Friday, November 30, 2012

Robert Reich: Opening Positions on the Cliff Deal: Deja Vu All Over Again

So the bidding has begun.

According to the Wall Street Journal (which got the information from GOP leaders), the president's opening bid to Republicans is:

-- $1.6 trillion in additional tax revenues over the next decade, from limiting tax deductions on the wealthy and raising tax rates on incomes over $250,000 (although those rates don't have to rise as high as the top marginal rates under Bill Clinton)

-- $50 billion in added economic stimulus next year

-- A one-year postponement of pending spending cuts in defense and domestic programs

-- $400 billion in savings over the decade from Medicare and other entitlement programs (the same number contained in the President's 2013 budget proposal, submitted before the election).

-- Authority to raise the debt limit without congressional approval.

The $50 billion in added stimulus is welcome. We need more spending in the short term in order to keep the recovery going, particularly in light of economic contractions in Europe and Japan, and slowdowns in China and India.

But by signaling its willingness not to raise top rates as high as they were under Clinton and to cut some $400 billion from projected increases in Medicare and other entitlement spending, the White House has ceded important ground.

Republicans obviously want much, much more.

The administration has taken a "step backward, moving away from consensus and significantly closer to the cliff, delaying again the real, balanced solution that this crisis requires," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) in a written statement. "No substantive progress has been made" added House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio).

No surprise. The GOP doesn't want to show any flexibility. Boehner and McConnell will hang tough until the end. Boehner will blame his right flank for not giving him any leeway, as he's done before.

It's also clear Republicans will seek whatever bargaining leverage they can get from threatening to block an increase in the debt limit -- which will have to rise early next year if the nation's full faith and credit is to remain intact.

Meanwhile, the White House has started the bidding with substantial concessions on tax increases and spending cuts.

Haven't we been here before? It's as if the election never occurred -- as if the Republicans hadn't lost six or seven seats in the House and three in the Senate, as if Obama hadn't won reelection by a greater number of votes than George W. Bush in 2004.

And as if the fiscal cliff that automatically terminates the Bush tax cuts weren't just weeks away.

Déjà vu all over again.

But if it's really going to be a repeat of the last round, we might still be in luck. Remember, the last round resulted in no agreement. And no agreement now may be better than a bad agreement that doesn't raise taxes on the wealthy nearly enough while cutting far too much from safety nets most Americans depend on.

If Republicans won't budge and we head over the fiscal cliff, the Clinton tax rates become effective January 1 -- thereby empowering the White House and Democrats in the next congress to get a far better deal.

ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage," now available in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.


Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich



Nativity Scenes Lawsuit Dismissed

LOS ANGELES -- A Los Angeles federal judge on Thursday dismissed a Christian group's lawsuit to force suburban Santa Monica to reopen spaces in a city park to private displays, including Christmas Nativity scenes.

U.S. District Court Judge Audrey Collins issued the ruling after earlier this month denying an injunction sought by the Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee.

Christmastime Nativity scenes had been erected in Palisades Park for decades. Last year, atheists overwhelmed the city's auction process for display sites, winning 18 of 21 slots and triggering a bitter dispute.

The city then banned private, unattended displays at the park.

An attorney for the group says he plans to appeal the ruling.

Collins had said the city was within its constitutional right to eliminate the exemption that had allowed the Nativity at the oceanfront Palisades Park because the change affected all comers ' from Christians to Jews to atheists ' and provided other avenues for public religious speech.

The coalition of churches that had put on the life-sized, 14-booth Nativity display for decades argued the city banned it rather than referee a religious dispute that began three years ago when atheists first set up their message alongside the Christmas diorama.

In her ruling Thursday, Collins said the coalition has other options.

"For instance, plaintiff could erect displays in some public parks around the city (excluding Palisades Park) as part of a one-day community events permit, or plaintiff could erect attended displays in all of the city's public parks," Collins wrote in her 25-page ruling. "Plaintiff raises several arguments to suggest that these alternatives are not adequate, but none is persuasive."

The trouble in Santa Monica began three years ago, when atheist Damon Vix was granted a booth in Palisades Park alongside the story of Jesus Christ's birth.

Vix hung a sign that quoted Thomas Jefferson: "Religions are all alike -- founded on fables and mythologies." The other side read "Happy Solstice." He repeated the display the following year but then upped the stakes significantly.

Vix recruited 10 others last year to inundate the city with applications for displays and the atheists used half their spaces, displaying signs such as one that showed pictures of Poseidon, Jesus, Santa Claus and the devil.

Most of the signs were vandalized and in response the city ended a tradition that began in 1953 and earned Santa Monica one of its nicknames, the City of the Christmas Story.

Click through photos of the atheist displays and nativity scenes in Santa Monica from December 2011: All photos courtesy of Atheists United:
  • Atheist sign defaced.

  • Atheist sign defaced.

  • Atheist sign defaced.

  • Atheist sign defaced.

  • Atheist sign defaced.

  • CBS



Cerian Jenkins: Clicktivism: A Model For 21st Century Activism?

A war is being fought. Its battlefields are the pages of social networking sites across the globe, and its soldiers are armed with placards and computer cursors. This is the battle of traditional activism versus clicktivism.

As a politics student who recently co-coordinated the launch of Peace Of Paper, an online community peace project, and who works within the field of online community management, this topic is one which continues to perturb me, often leading to my changing opinion throughout any discussion about its intrinsics.

Despite what you may think, the conflict between traditional activists opposing the online marketisation of social change and digital activists (often referred to derogatively as 'slacktivists') is not a particularly new one. Back in 1987, a husband and wife team sold their California-based software company for $13.8m, allowing the politically left-leaning founders to start an online political organisation called 'MoveOn'. This site combined the principles of modern marketing with the technical skills of computer programming, and has been referred to as 'the model for 21st century activism'.

Not everyone shares this optimistic view, however. In 2010, Micah White wrote "we've come to rely far too heavily on a particular form of internet organizing...we have become so dependent on digital gimmicks that our revolutionary potential is now constrained".

In many ways this rings true; we have become obsessed with the digital marketing measurements of click-throughs, retweets and likes, assigning value only to that which we can quantitatively record. By doing this, we neglect a vital human element; that spark behind activist movements and revolution which ignites and inspires each individual to stand up, raise their voice and be heard.

Micah White goes on to argue that 'clicktivism reinforces the fear of standing out from the crowd and taking a strong position. It discourages calling for drastic action. And as such, clicktivism will never breed social revolution. To think that it will is a fallacy. One that is dawning on us'.

Could this be right? In 2012, are we completely turning our backs on the trend of online petitions and 'click causes'? If not, should we be?

Contrary to what I've written in the past, I would argue not. I'd like to speak out in defence of clicktivism; a bit of online activism for online activism, if you will.

Whilst it is certainly true that clicktivism often lacks the traditional gusto and media-friendly frenzy witnessed in 'real life' activism, such as protests and marches, it shouldn't be consigned to the scrapheap of irrelevancy quite yet. In fact, in many ways it is doing a service for traditional activism by piquing the interest of those who might not otherwise have noticed a cause - clicktivism places the issues of today slap bang in your face(book) and makes them hard to ignore.

Critics of digital activism are often quick to loudly dismiss it as ineffective and inefficient, but often they are referencing only the 'passive clicktivism' tactics such as online petitions and Facebook status campaigns. They fall into the trap of overlooking the more proactive (though not necessarily positive or indeed completely successful) digital projects and organisations, a handful of which are outlined below.

Kony 2012

Created by the NGO Invisible Children, KONY2012 was released on March 5th this year in partner with an ongoing campaign to raise the profile of Ugandan cult and militia leader, indicted war criminal and International Criminal Court fugitive Joseph Kony, with the aim of having him arrested by December 2012 - the time when the campaign expires.

