we now have. Peoples from all over the world, blacks from Africa, usually against their will, Chinese who helped build our western railroads, Germans and Russian Jews, and many other peoples, especially the Irish in the 1850's  who were starving after they lost their potato crops in Ireland and the English didn't attempt to help them. And then there were the indigenous folks called Indians who were incessantly forced at gun point west by American settlers who proclaimed that "the only good Indian is a dead Indian"! I heard this as a child in Montana where I lived across the river from a reservation, so we're not talking about ancient history!

We fought wars with Spain and then with Mexico to gain even more land, and even [reluctantly after three refusals] allowed the nation of Texas to join our confederacy of states. But we had nothing but disdain and contempt for the Indians of those lands we had acquired.

So when they cross the Mexican border because they are so impoverished in Mexico, despite their willingness to work hard at very menial jobs, we call them 'illegal immigrants' regardless of the fact that these lands which we stole from them were originally their homelands!

So, of course, we can pass all sorts of laws which justify their illegality, but we can't do so without proving to ourselves and the rest of the world that we are a merciless, greedy people who are only interested in our own welfare at everyone else's expense! ....after all, we are Americans and are certainly better than anyone else!  I'm sure the folks in Rome thought the same as they put Christians in the ring with the lions.

So, finally, there was this article in US News and World Report which prompted my reflections above.

A Divided Country
By Kira Zalan  [US News and World Report,  10-28-11]

For the second year in a row, a record number of illegal immigrants, nearly 400,000, have been deported by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The Obama administration credits the expansion of its Secure Communities program, a law enforcement information-sharing tool. The Warren Institute at the University of California–Berkeley School of Law used government data obtained through the Freedom of Information Act to analyze recent immigration enforcement statistics. The report’s lead author and director of immigration policy at the Warren Institute, Aarti Kohli, recently spoke with U.S. News about its findings, which include evidence of racial profiling, lack of due process in deportations, and the social implications of these trends.

What was the catalyst for this report?
Immigration enforcement programs in the interior of the United States have increased exponentially in the past decade. And we feel like these programs are understudied. There’s very little academic research on how they work, what the impacts are.

What did you find?
One of the most disturbing findings was that U.S. citizens were being arrested under the [Secure Communities] program. Approximately 3,600 U.S. citizens have been apprehended by ICE. We also found that almost 40 percent of the people identified for deportation programs have a U.S. citizen family member, either a spouse or a child.

Why is that important?
This is a really disturbing finding. Anecdotally, you hear a lot about family separations. I think for society at large it’s important to understand what are the future consequences of having these divided families. You report that a majority of those deported don’t have access to counsel. Is that legal? It is legal and what we call into question is not the legality of it but whether that comports with our system of justice and fairness. It’s very problematic that these people are being deported without due process of law.

Did you find evidence of racial profiling?
What we found was that Latinos are highly overrepresented in our samples. There have been other community groups who have raised this issue that perhaps some police are engaging in pretextual arrests because they know, once I get this person to the jail there will be an immigration check. So if an officer is interested in engaging in racial profiling, or targeting “illegals,” then this is a tool for that person.

What’s the problem with racial profiling?
We have more than 40 million lawfully residing Latinos in this country and they have dispersed demographically So you have new communities who have been exposed to a lot of rhetoric about immigration but may not understand all the realities and that a fair number of Latinos are actually lawfully residing here.

Is immigration politicized?
The reality is we have approximately 11 million undocumented people living in this country. Eighty percent of these people entered before the year 2000. Undocumented immigrants are an easy population for some politicians to demonize, but the reality is many of them have been and continue to be members of our society and have roots here.

Does this affect President Obama’s popularity among Latino voters?
I think the high number of deportations and this targeting of individuals at the local level is a real issue for the Latino community. There are a lot of questions about this strategy and its efficacy. So I think it’s a real issue for the administration.

First look at US pay data, it’s awful

I think this information should be presented to every American citizen who is not illiterate nor ultra wealthy. This is our nation and what happens to it is our responsibility!  However, we can not rule properly unless we know the truth about our economy and our livelihood and the welfare of our families.

David Johnston has provided the stark facts of our economy posted by our government which most of us can easily understand -- and without 30-second political promos! Those of us willing to read this just might change our minds about things in the 2012 elections... for your sake, not mine.

David Cay Johnston

Oct 19, 2011 17:15 EDT

employment | wages

Anyone who wants to understand the enduring nature of Occupy Wall Street and similar protests across the country need only look at the first official data on 2010 paychecks, which the U.S. government posted on the Internet on Wednesday.
The figures from payroll taxes reported to the Social Security Administration on jobs and pay are, in a word, awful.
These are important and powerful figures. Maybe the reason the government does not announce their release — and so far I am the only journalist who writes about them each year — is the data show how the United States smolders while Washington fiddles.
There were fewer jobs and they paid less last year, except at the very top where, the number of people making more than $1 million increased by 20 percent over 2009.
The median paycheck — half made more, half less — fell again in 2010, down 1.2 percent to $26,364. That works out to $507 a week, the lowest level, after adjusting for inflation, since 1999.
The number of Americans with any work fell again last year, down by more than a half million from 2009 to less than 150.4 million.

More significantly, the number of people with any work has fallen by 5.2 million since 2007, when the worst recession since the Great Depression began, with a massive taxpayer bailout of Wall Street following in late 2008.
This means 3.3 percent of people who had a job in 2007, or one in every 3330, went all of 2010 without earning a dollar. (Update: the original version of this column used the wrong ratio.)
In addition to the 5.2 million people who no longer have any work add roughly 4.5 million people who, due to population growth, would normally join the workforce in three years and you have close to 10 million workers who did not find even an hour of paid work in 2010.
SIX TRILLION DOLLARS
These figures come from the Medicare tax database at the Social Security Administration, which processes every W-2 wage form. All wages, salaries, bonuses, independent contractor net income and other compensation for services subject to the Medicare tax are added up to the penny.
In 2010 total wages and salaries came to $6,009,831,055,912.11.
That’s a bit more than $6 trillion. Adjusted for inflation, that is less than each of the previous four years and almost identical to 2005, when the U.S. population was 4.2 percent smaller.
While median pay — the halfway point on the salary ladder declined, average pay rose because of continuing increases at the top. Average pay was $39,959 last year, up $46 — or less than a buck a week — compared with 2009. Average pay peaked in 2007 at $40,764, which is $15 a week more than average weekly wage income in 2010.
The number of workers making $1 million or more rose to almost 94,000 from 78,000 in 2009. However, that was still below some earlier years, including 2007, when more than 110,000 workers made more than $1 million each.
At the very top, the number of workers making more than $50 million rose in 2010 to 81, up from 72 the year before. But average pay in this group declined $4.5 million to $79.6 million.
What these figures tell us is that there was a reason voters responded in the fall of 2010 to the Republican promise that if given control of Congress they would focus on one thing: jobs.
But while Republicans were swept into the majority in the House of Representatives, that promise has been ignored.
Not only has no jobs bill been enacted since January, but the House will not even bring up for a vote the jobs bill sponsored by President Obama. His bill is far from perfect, but where is the promised Republican legislation to get people back to work?
Instead of jobs, the focus on Capitol Hill is on tax cuts for corporations with untaxed profits held offshore, on continuing the temporary Bush administration tax cuts — especially for those making $1 million or more – and on cutting federal spending, which mean destroying more jobs in the short run.
At the same time, nonfinancial companies are sitting on more than $2 trillion of cash — nearly $7,000 per American — with no place to invest it profitably. This money cannot even be invested to earn the rate of inflation.
All this capital is sitting on the sidelines waiting for profitable opportunities to be invested, which will not and cannot happen until more people have jobs and wages rise, creating increased demand for goods and services.
More of the same approach we have had for most of the last three decades and all of the last ten years is not going to increase demand, create more jobs or enable overall prosperity. In the long run, continuing current policies will make even the richest among us less well off than they would be in a robust economy with government policies that foster job creation and the capital investment that grows from increased demand.
On top of this are the societal problems caused by something the United States has never experienced before, except during the Depression — chronic, long-term unemployment.
Having millions who want work go years without a single day on a payroll is more than just a waste of talent and time. It also can change social attitudes about work and not for the better.
The data show why protests like Occupy Wall Street have so quickly gained momentum around the country, as people who cannot find work try to focus the federal government on creating jobs and dealing with the banking sector that many demonstrators blame for the lack of jobs.
Will official Washington look at the numbers and change course? Or do voters need to change their elected representatives if they want to put America back on a path to widespread prosperity?
(Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh)

COMMENT

See all comments (76) | Add comment

Oct 20, 2011

7:38 pm EDT

Capitalism is not dead-only a fool/communist would make this claim! People need incentives to work, take risks/innovate or they’ll just pick the lowest fruit/take the path of least resistance and the rest will get stuck with the bill and resent it-ask Europe and see all of history! Capitalism is far from perfect and is broken bad, but it’s still the best model on planet earth!

Posted by DrJJJJ | Report as abusive

Tax repatriation

David Cay Johnston

Oct 19, 2011 12:00 EDT

offshore profits | tax holiday | u.s. corporate tax income | u.s. politics

By David Cay Johnston
The author is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.
The practice of favoring big corporations seems likely to take a costly leap forward soon, if Congress passes an $80 billion tax holiday for a handful of U.S. multinational corporations with untaxed profits overseas.
Sponsors of legislation to grant the holiday, which is gaining support in Congress, say it would encourage these companies to repatriate their profits, giving an infusion of cash to the sluggish U.S. economy that will create jobs.
But this ignores the negative impact on the losers: the other 99 percent of corporations who are not eligible for such a deal. Then there are the legions of workers likely to be pink-slipped, and taxpayers generally, who will have to make up the shortfall with more taxes and fewer services.
There are smarter ways to deal with the $1.4 trillion of U.S. profits sitting offshore and avoiding the U.S. corporate income tax. We’ll get to those solutions. But first, here are some facts on how the system works.
Companies license the rights to pharmaceuticals, software and other intellectual property to offshore subsidiaries, or they engage in cost-sharing arrangements with these offshore units.
The subsidiaries then charge the U.S. parent royalties and other fees, which the parent can count as tax-deductible expenses in the United States. And the subsidiaries take their profits in entities known as “tax nothings,” so-called because they are invisible to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. So long as the profits are indefinitely reinvested offshore, no tax is due. The problem arises when the companies want to bring the profits back to the United States. That is where a tax holiday comes in.
PFIZER TOP OF LIST IN ’04
When Congress passed a similar tax holiday in 2004, the biggest beneficiary was drug manufacturing giant Pfizer Inc , according to a report to Congress by the IRS in June 2008. Pfizer brought back $37 billion and saved $11 billion in taxes.
Since then, the company has piled up another $42.5 billion in untaxed profits overseas, its disclosure statement at the end of last year showed.
Pfizer is among several companies lobbying Congress for another holiday for untaxed offshore profits. It and other firms want an 85 percent tax rate discount. Under the bill before Congress — offered by senators John McCain, a Republican, and Kay Hagan, a Democrat — the discount would be 75 percent.
Are our politicians unaware that the biggest businesses, and the wealthiest business owners, already bear lighter tax burdens than those who make less?
Business owners who make more than $5 million from all sources pay lower median and average tax rates than those who make as little as $350,000, a new study by the Congressional Research Service shows.
Congress listens most to those who lobby and make campaign donations, so the other 99 percent of corporations and business owners, like the 99 percent of taxpayers, tend to get the burden, not the benefit, of tax favors.
BRONZE PLATES
Nearly 2,500 years ago, the Romans stopped the rich and powerful from twisting the law for their own benefit by publishing the Twelve Tables, bronze plates that set forth a host of laws. It had taken the illiterate Roman plebeians, the ancient 99 percent, two centuries of demonstrations to get the laws in writing.
Today’s 99 percent can read, but tax law is so difficult to decipher that it may as well be written in Latin.
And, as the tax holiday bill shows, the ancient problem of the rich twisting the law for their own benefit endures.
I cannot fathom any legitimate reason to reward companies for using tax havens to delay the payment of taxes.
Doing so would be unfair to every purely domestic U.S. company, which cannot take advantage of this proposed act of favoritism, and to every individual taxpayer.
Then there’s the issue of jobs. In 2004, Congress gave 843 companies an 85 percent tax break on untaxed profits parked offshore. Republican Sen. John Ensign said that law, called the American Jobs Creation Act, would create 660,000 jobs.
Instead, many companies destroyed jobs. Pfizer shed 48,000 workers between the end of 2003 and the end of 2009, its annual reports show.
Asked to comment, Pfizer said it could not quantify the effect of the 2004 law, not least because of its acquisition of Pharmacia, the maker of arthritis drug Celebrex, the year before. “Given the number of significant events occurring during this period, including changes to the healthcare industry landscape, Pfizer’s acquisition of Pharmacia, and the economic downturn, it is not possible to say with any certainty the number of jobs created or lost,” Pfizer said in a statement.
Overall, the Institute for Policy Studies, a liberal think tank, estimated that 600,000 jobs were destroyed by the 2004 law. Other studies show more than 100,000 jobs lost.
Democratic Senator Carl Levin, who chairs the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, released a report last week saying there is “no evidence that the previous repatriation tax giveaway put Americans to work, and substantial evidence that it instead grew executive paychecks, propped up stock prices, and drew more money and jobs offshore.”
OFFSHORE TAX PENALTY?
There is a smarter approach, one that would help with the United States‘ economic and fiscal woes:
Congress should impose a 50 percent tax on untaxed offshore profits earned in 2010 and earlier, unless they are repatriated by Dec. 31. Companies that repatriate would pay the standard 35 percent corporate income tax rate. If companies do nothing, which is unlikely, the measure would raise about $700 billion, slashing the deficit this fiscal year by 63 percent.
Second, Congress should require that, to escape the 50 percent tax, any repatriated profits be immediately paid out as dividends — on top of any existing dividends paid in 2011. Not all dividends would be taxed immediately, because many shares are held in pension funds and endowments. But the flow of cash would help the economy because, after all, the tax holiday sponsors say a flood of cash from overseas is just what the economy needs.