The film, which is about 30 minutes long, is a masterpiece of evocative, compelling narrative - combining heart melting snippets of conversations with creator Jason Russell's own son with gut-wrenching facts about the atrocities being committed by Joseph Kony and his men, the film has lessons for anyone who wants to communicate in a way that inspires emotion and action. It is the anatomy of a viral success in the 21st century.

Although the film was the target of a furious backlash (as well as reports surrounding the mental breakdown of creator Jason Russell), the promotional video undeniably was a viral success. As of today (28/11/12), the film had over 94 million views on Youtube alone. It was also shared on Vimeo and, of course, on the Invisible Children website itself. In fact, Invisible Children's first video was the speediest ever to reach 100 million views - incredibly, a poll conducted at the time suggested that over half of young adult Americans had heard about the video and the campaign in the days following the film's release.

But what has the 'real' impact of this campaign been?

The film also called for an April 20 2012 world wide canvassing campaign, called 'Cover the Night', though this was far less successful than the original campaign; after waking up to an awkwardly low turnout for 'Cover the Night', one tweet noted that they 'Find the silence around #Kony'12 interesting. It's muted embarrassment from prior supporters, mixed with quiet smugness from detractors."

It seems that despite the initial online momentum, Invisible Children's toughest challenge may just be trying to remain visible.

It's not all doom and gloom; though it appears to have lost a lot of its momentum, the campaign is still inspiring some to take action - on November 17th 2012, roughly 3000 people - mostly college aged students - descended on the White House in Washington to push the KONY2012 campaign forward. Wearing red shirts, they raised banners and chanted slogans, and even busted out glowsticks for a rave after the official protest.

Most notably perhaps, it has resulted in a resolution by the US Senate and contributed to the decision to send troops by the African Union.

Anonymous

Love them or hate them, you certainly know about them.

A loosely associated 'hacktivist' group, which is not necessarily tied to a single online entity, Anonymous originated in 2003 on the imageboard 4chan and claim to represent the concept of many online and offline community users simultaneously existing as an anarchic, digitised global brain.

Relying on the collective power of its individual participants, Anonymous has launched a plethora of online protests, attacks and campaigns. These include:

  • Launching a coordinated DDoS attack on the International Federation of the Photographic Industry (responsible for safeguarding recording artists' rights) after The Pirate Bay co-defendants were found guilty of facilitating extensive copyright infringements in 2009.
  • An attack described as 'the single largest internet attack in its history' after file-sharing website Megaupload was shut down by the US Department of Justice and the FBI in 2012.
  • Working with Occupy Wall Street protesters to help organise demonstrations. Anonymous also used social networking sites to urge Occupy protesters to avoid civil disorder and to keep protests peaceful for maximum impact.
  • Anonymous has become globally well known for its protests against the Church of Scientology. The project, known as 'Project Chanology', was started in response to the Church of Scientology's attempts to remove material from a highly publicised interview with Scientologist Tom Cruise from the Internet in January 2008. The project was publicly launched in the form of a video posted to YouTube, "Message to Scientology", on January 21, 2008.
  • Most recently, and in response to Operation Pillar of Cloud in November 2012, Anonymous launched a series of attacks on Israeli government websites. Anonymous protested what they called the "barbaric, brutal and despicable treatment of the Palestinian people".


Whether or not you agree with their tactics, Anonymous have certainly mastered the art of attention-grabbing online activism. Their antics are often headline news, and have resulted in 'real life' reactions, tallying up a total of around 88 Anonymous members arrested (though the figure is likely to be more).

In terms of cause impact, Anonymous appear to be affecting the psyches of those they target; the Wall Street Journal claimed this year that US law enforcement officers are concerned about cyber-retaliation attacks by the group, and a prosecutor in the Wikileaks investigation faced so many personal intrusions that colleagues became concerned about the possibility of bodily harm, according to journalist Devlin Barrett, who explained the Department of Justice was acting unusually by suppressing the names of officials in public statements to the press, but not in court documents.

Dana Bakdounis

Dana Bakdounis' case provides us with an example of how a lone digital activist can have a huge impact.

A picture posted on a Facebook group supporting women's rights in Syria and further afield has polarised opinion and gained the attention of press worldwide. The picture stirring up such a fuss was of 21-year-old Dana Bakdounis, without the veil she had grown up wearing.

As reported by the BBC, Dana had been brought up in conservative Saudi Arabia, but it was as a reaction against conformity that she first removed her veil in August 2011. Then, in October 2012 and in support of the online campaigns for women's rights in the Arab world, Dana decided to post a picture of herself online.

The BBC goes on to report that 'looking right into the lens, her short-shorn hair in full view, she held an ID picture of her previously veiled self, along with a note that read: "The first thing I felt when I took off my veil" and "I'm with the uprising of women in the Arab world because, for 20 years, I wasn't allowed to feel the wind in my hair and [on] my body"'.

Dana is just one of the women using online channels to make their voices heard - to take part in a protest which they might not otherwise have had any access to, and to share their stories with those who may never have heard them otherwise.

The Arab Spring

As has been said many times before, it was not Facebook, Twitter or Youtube which brought down Hosni Mubabrak; the Egyptian people did that.

However, it would be naive to argue that social media and online activism did not contribute to the events across the Middle East, and help to secure their place as effective tools for the conduct of political campaigns.

This conclusion was reached in a new paper written by Tim Eaton who currently works for BBC Media Action on media development projects in the Middle East. The paper is the product of over a year of research and seeks to analyse the use of online activism in the Egyptian uprisings of January and February 2011, drawing out the lessons learned in addition to applying them to the wider context of the Arab Spring.

38 Degrees


On their 'about us' page, 38 Degrees describes itself as a British not-for-profit political-activism organisation that campaigns on a diverse range of issues, such as the environment, climate change, the National Health Service (NHS), democratic media ownership, child poverty and political reform. The organisation claims to have over one million members. It describes itself as "progressive" and claims to "campaign for fairness, defend rights, promote peace, preserve the planet and deepen democracy in the UK".

In case you're wondering, 38 Degrees takes its name from the critical angle at which the incidence of a human-triggered avalanche is greatest. In September 2011, 38 Degrees was named 'Best UK Internet NGO' by the Oxford Internet Institute (yes, there is such a thing).

Its campaigns have included:

  • Campaign against the proposed sale of state-owned forests starting in October 2010. 38 Degrees launched a petition against the selling off of forests, raising concerns about loss of public access and impact on conservation. 38 Degrees members paid for an opinion poll which showed that 84% of the public were opposed to the government plans, and funded national newspaper adverts condemning the proposal. The 38 Degrees petition passed 500,000 signatures on 11 February 2011.

  • Campaign against tax avoidance starting in January 2011. 38 Degrees ran a series of member-funded adverts in national newspapers, challenging George Osborne for his record on tackling tax dodging.

  • 'Protect the BBC' - As well as being involved in the successful campaign to save BBC Radio 6 Music from closure, 38 Degrees have campaigned heavily for the BBC to remain free from political interference, campaigning against Boris Johnson's demand that the next director-general of the BBC be a supporter of the Conservative Party.

Such campaigns and subsequent successes have seen 38 Degrees nominated for the likes of an Observer Ethical Award as Campaigning Group of the Year, and being listed in Wired Magazine's 'Wired 100' as a 'powerful political force'. 38 Degrees remains a strong example of how powerful well-organised online activist organisation can actually be.

The list could go on - about the 13 million Americans who made donations to relief efforts online and seven million set up their own hurricane relief efforts using the internet following hurricane Katrina, the new international training institute to teach online tactics for human rights campaigners being set up in the Italian city of Florence or even the way in which the UK government is harnessing the power of the digital protest on their e-petitions site.

This article isn't about trying to persuade you that online activism is the only way forward for all social change movements; instead, I would argue that online activism is - and always has been - a means to an end.

When done properly, online campaign videos can reach out and grab you, dragging you kicking and screaming into emotional involvement in a cause. Online groups and sites can act as a platform for local, national, international and even global organisation - the key behind any campaign. Digital petitions can have extraordinary reach to alert and inspire tens of thousands of people around the world, some of whom might not otherwise have even bothered reading the newspaper that day, let alone partaking in social change.

Like many other calls for social change, online activism faces the challenge of human concentration - many people find themselves asking how a digital campaign can generate sustained interest, and gain the momentum of passion as well as popularity.

Despite its many setbacks, it would be foolish to consign digital activism to the scrapheap of ineffectiveness and irrelevance. It seems fair to argue that, coupled with offline action, digital activism can provide a channel for new voices to spread incredibly quickly - an outlet for those with no other way of making sure that their story gets told.


Follow Cerian Jenkins on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CerianJenkins



Thursday, November 29, 2012

Boehner: 'No Substantive Progress' On Fiscal Cliff

By ANDREW TAYLOR, The ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner met with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner on Thursday and accused Democrats afterwards of failing to outline specific cuts to avert a fiscal cliff that threatens to send the economy into recession.

"No substantive progress has been made between the White House and the House" in the past two weeks, the Ohio Republicans told reporters after the private meeting in his Capitol office.

"I was hopeful we'd see a specific plan for cutting spending and we sought to find out today what the president really is willing to do," Boehner said.

Democrats quickly countered with a news conference of their own.

"Republicans know where we stand," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "We're still waiting for a serious offer from Republicans."

Reid noted that polls show strong public support for newly re-elected President Barack Obama's proposal to extend all expiring tax cuts except for those that apply to incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples - legislation that Boehner and other Republicans say would harm the economy rather than help it.

The dueling news conferences marked an acceleration in the pace of bargaining, if not in movement toward an agreement on an issue that leaders of both parties say they want to solve.

The speaker has said that Republicans are willing to endorse higher tax revenues as part of any deal to prevent across-the-board tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to take effect at year's end, but only as part of a deal that includes savings from Medicare and other government benefit programs.

Boehner spoke by phone with Obama on Wednesday night, and said his remarks Thursday were the result of that conversation, as well as the session with Geithner.

Geithner had a later session on his schedule with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky as well as Congress' top Democrats.

On Wednesday, the two sides maneuvered for political position.

"We have not seen any good-faith effort on the part of this administration to talk about the real problem that we're trying to fix," said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.

Obama is mounting a public campaign to build support and leverage in the negotiations, appearing at the White House with middle-class taxpayers and launching a campaign on Twitter to bolster his position.

"Right now, as we speak, Congress can pass a law that would prevent a tax hike on the first $250,000 of everybody's income," Obama said. "And that means that 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses wouldn't see their income taxes go up by a single dime."

Obama is insisting that tax rates go up on family income exceeding $250,000; Boehner is adamant that any new tax revenues come from overhauling the tax code, clearing out tax breaks and lowering rates for all.

Republicans are also demanding significant cuts to so-called entitlement programs like Medicare, such as an increase in the eligibility age for the program from 65 to perhaps 67.

"It's time for the president and Democrats to get serious about the spending problem that our country has," Boehner said at a news conference Wednesday in the Capitol. Boehner, like Obama, expressed optimism that a deal could be reached.

At issue are steep, across-the-board cuts to the Pentagon and domestic programs set to strike the economy in January as well as the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts on income, investments, married couples and families with children. That combination of tax increases and spending cuts would wring more than half a trillion dollars from the economy in the first nine months of next year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

No one anticipates a stalemate lasting that long, but many experts worry that even allowing the spending cuts and tax increases for a relatively brief period could rattle financial markets.

From their public statements, Obama and Boehner appear at an impasse over raising the two top tax rates from 33 percent and 35 percent to 36 percent and 39.6 percent. Democrats seem confident that Boehner ultimately will have to crumble, but Obama has a lot at stake as well, including a clear agenda for priorities like an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws.

Obama is also meeting privately Thursday with his defeated Republican rival Mitt Romney. The president has cast his victory over Romney as a sign that Americans back his tax proposals, which were a centerpiece of his re-election campaign.

While in Washington, Romney will also meet with his former running mate, Ryan. The Wisconsin congressman is chairman of the House Budget Committee and deeply involved in the fiscal cliff discussions.

___

Associated Press writer Julie Pace contributed to this report.

Also on HuffPost:

  • Military Health Care - $16 Billion

    In his last offer to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), President Barack Obama lobbied for $16 billion in cuts from the military's health care program, TRICARE. In 2012, the president also proposed hiking fees for military personnel and veterans who receive benefits under the program in an effort to help cut the defense budget. His proposal drew significant fire from Republican lawmakers and veterans' groups.

  • Military Retirement Program - $11 Billion

    Both sides agreed to cuts from the military retirement program. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) claimed during July 2011 talks that lawmakers had reached a tentative deal to slash <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">$11 billion</a>. Under the current system, military personnel receive immediate retirement benefits after serving for 20 years. According to a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, the appropriation cost per active military service member has <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43574" target="_hplink">increased at a higher rate</a> than either inflation or the total pay package of private-sector employees. Given the budget constraints looming before the Defense Department, the CBO floated the idea of transitioning the military retirement program to a matching-payment model.

  • Federal Employee Retirement Program - $33 -$36 Billion

    Cantor claimed that Republicans and Democrats had agreed to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">$36 billion in savings</a> over 10 years from civilian retirement programs. The president proposed a marginally more modest figure of <a href="http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/11/15089281-white-house-grand-bargain-offer-to-speaker-boehner-obtained-by-bob-woodward#.UKCJftkTtS8.twitter" target="_hplink">$33 billion</a> in his final offer to House Speaker John Boehner. Just this year, Republicans in the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform also looked to find savings from the Federal Employee Retirement System by <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/house-committee-approves-measure-upping-federal-employee-contributions-to-retirement-plan/2012/04/26/gIQAuoW6iT_blog.html" target="_hplink">requiring employees to pay more of their salary</a> into their pensions, which Democrats opposed as a pay cut that would make civil service less attractive for top talent. In September 2011, the federal government employed <a href="http://www.fedscope.opm.gov/cognos/cgi-bin/ppdscgi.exe?DC=Q&E=/FSe%20-%20Status/Employment%20-%20September%202012&LA=en&LO=en-us&BACK=/cognos/cgi-bin/ppdscgi.exe?toc=%2FFSe%20-%20Status&LA=en&LO=en-us" target="_hplink">over two million individuals</a>, either through the cabinets or independent agencies. Many Republicans have complained that the federal workforce has ballooned during the Obama administration, and while the raw number of employees has risen by <a href="http://www.thefactfile.com/2012/01/23/the-size-of-the-federal-workforce-rapid-growth-for-some-stagnation-for-others/" target="_hplink">14.4 percent</a> between Sept. 2007 and Sept. 2011, the percentage of public employees out of the total civilian workforce has <a href="http://www.thefactfile.com/2012/01/23/the-size-of-the-federal-workforce-rapid-growth-for-some-stagnation-for-others/" target="_hplink">remained fairly constant</a> around 1.2 percent since 2001. Much of the raw growth has been concentrated in the Department of Defense, Veteran's Affairs and Homeland Security.

  • Agricultural Subsidies - $30 - $33 Billion

    Democrats and Republicans agreed to cut as much as <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/fiscal-cliff-barack-obama-_n_2118739.html" target="_hplink">$30 billion</a> from agricultural subsidies; the main opposition fell along geographical lines rather than partisan ones. Hailing from an agriculture-heavy state, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) threatened to pull out of talks entirely if a deal included that much in subsidy reduction. The president ended up pushing for <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">$33 billion in cuts</a>, but that figure also included reductions in conservation programs. Baucus now tells HuffPost any cuts should be made through the farm bill, not fiscal cliff talks.