COMMENT

See all comments (9) | Add comment

Oct 19, 2011

5:47 pm EDT

Ugh! As soon as someone mentions offshore assets, people get hysterical and come up with ludicrous proposals to force corporations to bring the money home and subject profits that were already subject to foreign tax, to a separate batch of dividend taxes. Ridiculous moves like this will only encourage corporations to redomicile elsewhere. Even though offshore tax havens are notoriously high cost places to conduct actual business, if policymakers push hard enough, it might just become economical to move whole corporate headquarters abroad.
The whole discussion assumes that all international corporate tax planning involves shifting profits to a mailbox beside a sandy beach in a low-rate tax haven. While I don’t deny that some of that does happen (and should be audited heavily), a lot of international corporate tax planning revolves around more mundane concerns, like how to fund a business’s international operations.
As a general principle, tax should only be paid on income once, in the jurisdiction in which it is earned when it is earned. America subjects income that was earned abroad, regardless of whether it was active business income, or passive investment income, to full taxation when the corporation seeks to repatriate it. Double tax is the real injustice, and the reason why corporations continue to defer repatriation.
At the very least, America should allow corporations to claim credits for previously paid foreign tax against the repatriation taxes. Better still would be to allow profit legitimately earned through active business operations to return tax free.

Posted by pheebel_wimpe | Report as abusive

Pipeline profiteering

David Cay Johnston

Oct 17, 2011 14:14 EDT

federal energy regulatory commission | oil and gas | profits | regulation

By David Cay Johnston
The opinions expressed are his own.
Last year a fourth of the nation’s oil pipelines earned excessive profits, at up to seven times the rates allowed these regulated monopolies, according to an explosive analysis prepared by a former general counsel for the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
R. Gordon Gooch, the former counsel, alleges in his Oct. 3 study, for instance, that Sunoco’s Mid-Valley Pipeline, which carries crude oil from Texas to Michigan, earned a 55 percent return on assets. That is seven times its authorized profit margin, based on a calculation derived from an accounting report the company filed with FERC.
Three other regulated monopoly pipelines earned more than 40 percent on their assets, while another three earned more than 30 percent, an examination of their FERC filings by Reuters shows.
To put that level of profitability into context, overall nonfinancial businesses earned a 6.7 percent after-tax profit on their assets last year, the latest Bureau of Economic Affairs report shows.
In a competitive market, profits are unlimited except for the discipline of competition. Because there is no market to discipline monopolies, Congress created FERC, which sets prices, known as rates, for pipelines and some other energy monopolies.
FERC is supposed to balance the interests of customers and owners, making sure customers are charged only “just and reasonable” rates and that owners earn “just and reasonable” profits on top of recovering actual costs.
‘JUST AND REASONABLE’
The test of whether that standard is met is revealed each year on a document, filed to FERC under oath, known as Page 700. Line 9 shows how much it cost a pipeline to provide service, including a generous allowance for taxes and its profit. Line 10 shows actual revenues.
The two lines ideally should match, except for minor timing differences. When they do, it indicates the “just and reasonable” standard has been met. If Line 10 is larger, it shows extra profits.
Last year, 47 of the nation’s 175 regulated monopoly oil pipelines reported significantly larger figures on Line 10 than Line 9, as Gooch details in his analysis.
Gooch submitted his findings as part of a FERC rulemaking procedure. He was FERC general counsel from 1969 to 1972. Then he enjoyed a long career as a litigator in pipeline rate cases on behalf of oil companies, known as shippers, who pay pipeline companies to transport their liquids, crude and refined.
Having covered these issues for four decades, I think Gooch’s position here is solid as can be.
The rulemaking at issue would affect how costs are calculated on annual Form 6 reports, of which Page 700 is the most significant part.
“If this rulemaking is adopted as is,” Gooch wrote, “there will be no effect on the unlawful revenues, no risk to the public utilities at all. In fact, their ability to collect unlawful excess profits with impunity may be enhanced.”
FERC spokesperson Mary O’Driscoll said that since Gooch’s analysis was filed in a rulemaking proceeding, the commission will respond in the proceeding. She said, “The commission is not going to speak outside of the proceeding.”
None of the five FERC commissioners responded to my telephone calls to their offices. Only Sunoco Logistics, controlling owner of Mid-Valley Pipeline, returned my calls.
‘APPROVED BY FERC’
The key defense to the excess profits charge is shown in what Sunoco Logistics told me. Spokesman Joe McGinn said its rates “are approved by FERC and follow all FERC rules and guidelines.”
And that is the scandal. Not just that companies are earning excess profits, but that FERC seems to look the other way and enable this.
Gooch argues that the rulemaking proceeding he commented on in his analysis would institutionalize excess rates and make it difficult for a court to stop oil pipeline owners from collecting more profit than is lawful.
Retired now, Gooch has become a full-time reformer trying to stop what he sees as rules designed to destroy the “just and reasonable” tenet of utility regulation.
The issues here are not academic. Unless controlled, monopolies can cause massive economic damage. Excess profits amount to a tax on the public for private gain.
Utilities have been promoting the theory of deregulation because they know it lets them, as monopolists, escape the rigors of both regulation and competition.
Consumers bear the burden of these excess profits every time they pump gasoline or fly in a jetliner.
Accounting reports show that oil pipeline profiteering has gone on for years under administrations of both parties.
FERC is a small federal agency whose decisions exert a broad impact on the economy, yet it gets little news coverage. Commissioners and key staff come from, and go back to, the energy industries they regulate.
FERC’s budget is financed not with taxes, but fees paid by the energy industries.
On the “just and reasonable” standard, a controlling decision by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1984 instructed FERC that “not even a little unlawfulness is to be tolerated.”
Yet in 2005 FERC granted the SFPP pipeline a rate hike nine times greater than its increased costs, Gooch wrote.
THE OCTOPUS
The SFPP pipeline is a corporate descendant of the railroad monopolies that caused California so much economic damage a little more than a century ago that they were known as The Octopus.
Despite the easy-to-spot evidence of profits that are far in excess of authorized rates, earlier this year the commissioners gave all 175 pipelines the freedom to raise rates by 6.8 percent per year compounded for the next five years.
Sunoco’s Mid-Valley Pipeline was entitled to a profit of $3.9 million in 2010, but comparing the two lines shows an actual profit seven times that large, more than $27 million.
The latest annual pipeline rate hike was approved in a way that makes consumer challenges virtually impossible.
A general rate case would open every pipeline expense, including taxes and profits, to scrutiny. The commissioners avoided that by granting an indexed rate increase to all pipelines with no proof of higher costs required.
This latest index rate increase will generate $3.4 billion more in excess profits over the next five years, Gooch calculated.
Gooch said he filed his analysis because he believes that if the excess profits were brought to the commission’s attention they would have to stop the profiteering.
He said FERC has failed to “redress years of toleration of unlawful conduct by some oil pipelines.”
By filing his report, he said, “it does not seem likely that any commissioner, past or present, would turn a blind eye to unlawful excess profits of some public utilities if the results of the annual report filings had been called to their attention.”
Here are a few of the questions Gooch’s report raises:
What is the point of filing accounting reports, especially under oath, if their contents are ignored?
Why would a government agency help monopolies whose rates it sets earn more than just and reasonable profit margins?
Why have President Obama (and before him Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton) appointed commissioners closely allied with the energy industry instead of consumer advocates?
Why has Congress not investigated FERC?
There are many more questions. This column will be pursuing answers about how FERC not only ignores, but actively helps, monopoly pipelines gouge the public.  (Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh)
This column first appeared on Thomson Reuters News & Insight.