  • Food Stamps - $2 to $20 Billion

    Cantor pushed hard for significant cuts to food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. He charged that the federal government could save as much as <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">$20 billion over ten years</a> by eliminating waste and fraud, but the White House countered that the real number was closer to $2 billion. Instead, those cuts would force the program to scale back on the number of enrollees and the level of benefits it could offer.

  • Flood Assistance - $4 Billion

    Obama proposed cutting <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/fiscal-cliff-barack-obama-_n_2118739.html" target="_hplink">$4 billion from flood assistance</a> funding in his final offer to Boehner in July 2011. But Hurricane Sandy straining the National Flood Insurance Program; The New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/nyregion/federal-flood-insurance-program-faces-new-stress.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0" target="_hplink">reports</a> that thousands of claims are being submitted daily, which could send the overall cost upwards of $7 billion for a program that suffers from a ballooning debt problem. And with climate change promising <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/climate-change-predictions-foresaw-hurricane-sandy-scenario-for-new-york-city/2012/10/31/b78de428-2374-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html" target="_hplink">future flooding disasters</a> along the eastern seaboard, cutting the program looks unwise.

  • Home Health Care - $50 Billion

    The president offered to cut <a href="http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/11/15089281-white-house-grand-bargain-offer-to-speaker-boehner-obtained-by-bob-woodward#.UKCJftkTtS8.twitter" target="_hplink">$110 billion over the next decade</a> from the government's health care spending, excluding Medicare. Among the programs that could lose crucial funding is home health care, where Democrats and Republicans agreed to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">$50 billion in reductions</a> over ten years. Cantor pushed for closer to $300 billion in spending cuts to health care, but Democrats appeared to stand firm.

  • Higher Education - $10 Billion

    The president proposed cutting <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/fiscal-cliff-barack-obama-_n_2118739.html" target="_hplink">$10 billion from higher education</a> over the next decade, mostly from Pell grants. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/pell-grants-college-costs_n_1835081.html" target="_hplink">Over nine million students</a> relied on federal subsidized loans to afford college during the 2010-2011 school year, and the skyrocketing costs have continued to diminish the purchasing power of the Pell grant program. Obama has actively worked to make college more affordable for lower-income students. Key Republican lawmakers have attempted to cut funding for student loans; most notably, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) slashed the maximum award from $5,550 per student per year down to <a href="http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/07/dems_students_fight_to_save_pell_grants_amidst_debt_ceiling_talks.html" target="_hplink">just $3,040</a>.

  • Medicaid And Other Health- $110 Billion

    The original funding levels proposed by Cantor and the GOP leadership would turn the entitlement program for America's poor into little more than a block grant program, Democrats claimed during the 2011 debt ceiling talks. Under such a program, they argued that states would then <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-11/medicaid-to-lose-1-26-trillion-under-romney-block-grant.html" target="_hplink">drop more people from enrollment</a> and scale back on health benefits. In fiscal year 2009, <a href="http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0151.pdf" target="_hplink">over 62 million Americans</a> -- many of them children -- depended on Medicaid for their health care. But the president did agree to <a href="http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/11/15089281-white-house-grand-bargain-offer-to-speaker-boehner-obtained-by-bob-woodward#.UKCJftkTtS8.twitter" target="_hplink">$110 billion</a> in cuts from Medicaid and other health programs.

  • Medicare - $250 Billion +

    Republicans pushed for a drastic overhaul to the entitlement program for America's seniors. Ryan infamously proposed turning Medicare into little more than a voucher system in which seniors would receive checks to purchase their own health care on the open market -- a plan that would ultimately <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kennethdavis/medicare-vouchers_b_1947804.html" target="_hplink">force individuals to shoulder more of the burden</a> for their health care costs. Democrats refused to accept changes similar to those in Ryan's plan. The president, however, was <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">more open to other GOP suggestions</a> on Medicare. In his final offer to Boehner, he agreed cut $250 billion over the next ten years -- in part by increasing premiums for higher-income seniors and by raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67 (although over a longer time frame).

  • Tax Reform - $800 Billion - $1.6 Trillion

    Republicans have again and again <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0511/Boehner_Medicare_Medicaid__everything_should_be_on_the_table_except_raising_taxes.html" target="_hplink">decried any attempt</a> to raise taxes, either on the highest earners or on corporations. (A Democracy Corps/Campaign for America's Future survey shows that <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/report/2012114508/cafdemocracy-corps-election-poll-2012" target="_hplink">70 percent of voters</a> support raising taxes on the wealthiest two percent of Americans.) Instead, Boehner has pushed for a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">comprehensive tax reform bill</a> that would lower the marginal tax rates while closing loopholes and eliminating deductions in order to raise around $800 billion in additional revenues. For many Democrats, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323551004578117152861144968.html" target="_hplink">that figure simply isn't enough</a>. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced Tuesday that the president was aiming for as much as <a href="http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/showing-backbone-on-the-debt/" target="_hplink">$1.6 trillion in new revenues</a>, and the president told reporters on Wednesday that it would be <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/obama-tax-cuts_n_2131256.html" target="_hplink">practically impossible</a> to raise the amount of revenue he wanted simply from closing loopholes and lowering rates.

  • Social Security - $112 Billion

    Social Security <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/fiscal-cliff-social-security_n_2130762.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular" target="_hplink">isn't driving the deficit</a>, yet Republicans have <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">pursued drastic changes</a> to the program. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has promised that Social Security would be <a href="http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/reid-no-messing-with-social-security" target="_hplink">off the table</a> in the on-going negotiations to avoid the fiscal cliff, but Obama did concede to tying the benefits to a <a href="http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/11/15089281-white-house-grand-bargain-offer-to-speaker-boehner-obtained-by-bob-woodward#.UKCJftkTtS8.twitter" target="_hplink">recalculated Consumer Price Index</a> that would ultimately provide less money to retirees. Sen. Bernie Sanders claims that, under such a measure, seniors who are currently 65 years-old would see their benefits drop by <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/267079-reid-assures-sanders-he-wont-agree-to-social-security-cuts-in-debt-deal" target="_hplink">$560 a month in 10 years</a> and by as much as <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/267079-reid-assures-sanders-he-wont-agree-to-social-security-cuts-in-debt-deal" target="_hplink">$1,000 in 20 years</a>. The Moment of Truth project (led by the two former co-chairs of the president's deficit reduction commission, former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles) claims that the recalculated CPI could save as much as <a href="http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/11767/the_social_security_cut_washington_does_not_want_you_to_understand/" target="_hplink">$112 billion</a> from Social Security over the next ten years.

  • Tax Loopholes And Deductions - Up To $180 Billion

    Although Cantor and other GOP House members demanded that any deficit-reduction deal brokered in 2011 be classiefed as <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">revenue-neutral</a>, they were open to closing particular loopholes in the corporate tax code and limiting itemized deductions for individuals -- given that they were offset by other tax cuts. Out of the $50 billion in savings to be found over the next decade from closing loopholes, Cantor proposed getting $3 billion from eliminating the break for corporate-jet owners and another $20 billion from voiding the subsidies for the oil and gas industries. On the individual earner side, he proposed eliminating the second-home mortgage deduction for $20 billion, as well as limiting the mortgage deduction for higher-income households to rake in another $20 billion. He also offered to tighten the tax treatment of retirement accounts. But Democrats wanted to see even greater action taken on itemized deductions. In June 2011, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) proposed raising $130 billion in new revenues by capping itemized deductions at 35 percent for the highest income brackets. The GOP response to his proposal at the time was a resounding "no."

  • Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy - $950 Billion

    Set to expire on Dec. 31, 2012, the Bush tax cuts represent one of the most controversial elements of the so-called fiscal cliff. They added over <a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2/24editorial_graph2-popup.gif" target="_hplink">$1.8 trillion to the deficit</a> between 2002 and 2009. Yet Republicans argue that an extension is necessary to create jobs and spur economic growth. But a <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/PDF/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf" target="_hplink">study</a> from the Congressional Research Service found that tax cuts for the wealthiest earners had little economic effect. The White House is pushing for a renewal only of those tax breaks for the lower- and middle-class Americans in order to save the average middle-class family <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/pf/taxes/fiscal-cliff-tax/index.html" target="_hplink">between $2,000 and $3,500</a> next year. Letting the cuts expire for those earning over $250,000 a year -- or the wealthiest two percent of Americans -- would haul in <a href="http://www.offthechartsblog.org/cbo-ending-high-income-tax-cuts-would-save-almost-1-trillion/" target="_hplink">$950 billion</a> in savings over the next decade, according to the CBO. Obama stressed how much the country stood to gain from such an approach Wednesday during a press conference. "If we right away say 98 percent of Americans are not going to see their taxes go up ' 97 percent of small businesses are not going to see their taxes go up," he said. "If we get that in place, we're actually <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/49821777" target="_hplink">removing half of the fiscal cliff</a>."




Frank A. Weil: Who for State?

Through the back door, speculation about who will follow Hillary at State has begun in earnest.
First was John Kerry, the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and, in many ways, a person ideally qualified for the post by experience, temperament, and proximity to the president. He is also globally well-known after his presidential run in 2004. For several reasons his name so far has been shunted aside, in part because of the risk that the just defeated Scott Brown, who showed strength in trying to hold the Kennedy seat, might just grab the vacancy. Then, Kerry's name surfaced again for Defense, which is strange because the same problem exists whether it is State or any other cabinet post. Perhaps Obama prefers him as Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee?

Next up: Susan Rice, current Ambassador to the United Nations. Rice, however, may have deflated her own trial balloon when she went on the Sunday talk shows to carry the "official" administration line on the tragedy in Benghazi, Libya. Whether or not she was purposely sacrificed to blunt problems of who knew what, when in this simmering dispute for blame purposes, the performance was an embarrassment all around and she has been beaten up pretty hard by McCain and others. The president, as he should have, aggressively came to her defense and in a manner both extraordinary and highly paternal, basically said if and when Rice became his choice for State, he would not be deterred by the loud voices. Things have calmed since, despite a recent "mea culpa" appearance on the talk shows that was roundly scorned by Republicans eager to draw blue blood after the red hemorrhage of the election, and she is looking more likely at the moment. In the meanwhile, one can hear murmurs of discontent about Rice's age, experience, gravitas and temperament. Still, she is surely a serious candidate.

So who else? Some wish Dick Holbrook was still around. Others scratch their heads trying to come up with qualified names without falling back on the age old habit of identifying a grey/white-haired lawyer, professor, banker man. The list does not go on and on and is pretty sparse at the moment.

So why not try the purloined letter approach?

The right person is there not only under the president's nose but virtually in the same house. That man is extremely well known and respected around the globe, outstandingly qualified and experienced in foreign affairs and has been dying for the job and probably would have swapped places with Hilary in a heartbeat, if given a chance earlier in the year. The only "problem" is that person is the vice president.

Why is that a problem? No vice president in history has served simultaneously as a cabinet officer (despite what all agree is a wealth of free time for the incumbent in the position). As far as I have been able to determine, however, there is no clear and obvious constitutional, legal or even practical reason why it can't be done, and the best argument against it -- simply that it's never been done before -- is as flimsy as Republican assertions that the administration, and not the House-imposed cuts in consulate security, is to blame for the tragedy in Benghazi. Among other smaller side benefits, such a "twofer" would save the Executive Branch quite a bit of money by combining the two jobs together. One salary, not two; one airplane, not two; probably some fewer in staff overall. A great example for the president to set!

Biden would make a superb Secretary of State. He deserves the opportunity. He would do a great job and take quite a burden off the president, except for the few occasions when the president might have to clean up some small verbal miscue.

Why not give the idea a chance to bounce around a bit? At least it might take the president off his Rice hot seat and give him an opportunity to find a better alternative, if the stodgy greybeards shoot down the idea.



Akin Wants Your Money Because Of This?!

Outgoing Missouri congressman and failed GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin reemerged this week, emailing supporters in hopes of raising money to pay off outstanding campaign expenses. His pitch: Entertainer Jamie Foxx inexcusably mocked Christianity over the weekend by referring to President Barack Obama as "our Lord and savior," and Akin is the man to speak out against that, provided he has the money to do so.

Here's the full text of the email, via Slate's Dave Weigel:

Article after article has been written about a no-name filmmaker who produced a short video mocking Islam.

How much do you think will be written about an Oscar winning Hollywood star mocking Christianity.

Friends, I may have lost the Senate race, but I do not plan to stop speaking out about the problems facing our country, and I encourage you to do so as well!

Thanks for all you do, in particular your recent help in getting our last few remaining campaign bills paid promptly. We're making great progress on that front, but could still use your help if you can donate $10 today!

While earlier reports suggested that Akin's campaign was in solid financial standing, especially considering the national controversy he kindled with his notorious comments about "legitimate rape," we won't know the current status of his expenses until Dec 6., when he files his final campaign finance report.

Also on HuffPost:

  • George Clooney & President Obama

    Actor George Clooney leaves after he spoke to the media March 15, 2012 at the White House in Washington, DC. Clooney had meeting with President Barack Obama to discuss the current situations in Darfur, Sudan. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

  • President Obama & Tyler Perry

    Actor and director Tyler Perry hugs US President Barack Obama during a campaign event at Tyler Perry Studios March 16, 2012 in Atlanta, Georgia. President Obama is spending the day traveling to Chicago, Illinois and Atlanta, Georgia to attend private and public campaign events. (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)

  • The Obamas & Oprah Winfrey

    US President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama chat with talk show host Oprah Winfrey during a taping of the Oprah Winfrey show April 27, 2011 at Harpo Studios in Chicago. (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

  • President Obama & Magic Johnson

    In this handout image provided by the U.S. Navy, President Barack Obama is greeted on the court by NBA Hall of Fame basketball player Earvin 'Magic' Johnson and Michigan State University assistant coach Mike Garland. (Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class James R. Evans/U.S. Navy via Getty Images)

  • Willow Smith Performs At The White House

    Willow Smith, daughter of Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smitt, performs during the White House Easter Egg Roll on the South Lawn of the White House on April 25, 2011 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Roger L. Wollenberg-Pool/Getty Images)

  • Antonio Banderas & President Obama

    Antonio Banderas and his wife Melanie Griffith hosted a fundraising event for President Obama in October 2011. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

  • Tom Hanks Narrates Pro-Obama Film

    This 17-minute film released by President Obama's re-election campaign was directed by Davis Guggenheim (director of "An Inconvenient Truth") and narrated by actor Tom Hanks.

  • Gov. Mitt Romney & Jeff Foxworthy

    Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney makes a campaign appearance with comedian Jeff Foxworthy at the Whistle Stop cafe March 12, 2012 in Mobile, Alabama. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

  • Gov. Mitt Romney & Kid Rock

    Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney greets musician Kid Rock during a campaign rally at the Royal Oak Theatre on February 27, 2012 in Royal Oak, Michigan. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

  • David Mustaine & Rick Santorum

    David Mustaine of Megadeth expressed support for Rick Santorum in a February <a href="http://www.musicradar.com/news/live/interview-megadeths-dave-mustaine-talks-guitar-politics-and-todays-music-529703" target="_hplink">interview with Music Radar</a>.