Q&A: Norman Lear -- Not Good Times in Politics

By Kira Zalan

Television has long been used to push social agendas, and Norman Lear, a television writer and producer, addressed the social and political issues of the day in his 1970s sitcoms, including All in the Family, Sanford and Son, The Jeffersons, and Good Times. Concerned by what he saw as the rise of the “Christian right” influence on American society and politics, in 1981 Lear launched an organization called People for the American Way. The progressive advocacy group just celebrated 30 years. Lear, who is turning 90 next year, recently spoke with U.S. News about the changes he’s seen in American politics, why Hollywood tends to be liberal, and the projects he is working on now. Excerpts: 

Is America divided today?
More divided. And more divided along the same lines that concerned me 30 years ago.

Can you be more specific?
Religion in the public square. More of it now than existed then. I was amused at first with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. What I was seeing on TV, the proliferation of evangelicals and so forth. And as I saw more and more the mix of politics and religion, I became far more concerned.

Why were you concerned?
Well, it’s not my understanding of what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do. There is a wall of separation. This is not a Christian nation, this is a nation open to all religions. Now that’s my understanding of the Constitution. That is why I flew 52 missions in World War II.

So you used media to challenge the evangelicals?
I did what I knew to do best, which is do a couple of TV spots and use the media I knew. And the first TV spot had a working guy simply telling the camera that he and his wife and his kids just sitting around the kitchen table argue all the time about politics and they all have different views. And here come ministers on TV and radio, and even in the mail, and telling them they’re good Christians or bad ones, depending on their political point of view. Anyway, he winds up saying, there’s got to be something wrong when anyone tells you, even if it’s a minister, that you are a good or a bad Christian depending on your political point of view. And then the last thing he says is, “That’s not the American way.” And so People for the American Way came out.

What is your single biggest victory?
It isn’t the biggest victory, but one that occurred to me was defeating Robert Bork as a nominee [by President Reagan] to the Supreme Court. And what makes me laugh is that he was chosen by Governor [Mitt] Romney to be the head of his judicial committee. So it is funny, all these years later.

What is your take on the GOP presidential candidates?
I have a long correspondence with President Reagan, totally in disagreement, on the same subject, by the way—the religious right occupying too much space in the White House, coming and going too easily in the White House, and the influence I was concerned about on him. But we maintained a civility that resulted in a friendship. So you asked me in the beginning what I miss most 30 years later? That degree of civility. I will say too that in 1982, I did a twohour special on ABC called “I Love Liberty,” and it was devised to take the flag and the Bible back, for all of us. It doesn’t just belong to the Christian right, it belongs to all of us. And I had Barry Goldwater and Jane Fonda on the same stage, and President Ford and Lady Bird Johnson were my co-chairs. So it’s possible in our country to have a degree of civility that allows you to be bitter enemies politically but respectful. I mean you can disagree totally on political issues and still maintain a relationship of respect.
 
What is the most urgent challenge today?
I would say helping people understand that this country thrives when it hears from its citizens, whether they’re agreeing or protesting, when they are participating, and when they are unfettered by religious doctrines that insist that they can’t vote their conscience this way or that because it isn’t agreeable to the church.

What’s your take on the Occupy Wall Street protests?
I take them very seriously. That’s an awful lot of people around the world distressed. Attention must be paid. I very much value the fact that it exists because people are expressing themselves. And isn’t that what we’re supposed to be about?

What is their message?
The message coming through for me is “we are distressed.” I mean, do we have to explain to you we’re not working, our homes are being foreclosed? You know, come on, how much do we have to tell you?

Which TV shows today push the social envelope?
I think South Park does a great job. As does Family Guy. It’s amazing, it’s the animated shows that seem to be doing 90 percent of that in comedy.

Is Hollywood a liberal town?
I think writers, directors, producers, people who are holding up a mirror to, or looking into the nature of people, or humans as a species, tend to be liberal, tend to be progressive. Look, I think of myself as a bleeding-heart conservative. You know, you will not screw with my Bill of Rights and my Constitution. I’m conservative on these issues. But do I care about the next guy and the people that don’t have equal opportunity? Call me a bleeding heart. But Democrats per se do not represent what I feel today. I’m much more a bleeding heart in that sense and much more conservative in the other sense.

Have Democrats moved too much to the center?
Yeah, I think the center is bullshit. The center is: I don’t want to tell you who I am. Most people think that America is too ideologically divided today. I don’t think there’s a Democratic Party that’s proud of saying, “I’m on the left.” Like that’s a nasty word. And we’ve begun to believe that it is nasty. And “progressive” and “liberal.” The far right has done a very good job of forcing Democrats to abandon who they are.

How are these labels seen today?
We’re made to believe that they’re bad words. Now aligned in the public mind with a socialist. And a liberal is far from a socialist. Or maybe they’re not far from a socialist, but what the hell is bad about a socialist? It’s another way of thinking. That’s what we’re supposed to be all about, just another way of thinking.

How has President Obama done?
I had hoped he would help us look in the mirror, all of us, and see our own humanity. And help us understand that the lust for power, greed, you know, all of that is part of our human nature. So is transcendence. We are born with the capacity for both.

What is your organization up to today?
There are three things about it that couldn’t excite me more. Right Wing Watch, they’re on the Internet, a great publication. Another is Young Elected Officials. There are over 700, close to 800, young mayors, councilmen, a fabulous network of progressive, idealistic young people. And then there’s Young People For, they’re all in high   school and college. And I take great hope from what’s happening with them.


7 U.S.NEWS WEEKLY | October 21, 2011 | www.usnews.com/subscribe

Items of Interest This day

 
UN: Population to hit 7 billion by end October
The global population will hit 7 billion on Oct. 31 and hit 8 billion by 2025, the United Nations Population Fund says. The increasing population is driving spikes in energy and food prices, and highlights the need for family-planning services for more than 200 million women worldwide. The Globe and Mail (Toronto) (10/17)

Bangladesh struggles to improve sanitation
Public campaigns that promote the use of toilets as a component of a modern lifestyle and highlight the health benefits of proper hygiene are needed to help improve sanitation in Bangladesh, according to water and sanitation experts. Nearly half of the Bangladeshi population still lives in areas without proper sanitation. IRINNews.org (10/14)

Research finds that trees improve crop yields in Africa
Research finds that crop yields in Africa could be increased by planting trees that improve the quality of soil, as well as "climate proof" agricultural land by acting as conduits to bring water to surface root systems, like those of crops. BBC (10/15)

It’s called the "Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey",  (snip-it)
It is a relatively new report that was started by the Labor Department in late 2000. Its latest report showed approximately 3.2 million job openings in July in the United States, about the same number as June. The total number of openings is up about 1.1 million jobs from July 2009, but it’s still short of the 4.4 million openings reported in December 2007........

..........But employers say they’re having trouble finding applicants who fit the requirements for open positions. In a recent survey by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, 40 percent of the members of the Inc. 500 (a group of the fastest-growing companies in the country) reported that the biggest impediment to growing their companies was finding qualified people. “That clearly speaks to the skills gap that exists,” says Thom Ruhe, director of entrepreneurship for the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.......  [engineers, scientists, AI technicians, etc.]

.......Many of the unemployed get left behind in today’s leaner, more educated economy. “There’s a clear bifurcation between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots,’” he says. “You have large parts of the population that just aren’t employable.”

Thoughts and Facts on Uranium Mining in Northern Arizona

When most people hear the words 'nuclear energy', they usually think of nuclear weapons and nuclear power stations.  These are in fact what most uranium is used for, in about equal amounts. Uranium has other uses, which however require only a tiny amount of the world's uranium. Some of these uses can be substituted for by less harmful products.

So the real question about uranium mining is whether we need more atomic bombs or nuclear energy plants. Of course the answer is two-fold.

1. We certainly don't need any more nuclear weapons anywhere in this world -- including, and especially, those nations who do not yet have "the bomb". (I remember very clearly as a parent in the bomb-shelter era of the cold war)

2. The second answer is less clear. Nuclear power plants which are spread out over the world do a marvelous job of providing energy but it seems the problems in Japan certainly show how vulnerable a community can be when something which "has never happened before", actually happens. Many communities are having second thoughts about nuclear power. Most certainly, more extensive safeguards are required.


Colorado is considered to have the third largest uranium reserves of any US state, behind Wyoming and New Mexico. Obviously, Arizona is not a leading source of Uranium in the United States... and indeed, the price has fluctuated over the years when discoveries are found in other parts of the world and mines are closed and reopened depending on market prices.

The primary problem with uranium mining is the contamination of water sources, rivers, streams, lakes, and underground aquifers.  In 2005 the Navajo Nation declared a moratorium on uranium mining on the reservation, for environmental and health reasons.

"Uranium mining caused many Native Americans and animals to become sick. Some problems were that there were a limited amount of water located on the reservation, so locals would have to travel long distances for water. The Mines would leave contaminated waters unattended and would not even put up fences to prevent anyone from passing through. So the native(s) would bring their livestock and gather water at the contaminated area. This caused mutations between the animals and the Native People.[Note: this last statement has not been verified - it is hearsay - but most certainly probable.]

Three former uranium mill sites in Colorado are currently United States Environmental Protection Agency‎ National Priorities List [Superfund] sites: ...and let us not forget that the taxpayers pay for Superfund projects!


1. Denver Radium Site, Denver
Lincoln Park, adjacent to the Cotter Corporation uranium mill at Canon City in Fremont County. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‎ is supervising cleanup of waste from previous operations. The mill still has a license to process uranium ore.

2.Uravan Uranium Project, at the now-abandoned town of Uravan, in Montrose County.

3. In addition, there are 15 Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) sites in the state, under the purview of the United States Department of Energy. Eight of the sites are former uranium ore mills, and seven are engineered permanent disposal sites for the mill tailings.

Uranium was discovered in the Orphan copper mine near the south rim of the Grand Canyon in 1950. The mine has been private property since 1906, and is today completely surrounded by Grand Canyon National Park. The discovery led to the finding of uranium in other collapse breccia pipes in northern Arizona. The breccia pipes were formed when overlying rocks collapsed into caverns formed in the Mississippian Redwall Limestone. The pipes are typically 300 feet (91 m) in diameter, and may extend up to 3,000 feet (910 m) vertically.

There are currently no producing uranium mines in Arizona. Denison Mines plans to begin mining its Arizona One mine in 2007. The deposit is in a breccia pipe on the Colorado Plateau of northern Arizona. In March of 2011, the State of Arizona issued air and water permits to Denison which would allow uranium mining to resume at three locations north of the Grand Canyon, subject to federal approval.

On May 3, 2010, the  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notified Denison Mines Corp. that its Arizona 1 mine, located 35 miles from Fredonia (north rim of the Grand Canyon), Arizona, has been issued a Finding of Violation (FOV) for emissions that violate the Clean Air Act.