  • Kelly Clarkson & Ron Paul

    Kelly Clarkson tweeted about her love for Ron Paul in late 2011, but dialed it back slightly after a backlash accused her of supporting Paul's racist and homophobic publications, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/03/09/kelly-clarkson-never-endorsed-ron-paul/" target="_hplink">reports Fox News</a>. (Photo by ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Snoop Dogg & Ron Paul

    In December 2011, Snoop Dogg posted a picture of Ron Paul on his Facebook page with the caption "Smoke Weed Every Day," <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/31/us-snoopdogg-ronpaul-idUSTRE80U04220120131" target="_hplink">reports Reuters</a>. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images for Keep Memory Alive)

  • Oliver Stone & Ron Paul

    In January, Oliver Stone told <a href="http://www.rockcellarmagazine.com/2012/01/12/director-oliver-stone-on-history-and-america-jim-morrison-ron-paul/" target="_hplink">Rock Cellar Magazine</a> that he would vote for Ron Paul over Barack Obama if Paul was named the GOP nominee because "he's the only one of anybody who's saying anything intelligent about the future of the world." (Photo by Stephen Morton/Getty Images)




Wednesday, November 28, 2012

The Sea Level Is Rising Faster Than Previously Thought

From Climate Central's Michael D. Lemonick:

Sea level is rising as the planet warms up, but how much it will rise, and how fast is still something climate scientists are working out. And according to a study released late Tuesday in Environmental Research Letters the ocean is already rising faster than the most recent authoritative report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was projecting as recently as 2007.

'Results show that global temperature continues to increase in very good agreement with the best estimates of the IPCC," the authors of the new study write. "The rate of sea level rise of the past decades, on the other hand, is greater than projected by the IPCC models. This suggests that IPCC sea level projections for the future may also be biased low.'

The IPCC issues comprehensive reports every five to seven years, with the next one due out in 2013-2014. The reports summarize the state of scientific knowledge on climate change, and are used as the underpinning of interational climate talks aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The latest round of these negotiations is currently underway in Doha, Qatar.

The IPCC's projections showed a worst-case scenario of just less than 2 feet of sea level rise by 2100. 'Lots of people felt that the IPCC was too conservative," said co-author Grant Foster, of the consulting firm Tempo Analytics, in Garland, Maine. "The IPCC explicitly stated in the 2007 report that its models excluded 'future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow.' ' In other words, it didn't allow for the fact that ice flowing into the sea from Greenland and Antarctica might speed up as the planet warms.

That doesn't entirely account for the lower prediction, according to the study's lead author, Sefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam (Germany) Institute for Climate Impact Research. 'We also have five more years of data,' Rahmstorf said. And much of that data is from satellites, which are more comprehensive than the tide gauges used in the pre-satellite era.

Still, many experts, including Rahmstorf, were convinced several years ago that the increase in sea level by 2100 should be more than 3 feet (assuming, that is, that no serious measures are taken to reduce heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions). Even the 1-foot rise in the New York area from 1900 to the present was enough to boost the destructive power of Hurricane Sandy's storm surge; 3 feet of extra sea level could prove truly catastrophic. Their calculations were based, not on additional sea level data, but on more sophisticated analyses of the relation between sea level and temperature, based in part on evidence from ancient climate conditions.

The newly published figures don't change that 3-foot projection for 2100: they look instead at the measured rate of sea level rise from 1993-2011, pegging it at about 3.2 millimeters per year. That's 60 percent faster than the 2 millimeters per year the IPCC's computer models suggested should have happened over that same period ' a clear indication that those models weren't especially accurate.

Even at 3.2 millimeters per year, sea level would only go up by a foot by 2100; the extra 2 feet almost everyone expects will come from an accelerating sea level rise caused by ever increasing temperatures.

But 3 feet of sea level rise by 2100 is a projection; it isn't necessarily destiny. 'A lot depends on what emissions path we follow,' Foster said. 'If we get our acts together, it doesn't have to go that high.'

Also on HuffPost:

  • #10 Madagascar, Indian Ocean

  • #9 Eritrea, Red Sea

  • #8 Pakistan, Arabian Sea

  • #7 Faroe Islands, North Atlantic Ocean

  • #6 Aruba, Southern Caribbean

  • #5 Kiribati, Central Tropical Pacific Ocean

  • #4 Comoros, Indian Ocean

  • #3 Turks And Caicos Islands, Caribbean

  • #2 New Caledonia, Southwest Pacific Ocean

  • #1 Cook Islands, South Pacific Ocean

  • Aruba 2008



Ed Crego, George Muñoz and Frank Islam: The Island States of America: A Threat to Our Representative Democracy

The secessionists have garnered a lot of attention lately with their petitions to leave the union after Barack Obama won the national election. While their appeals may be headline-grabbing and fabulous fodder for talk radio and cable TV, they are substantively and politically unimportant and impotent.

The issues of true significance for the future of our representative democracy are (1) the structure of our federal congressional districts and the Senate and House districts within the states; and (2) the rules for voting in primaries within each state. We examine why and what needs to be done to address these problems later in this blog.

First, let us dispense with the secessionists. These folks are what we refer to as the looney tunes fringe of the electorate. They have a right to their own opinion and we would like to see them have rights as individuals clustered together to secede from the United States.

John Donne said, "No man is an island, entire of itself." Nonetheless, we say grant the men, and the few women (Neil Caren's research shows that these petition signers which numbered approximately 300,000 as of Nov. 16 , were disproportionately male) that are part of this nascent secessionist movement, individual island state status.

Then, take away, all of the privileges and benefits which derive from being part of the United States of America. These would include: the use of highways subsidized by federal funds, assistance from the National Guard, defense by our nation's military, access to national parks, emergency management and medical services, educational assistance, social security, and Medicare.

We could call these new free floating entities "barrier island states" or the independent island states. Based upon the initial surge of petitioners, the largest of these new states would be located in Texas with 100,000 signers and the following six states that had 25,000 signers or more: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina and Texas.

It's not these artificial island states that we have just invented that threaten our representative democracy, however. It is those individual island states that have been legitimately constructed that put it at risk. Those island states are the federal congressional districts and the senate and house districts in the majority of our states.

Because of gerrymandering these districts are insular and polarizing by design. The districts are also designed to protect those in office. As Paul Kane noted in his Washington Post column on the day after the national elections, "Many incumbents survived because of a redistricting process that left a record low number of competitive seats, cloistering Republicans and Democrats together into geographically odd -- but politically homogenous districts." If you can't change the butts in seats, it becomes very difficult to change behavior.

Both parties are very good at gerrymandering, the Republicans excel at it. Here's some evidence:

  • At the national level, there are 435 congressional districts. In this most recent election, 241 leaned toward Republicans. One hundred ninety four leaned Democratic.
  • The Democrats won the presidency and United States Senate seats in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia and Florida. The breakout of the house winners in those same states follows. Pennsylvania: Republicans, 13 seats. Democrats, five seats. Ohio: Republicans, 12 seats. Democrats, four seats. Wisconsin: Republicans, five seats. Democrats, three seats. Virginia: Republicans, eight seats. Democrats, three seats. Florida: Republicans, 17 seats. Democrats, 10 seats.
  • At the state level, in January 2013, over two-thirds of the states will be under single-party control of both the executive and legislative branches: 24 states will be Republican and 14 will be Democratic.

No matter which party or candidate wins as a result of the gerrymandering process, the losers are the potential for bi-partisanship and compromise. This problem is compounded by the primary systems in many states which preclude participation by independents and nonpartisans unless they declare as a Republican or Democrat.

According to a 2012 Pew Research Center study, in this national election year 38 percent of voters indicated they were independents compared to 32 percent who declared as Democrats and 24 percent as Republicans. Excluding this large and growing group of voters -- who tend to be more centrist and moderate in their positions -- from the candidate selection processes means that they tend to be controlled by the fringes (think "tea party or conservative" on the right and "liberal or progressive" on the left.)

Many of the district island states are controlled by a small group of islanders. They are like-minded folks who pick representatives who resemble them to do their bidding. As we noted in a Huffington Post blog earlier this year: "While many of our politicians have been criticized because of their confrontational and contentious nature, they are not independent agents. To a greater or lesser extent, they are mirrors reflecting the highly partisan values of the voters who select and elect them."

We need to break up the island states and their stranglehold on our political process. There are a number of actions that can be taken to accomplish this. The two key ones are:

  • Implementation of a fair districting approach within each state controlled by a nonpartisan independent commission as opposed to politicians.
  • Primary reform to ensure processes and systems that are fully inclusive of the registered voter population rather those that are restrictive and exclusive.

In the most recent election cycle, California and Florida provided positive examples of how changing the districting and primary approaches can produce different outcomes.

California went from a party primary system to one in which the two candidates with the most votes in an "open congressional primary" moved on to the general election. This resulted, as Juan William reported, in seven incumbents losing their seats "as they ran in more diverse districts -- in which candidates had to appeal to more diverse neighborhoods and political groups." Williams continued to comment, "The bottom line is that voters have more choice among candidates competing for the middle ground, not to be a champion of one political extreme."

Florida was redistricted by the state legislature according to guidelines set out in a constitutional amendment that banned "gerrymandering" that was passed by the state's citizens with over 62 percent of the votes casts. The redistricting helped the Democrats pick up four congressional seats and seven seats in the state legislature.

In conclusion, if we want our democracy to work and to represent the interests of all the people and not those at either extreme, we need to succeed and not to secede. To succeed, we need to renew and reform our electoral processes to put the emphasis on the United States of America instead of the Island States of America.

To get regular updates on what Ed, George and Frank are writing and reading, subscribe to their newsletter by going to the following link: http://bit.ly/pivotsignup



Mark Starr: A Veteran's Perspective: Congress Must Fully Fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund

As a veteran of the Persian Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom, I've called many places around the world home. After I was medically retired from the Army in 2009, I found a new home in California. One of the things that drew me to this great state was how I am always just a short drive away from many of the most beautiful places on Earth. Spending time in the outdoors is a way of life in California, one that suits me and many fellow veterans extremely well as we readjust to life at home.

Veterans often find it challenging to return home after a tour of duty. Adjusting to the humdrum reality of everyday life after the high intensity of deployment can be difficult. Many veterans find healing during this transition by spending time in the outdoors fishing, hiking, hunting and camping with family and friends. That's why it's personally important for me and many veterans that we protect public lands in our state and our nation. These are the lands that we fought to defend. They represent the great majesty of our country and the boundless opportunity of the American dream.

Before the close of the year and the end of the 112th Congress, our leaders in Washington, D.C., have a great opportunity to ensure the future of California's public lands with full and dedicated funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Nearly 50 years ago Congress created the LWCF to aid the protection of land and water projects, using fees from private companies conducting offshore oil and gas drilling, not taxpayer dollars. The LWCF has played an important role all throughout California, protecting places for future generations to enjoy. In Oakland the LWCF contributed to Tidewater Park Trail, a shoreline access point and open space that provides a place for families to walk and ride bikes. Northeast of Fresno the LWCF helped make improvements at Millerton Lake, a popular spot for boating, fishing and swimming, with trails in the surrounding hills for hiking. East of Modesto the LWCF contributed to the acquisition of the Modesto Reservoir, a place for water sports, camping and waterfowl hunting at certain times of year. Around the San Diego area the LWCF helped protect beaches such as South Carlsbad State Beach, where many people come to swim, surf and camp on the top of the bluffs.

The LWCF also makes an important contribution to our nation's and our state's economy, particularly through the outdoor recreation industry. Outdoor recreational activities such as hiking, camping, biking, hunting and fishing depend on the conservation of our public lands. This industry is a significant engine of economic growth, supporting 6.1 million jobs nationwide and contributing $646 billion in spending each year. In California outdoor recreation contributes more than $46 billion annually to our economy and supports more than 408,000 jobs. Yet nearly every year, Congress has siphoned money from the fund for unrelated expenditures. The LWCF could be funded up to $900 million each year, but only once in its nearly 50-year history has that occurred.

The best chance to fix this crucial program is in the upcoming lame duck session. Congress must use this window to find a legislative solution that finally makes good on a 50-year unmet promise and ensures full and dedicated funding of the LWCF. As 2012 comes to a close, I hope that Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Dianne Feinstein will continue their strong advocacy for the LWCF. I thank them for their past leadership on this issue and urge their continued support. I urge California's representatives, including Rep. Jim Costa and Rep. Jeff Denham from the Central Valley and Rep.-elect Scott Peters from the San Diego area, to join them in supporting full, permanent and dedicated funding of LWCF.

The LWCF has substantial bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House, and diverse interests from all across the country have echoed their support for a legislative solution, including large and small businesses, sportsmen's groups and, of course, my fellow veterans. As a veteran, I urge our leaders to take up this important issue. You will honor our service by conserving the special places that are part of what it means to be an American.



Tuesday, November 27, 2012

GOP Lawmaker Wants Bill Requiring Teaching Of Intelligent Design

Montana state Rep. Clayton Fiscus (R) hasn't even been sworn into office yet, but he's already made clear that he'd like to work on a bill that would require the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution when he officially goes to work at the state Capitol.

The National Center for Science Education reported this week that Fiscus had submitted a request for a draft of the legislation as one of his first orders of business.

The measure, which broadly plans to "require public schools to teach intelligent design along with evolution," will now be drafted and considered by the legislature when it goes into session next year.

As the NCSE points out, the issue of teaching intelligent design in public school has already been settled in Kitzmiller v. Dover, a 2005 federal case that found the theory to be a form of creationism. The teaching of such a religious-based theory in public schools would violate the separation of church and state.

Fiscus has also filed additional legislative requests, though the others concern more innocuous topics such as parks, highways and taxes.

And he isn't the only incoming lawmaker to float a controversial request shortly after securing election. Republican state Rep. Jerry O'Neil asked the Montana Office of Legislative Services earlier this month if he could be paid his monthly salary of $1,800 in gold coins due to his concerns about the strength of the dollar. The office didn't immediately respond to his request.

John Celock contributed reporting to this piece.

Also on HuffPost:

  • "I have flown twice over Mount St. Helens out on our West Coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about." - President Ronald Reagan, 1980 Not quite. Cars emit about 81,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per day, while Mount St. Helens emitted only about 2,000 tons.

  • "The internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes." -Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), 2006 The "series of tubes" phrase subsequently became a pop cultural catchphrase--it even has its own <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes" target="_hplink">Wikipedia page</a> and mentioned in the <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=a series of tubes" target="_hplink">Urban Dictionary</a>.

  • "And sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good, things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not." - former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska), 2008 The common fruit fly is one of the most commonly used organisms in genetic research. Discoveries such as sex-linked inheritance and techniques such as gene mapping are a result of such research.

  • "Information is moving--you know, nightly news is one way, of course, but it's also moving through the blogosphere and through the Internets." - President George W. Bush, 2007 The former president went on to use the word "Internets" two more times in public.

  • "Is there some thought being given to subsidizing the clearing of rainforests in order for some countries to eliminate that production of greenhouse gases?" -Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California), when asked whether the U.S. climate policy should focus on reducing carbon emissions. Rainforests actually absorb far more carbon dioxide than they emit.