In July 2009 Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced a two-year ban on new mining on federal land in an area of approximately 1 million acres (4,000 km2) surrounding Grand Canyon National Park. Although the ban is on all mining, the main effect is on exploration and development of breccia-pipe uranium deposits. Those claims on which commercial mineral deposits have already been discovered are exempt from the ban. During the two-year ban the Department of the Interior will study a proposed 20-year ban on new mining in the area.

Since the resurgence of uranium mining in the area, mining company officials have continuously assured the public that mistakes made in the past would not be repeated. This notice of violation from the EPA signals that uranium executives may talk a good game about changes in the industry’s approach to mining but, in fact, it’s business as usual.

Thoughts on our future as a nation and the "Tea Party"

I guess that I'm a bit slow but I finally realized what the Tea Party is all about and why I oppose it's attitudes and motives so much. 

I read the following paragraph in the news: "The bill also upset some tea-party activists, who want Republicans to abandon the effort to take E-Verify to a national level. Some lawmakers believe that states should be free to enact their own E-Verify laws, to ease concerns over the federal government imposing on states’ jurisdictions."

It is the old argument of state's rights vs federal law and jurisdiction. I'm well aware of the rather unclear 10th Amendment in our Bill of Rights ratified on December 15, 1791. It states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that "powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people".

My problem with this amendment is that in 1861 we fought a very prolonged and bloody Civil War over just that amendment!  The Confederacy donated about 260,000 men to settle their side of the argument and actually leave our nation while the U.S. Government  [North] donated 364,511 men to "preserve our nation" intact. So, over 646,000 Americans gave their lives to settle this question! It was exactly 150 years ago that there was such a huge loss of life - more than in any other war in American history except for WWII!

The question was and is, should we be a single sovereign nation or should we be a confederation of 50 independent nations (similar to the colonies who first authorized our Constitution)?  The federal government won the war and the states were rendered secondary or subservient to the central government.

The problem with war - as with almost any argument, no one ever really wins in the long run. Southerners knew they lost the battles, but they still believed in their cause and maintained that someday "the South would rise again!" The Tea Party is just one of many attempts to reinsert state's rights into legislation both at state levels but especially within the federal government through elected representatives who are more interested in the welfare of their own states than they are in the elephant in the room, the federal government - or the American people who are represented by the government!

Now, I understand that people want to have local control of their communities, counties and states. The federal government certainly can't micro manage every little hamlet in this expansive country.... The Civil war didn't eliminate local governments but they did pass universal laws which all communities and states have to live under. Such laws are more important today than they were one hundred years ago because our population has more than doubled and more importantly has become much more mobile. Americans need to live under a universal set of primary laws regardless of where they may chose to live. They needn't have to have passports nor feel they are entering a foreign country if they move from one state to another. True some laws may differ, but they are usually minor.

It does happen that a state may pass laws contrary to national interests, but they usually are redacted. A good example is when a number of years ago California outlawed cable television allowing only free TV captured via antenna or 'rabbit ears'! Think about it! The fear at the time was that cable TV would eliminate free TV!

We are indeed a single unified nation because many of the facilities we use are national such as our highway system and electrical grid. Laws regarding our ecology, mining, oil and gas production and distribution including pipelines, etc. would founder in a system of fifty nation-states. Can you imagine fifty versions of Social Security or Medicare such that if a retiree were to move to a different state, he/she would lose coverage? For example, California would be overcrowded with elderly retirees wherein Arizona who profits from retired Californians would lose this lucrative source of income and business?

Thus, I maintain that our nation comes first. The drives and ambitions of the individual states comes second, just as the prosperity of the individual is completely dependent upon the largesse of the society wherein he lives. If it is a repressive society, he can not succeed. It is the society which nurtures success and allows the individual to thrive.

Thus, I'm certain that if the Tea Party has its way and resumes control of our government with a like-minded president, our nation is in for a very gloomy period of reflection on what we did wrong and what ever happened to the good life we used to have.

Just a couple of items.....

Last Christmas I was given a daily calendar called "This day in U.S. Military History".  I've found it personally interesting... especially for those dates involving the Revolutionary War and our Civil War since I'm very interested in American history - especially the history which involved my paternal family line since about 1650 (and any maternal lines I can find). 

However, of interest, on the 16th of September I note that "United States imposes the draft".  It says, "On this day in 1940, the Burke-Wadsworth Act is passed by Congress, by wide margins in both houses, and the first peacetime draft in the hisory of the United States is imposed. Selective Service was born!

It not only preceded our involvement in WWII which was declared in December of 1941 but continued on long enough for me to almost be drafted for the Korean Peace Action. In January 1950, I was number 16 on the draft list for that month in Santa Clara County in California so I immediately enlisted in the Unites States Air Force where I might have a better chance of doing something more useful rather than kill the enemy - or be killed!

I served my time well, I think, and was more successful in doing good for my country (and myself) during my four year stint in the USAF than I would as "canon fodder" in a campaign which has historically received mixed blessings as a justifiable war -- the first of several later wars which, I think have been totally unjustifiable!  Most important for me, of course, is that I survived!

We don't have the draft now having opted to hire a mercenary military. The reason for this, of course, is that when one's children are faced with being drafted during wartime, as one of my kids were....  and the war is not popular, the government which favors war has a serious political problem! So the draft was eliminated and the Vietnam war was ended just before my son would have had to serve. So, no problem, right?

Actually, not right! ....because how else can the parents of a nation's children object to their country going to war because, after all, their children are volunteers?  Obviously those who go to war are willing to go to war! Isn't it interesting that all males in Switzerland must serve in the nation's military?  Switzerland hasn't gone to war within my lifetime of eighty years!

I think that probably the only way to end our warlike behavior is to re-invoke the draft!

The demise of solar energy in America?

I read recently that solar energy and probably any alternative energy efforts were a boondoggle and died when Solyndra went bankrupt and that Obama's support for the company made him complicit in the crime.

Let me suggest a US News and World Report which commented this week and I quote, that, "Solyndra, a solar manufacturing company based in Fremont, Calif., that specialized in producing a newtype of cylindrical solar photovoltaic panels, was the Obama administration’s clean energy poster child back in September 2009 when it announced a loan guarantee deal with the Energy Department. Early this month, however, after receiving $527 million in federal funds over two years, the company filed for bankruptcy protection"

But that is not the end of the story. As the article said, "According to the Energy Department, more than two years of due diligence were completed before the loan was approved. At the time, Solyndra’s new rolled-tube technology showed potential."

"However, after the deal was signed, the global solar market changed, as did Solyndra’s business prospects. A large influx of Chinese state loans to domestic silicon producers and a decline in demand in the European market drove down the price of polysilicon, and Solyndra lost its competitive advantage with other solar manufacturers around the world."

"Also, Solyndra’s bust demonstrates that the global market often moves faster than the federal government," says Nick Loris, an energy policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “This just goes to show that it isn’t the role of the government to pick winners and losers, and usually the government’s picking the losers because the winners can compete in the marketplace without the subsidies,” Loris says.

Really?  Let me suggest that it was the US Government which put a man on the Moon along with the enumerable programs which created the technological advances we now enjoy in computers, TV, cell phones, and virtually anything digital!. Private industry has never had the financial ability to encourage and develop the scientific advances which were made in the 20th century which were sponsored by the US Government -- but they certainly took advantage of them the results of the research - provided for free by the taxpayer!

However, considering the loss of Solyndra and its solar cell efforts, let me mention a headline in the September 2011 issue of the "Economic Development Journal", a newspaper serving Mohave County [AZ]. They announced  that "Site appraisals underway for $6 billion solar energy industrial complex in Laughlin [NV]."

The article which is rather long and detailed, starts out with the statement, "Site appraisals are underway to determine the value of 5,400 acres that a Chinese company wants to lease or purchase for development of a large solar energy industrial complex in south Laughlin, Nev., and project site is uniquely situated to deliver power to the California market."

It goes on to say that, "A lawyer acting as an agent for Mojave Energy Corporation, former Nevada Governor and Senator Richard Bryan, said the company wants to build and operate a one-million square-foot, 720-megawatt solar generating facility that would manufacture solar panels and employ 2,000 people in permanent skilled manufacturing positions."

Is this deja vu all over again?  Remember when the Japanese controlled the automotive market and American automakers couldn't compete?  Too young? -- well, I remember!  I think the thing to remember is that one shouldn't
blame anyone for the failure of a company when times and competition changes. At this point all we can really say is that the Chinese are better at capitalism than we are!  As I recall, the Japanese started up automobile manufacturing plants in depressed places like Tennessee and didn't have to deal with fair labor laws or unions.......

August 19, 1953: CIA Backs Coup Against Iranian Government

I'm posting this from my "This Day in U.S. Military History" calendar produced by www.History.com.

My reason is to remind us of the fact that there are many things we did to people and nations during the 'Cold War' which today are coming home to roost. .....in this case, Iran! [AG]

The Iranian military, with the support and financial assistance of the United States government, overthrows the government of Premier Mohammed Mosaddeq and reinstates the Shah of Iran. Iran remained a solid Cold War ally of the United States until a revolution ended the Shah's rule in 1979.

Mosaddeq came to prominence in Iran in 1951 when he was appointed premier. A fierce nationalist, Mosaddeq immediately began attacks on British oil companies operating in his country, calling for expropriation and nationalization of the oil fields. His actions brought him into conflict with the pro-Western elites of Iran and the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi. Indeed, the Shah dismissed Mossadeq in mid-1952, but massive public riots condemning the action forced the Shah to reinstate Mossadeq a short time later. U.S. officials watched events in Iran with growing suspicion. British intelligence sources, working with the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), came to the conclusion that Mossadeq had communist leanings and would move Iran into the Soviet orbit if allowed to stay in power. Working with Shah, the CIA and British intelligence began to engineer a plot to overthrow Mossadeq. The Iranian premier, however, got wind of the plan and called his supporters to take to the streets in protest. At this point, the Shah left the country for "medical reasons." While British intelligence backed away from the debacle, the CIA continued its covert operations in Iran. Working with pro-Shah forces and, most importantly, the Iranian military, the CIA cajoled, threatened, and bribed its way into influence and helped to organize another coup attempt against Mossadeq. On August 19, 1953, the military, backed by street protests organized and financed by the CIA, overthrew Mossadeq. The Shah quickly returned to take power and, as thanks for the American help, signed over 40 percent of Iran's oil fields to U.S. companies.

Mossadeq was arrested, served three years in prison, and died under house arrest in 1967. The Shah became one of America's most trusted Cold War allies, and U.S. economic and military aid poured into Iran during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. In 1978, however, anti-Shah and anti-American protests broke out in Iran and the Shah was toppled from power in 1979. Angry militants seized the U.S. embassy and held the American staff hostage until January 1981. Nationalism, not communism, proved to be the most serious threat to U.S. power in Iran.

How the 'debt deal' will affect retirees

So, friends and relatives, we must now become much more aware of our economic future as we enter a new age of "everyman for himself" government. For the first time in American (including colonial) history, the 'old folks at home' are now on their own -- and hopefully they chose wisely!

By Robert Powell, MarketWatch
Aug. 4, 2011

BOSTON (MarketWatch) — Now for the hard part. Retirees and those on the cusp of their golden years will need to revisit their financial plan in the wake of President Barack Obama signing the debt-ceiling law.

The new law calls for $1 trillion in spending cuts spread over the next 10 years. And though it’s short on specifics, experts say there’s still plenty older Americans should put on their to-do and to-think-about list. Here’s the list. Work on plan B

If there’s any lesson to be learned from the recent debacle in Washington, D.C., it’s this: Don’t run your personal finances the way the U.S. government does. “Don’t live beyond your means, and don’t increase your debt levels, especially when heading into retirement,” said Greg Rosica, a tax partner in the personal financial services group at Ernst & Young and a contributing author to the Ernst & Young Tax Guide 2011. “Don’t emulate the federal government.”

Get your 401(k) back on track
With millions out of work, many people have been forced to take a break from contributing to their retirement account. But once they start saving again, how can they get back on track? Here are some tips.

More retirement advice
• The 10 worst states for retirees
• Tax mistakes to avoid in your retirement plan
• Eight retirement resolutions
• Seven steps to a sound retirement Investing in retirement
• What to ask before buying an annuity
• Special Report: Retirement income for life
• Retirement products' rising prices Social Security and Medicare
• Four Medicare myths
• Hike your Social Security benefits
• Figuring your Social Security benefits
• Social Security: What couples should know
• Timing your Social Security benefits
• Fix Social Security by hiking retirement age
• Delaying benefits can pay off on Social Security

That aside, Rosica is of the mindset that the best thing retirees and would-be retirees could do now is to prepare for whatever specific cuts (and possibly taxes) might come when the committee charged with coming up with the details of the debt deal meet later this year.

For instance, retirees and would-be retirees should review the federal or state programs which they rely upon for services or income and consider the effect of cuts to those programs. It’s a bit nebulous at the moment, but it’s working on a plan B, he said. “If you rely on some specific program for day-to-day living it would be wise to know how you would be affected by spending cuts,” Rosica said.

As part of this exercise, experts suggested that older Americans rethink their retirement model and run some ‘what-if’ scenarios with other sources of income, including financial capital and Social Security.

Kathy Sutton, a director of editorial for Broadridge Investor Communication Solutions, Inc., suggested that people nearing retirement ought to pay special attention to inflation. “One likely scenario for Social Security is that cost-of-living adjustments may be calculated differently, resulting — though there have been no CPI adjustments lately — in lower annual adjustments”

Short-term interest rates to remain low
And investments, as most have already noticed this week, are affected by the new debt-ceiling law. Bob LeClair, an associate professor at Villanova University and a principal with Leimberg Information Services, Inc., predicts that short-term interest rates will remain low for quite some time, and it might be time to move assets around to get a bigger bang for the buck.

Investors have about $2.7 trillion in these short-term funds, essentially earning nothing, or next to it, said LeClair. So, investors — especially those who are living off the interest and dividend income — might want to rebalance their portfolios to generate a bit more income. They might, for instance, consider moving further out on the yield curve, say one to three years, to pick up some additional interest income. And they might consider investing in an index fund. The SPDR S&P 500 ETF SPY +0.60% has a current dividend yield of about 2%. The Vanguard Short-Term Investment-Grade ( VFSTX 0.00% has a current yield of about 3% and the average maturity of the holdings in the fund is three years.

Of course, LeClair warned that moving further out on the yield curve and investing in index funds are not without risks. “You have to be prepared for the volatility that goes with them,” he said. “You can’t have your cake (higher income) and eat it, too — safety of principal.”

Bond funds would be subject to interest rate risk (as rates rise bond prices will fall), while stocks would be subject to market risk (the risk that stocks will decline in value for good and not-so-good reasons).

Others agree that moving out on the yield curve could be risky. “Seniors still need to keep an eye on interest rates, said Mary Frakes, a senior investing editor with Broadridge Investor Communications Solutions. “Even though the immediate threat of a downgrade (to U.S. credit rating) seems to be off the table with, at least, Moody’s Investors Services and Fitch Ratings, we’re still on negative watch for a potential downgrade later if deficit reduction levels aren’t deemed sufficient.”

And though interest rates may stay low for the immediate future, a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating or the Federal Reserve Bank eventually starting to raise interest rates would likely adversely affect bond portfolios. “Many seniors may not realize that bond prices fall as interest rates rise,” said Frakes. “There would be an upside, though, since rising rates would actually benefit senior savers who have maintained a solid cash position but have suffered from low rates.”

Cuts to Medicare, Medicaid providers
Medicare and Medicaid advocates are predicting that cuts to providers will adversely affect family physicians, hospitals and elderly patients. And that means retirees and would-be retirees need to plan ahead for the likely changes to Medicare and Medicaid.

There’s certainly going to be some uncertainty relating to Medicare, if the soon-to-be appointed committee doesn’t come up with recommendations that are passed by Dec. 23, 2011, automatic cuts will kick in beginning 2013, said Jim Walsh, vice president of editorial for Broadridge Investor Communication Solutions. “While Medicare beneficiaries won’t directly see a reduction in benefits were this to happen, it’s not hard to imagine some of the potential problems seniors may experience if there are further reductions in payments to providers. And of course, with ‘everything on the table’ as the committee looks for an additional $1.5 trillion in savings, it seems to me that all entitlement spending, including Social Security, faces some uncertainty.”

Read Powell’s column “Get ready for Social Security, Medicare meltdowns” for more advice on how to plan for possible changes to Medicare and Social Security.

Others, meanwhile, suggest that it might be high time to consider such products as long-term care insurance to insure against the risk of high out-of-pocket expenses in retirement. “There will be pressure to reduce health-care costs over the coming decade,” said LeClair. “More expenses will be pushed onto individuals.”

Given that, LeClair suggested that buying long-term care insurance might prove a wise and prudent decision. “The problem, however, is that it’s expensive and some retirees and near retirees may not be able to afford it or qualify for it,” he said.

Read Powell’s column “Retirement products: rising costs, fewer providers” to learn more about the current state of the long-term care insurance business.
Taxes to rise

Las Vegas might not have odds on this one just yet, but it is a good bet that state and local taxes will rise as the federal government doles less and less to states. “I call it ‘trickly-down austerity,’” said LeClair. “Local communities will have no alternative but to raise property taxes and other fees to make up the difference.”

LeClair’s advice: Retirees and those nearing retirement may want to think about relocating to communities and/or states that have lower tax rates if they can afford to do so.”

For his part, Mark Luscombe, a principal analyst with CCH, a Wolters Kluwer business, said there is no immediate impact on retirees from the debt-ceiling law. Or at least there’s not from a tax point of view. No tax provisions were included in the legislation, Luscombe said. “The legislation did call for a joint Congressional committee to address tax reform by the end of the year and for Congress to approve that legislation to avoid across-the-board spending cuts. Even if that tax legislation were enacted, it is expected that the provisions would for the most part not be effective until 2013.”

Others, however, are predicting if not tax increases, some sort of tax reform. “In my opinion, I also think significant tax reform — not necessarily an overall increase — is a given in the next two years,” said Walsh.

With some provisions such as the Alternative Minimum Tax patch expiring, and current rates and other major provisions expiring at the end of 2012, something is going to happen, said Walsh. “It may not make a major difference to the average senior, but higher-income seniors could really be affected,” he said. “Throw in potential changes or expiration of current estate tax rules and higher-income seniors are going to have a lot to digest and deal with.”

Get ready to work longer
Given that retirees will likely pay more for health care in the future, that federal, state and local taxes will rise, that interest rates will remain low, and that there’s a potential for cuts in Social Security benefits, odds are high folks will either work longer or postpone retirement indefinitely.

“Part-time work may also become more common,” said LeClair. “Early retirement will fade and more people will work at least until they qualify for full Social Security benefits. Some may consider working until age 70 to maximize Social Security payments.”

[Read the MarketWatch Retirement Adviser special report on how to maximize your Social Security benefits while working.
Robert Powell is editor of Retirement Weekly, published by MarketWatch. Learn more about Retirement Weekly here. Follow his tweets here.
Robert Powell has been a journalist covering personal finance issues for more than 20 years, writing and editing for publications such as The Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, and Mutual Fund Market News.]