  • "Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human-induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus." - Rep. Paul Broun (R-Georgia), 2009, at a debate over the Clean Energy and Security Act. Many researchers point to a decline in Arctic sea ice, an increase in droughts, and changing rain and snow patterns as signs of climate change.

  • "What the science says is that temperatures peaked out globally in 1998. So we've gone for 10-plus years where the temperatures have gone down." - Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin), 2009 in an interview with conservative radio show host Jay Weber. The mean global temperature has in fact been increasing since 1998.

  • "Mars is essentially in the same orbit [as Earth]....Mars is somewhat the same distance from the sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe." - Dan Quayle, former vice president, commenting on President George H.W. Bush's Space Exploration Initiative as quoted in <em>This New Ocean</em> by William E. Burrows. Actually, Mars completes an orbital revolution around the sun about every 1.88 Earth years, according to NASA.

  • "If it's legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." - Rep. Todd Akin (R-Missouri), 2012 In fact, women can become pregnant from rape.

  • "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell." -Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) 2012 Broun, a member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, is a doctor, and would have been taught many of the generally accepted principles of evolution and embryology in medical school.




WATCH LIVE: Durbin Discusses Fiscal Cliff Talks

  • Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy - $950 Billion

    Set to expire on Dec. 31, 2012, the Bush tax cuts represent one of the most controversial elements of the so-called fiscal cliff. They added over <a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2/24editorial_graph2-popup.gif" target="_hplink">$1.8 trillion to the deficit</a> between 2002 and 2009. Yet Republicans argue that an extension is necessary to create jobs and spur economic growth. But a <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/PDF/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf" target="_hplink">study</a> from the Congressional Research Service found that tax cuts for the wealthiest earners had little economic effect. The White House is pushing for a renewal only of those tax breaks for the lower- and middle-class Americans in order to save the average middle-class family <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/pf/taxes/fiscal-cliff-tax/index.html" target="_hplink">between $2,000 and $3,500</a> next year. Letting the cuts expire for those earning over $250,000 a year -- or the wealthiest two percent of Americans -- would haul in <a href="http://www.offthechartsblog.org/cbo-ending-high-income-tax-cuts-would-save-almost-1-trillion/" target="_hplink">$950 billion</a> in savings over the next decade, according to the CBO. Obama stressed how much the country stood to gain from such an approach Wednesday during a press conference. "If we right away say 98 percent of Americans are not going to see their taxes go up ' 97 percent of small businesses are not going to see their taxes go up," he said. "If we get that in place, we're actually <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/49821777" target="_hplink">removing half of the fiscal cliff</a>."



  • GOP Senators 'More Disturbed' After Meeting With Susan Rice

    Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) said on Tuesday that their highly anticipated meeting with U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Sept. 11 anniversary attack in Benghazi, Libya, hadn't allayed their concerns about either the administration's explanation of the attack or Rice's qualifications as a potential secretary of state.

    "Bottom line, I'm more disturbed now than I was before that the 16th of September explanation about how Americans died in Benghazi, Libya, by Ambassador Rice I think does not do justice to the reality at the time and, in hindsight, clearly was completely wrong," Graham declared at a press conference after the meeting.

    Rice acknowledged in their discussion that she had been incorrect in initially suggesting the attack grew out of a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video, Graham said. He then questioned the administration's decision to roll out Rice as a point person to discuss the attack if she hadn't known the details.

    The three senators had previously expressed serious reservations about supporting a possible nomination of Rice to be secretary of state, saying that her involvement in the post-attack media tour suggested she was not qualified for the position. President Barack Obama offered an aggressive rebuttal to their criticism earlier this month, and over the weekend McCain appeared to soften his opposition.

    Asked by reporters on Tuesday if the morning meeting had changed their opinion of Rice's qualifications, however, Ayotte responded, "I have many more questions that need to be answered."

    Earlier on HuffPost:

    • Hillary Clinton (2009-present)

      U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks at a press conference on November 14, 2012. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Condoleezza Rice (2005-09)

      Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice talks about the State Department's 2007 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices during a March 11, 2008 briefing in Washington. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Colin Powell (2001-05)

      U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell speaks on June 22, 2004, about a corrected version of an inaccurate terrorism report issued by the government. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Madeleine Albright (1997-2001)

      U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright delivers a Russia policy briefing on September 16, 1999 in Washington. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Warren Christopher (1993-97)

      U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher briefs reporters on the peace process in Bosnia during a Dec. 8, 1995 press conference. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Lawrence Eagleburger (1992-93)

      Then-acting Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger listens to a reporter's question during a Nov. 18, 1992 news conference at the State Department. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • James Baker (1989-92)

      James Baker III waves to his associates at the US State Department on August 13, 1992. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • George P. Shultz (1982-89)

      U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz listens to a question during his first day of testimony before Iran-Contra investigators on July 23, 1987 in Washington. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Alexander Haig (1981-82)

      Alexander Haig, Secretary of State-designate, a Reagan nominee on Monday, Dec. 23, 1980 in Washington for the announcement of selections. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Edmund Muskie (1980-81)

      (Pictured left) Freed hostage Richard Queen, right, greets well wishers at the State Department on Monday, July 21, 1980 in Washington. At left is Secretary of State Edmund Muskie. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Cyrus Vance (1977-80)

      Cyrus Vance, U.S. Secretary of State, pictured in 1979. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Henry Kissinger (1973-77)

      Secretary of State Henry Kissinger announces during an April 29, 1975 press conference in Washington that the evacuation of Americans from Vietnam and Saigon is complete, thus ending US involvement. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • William P. Rogers (1969-73)

      Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, left, and Secretary of State William P. Rogers begin talks at the Department of State on Feb. 7, 1972 in Washington. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Dean Rusk (1961-69)

      Secretary of State Dean Rusk is shown during a news conference in Washington, D.C., on March 1, 1962. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Christian Herter (1959-61)

      President Dwight Eisenhower, left, says goodbye to Secretary of State Christian Herter in Gettsburg, Pennsylvania, on May 2, 1959 as Herter is about to board a helicopter on the President's farm to return to Washington. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • John Foster Dulles (1953-59)

      U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles (left) gets together with South Korean President Syngman Rhee in Seoul on August 4, 1953. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Dean Acheson (1949-53)

      U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson speaks from the State Department on Nov. 29, 1950 in Washington. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • George C. Marshall (1947-49)

      Gen. George C. Marshall poses in his Red Cross office on Sept. 13, 1950 in Washington. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • James F. Byrnes (1945-47)

      James F. Byrnes, United States Secretary of State, links arms with Associated Press correspondent, John Hightower, at Central Hall, Westminster in London, Jan. 15, 1946. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Edward Reilly Stettinus (1944-45)

      France's Foreign Minister Georges Bidault makes a VE Day radio statement from the Opera House in San Francisco, CA, May 8, 1945. Seated at the far right U.S. Secretary of State Edward Stettinius. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Cordell Hull (1933-44)

      U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt is greeted by Secretary of State Cordell Hull on Sept. 15, 1938 in Washington. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Henry Lewis Stimson (1929-33)

      Henry Lewis Stimson, American Secretary of State for War shown around July 1931. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Frank B. Kellogg (1925-29)

      Former United States Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg on Aug. 17, 1936 at Waterloo Station in London. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)

    • Charles Evans Hughes (1921-25)

      (Center) Former Secretary of State and Chief justice Charles Evans Hughes, pictured on on March 27, 1931. (Source: <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/">U.S. Department Of State</a>)




    Monday, November 26, 2012

    France's Former First Lady Reveals Surprising Gay Marriage Stance

    PARIS ' France's former first lady Carla Bruni says she disagrees with her conservative husband Nicolas Sarkozy and supports a plan to allow gay marriage and adoption.

    In an interview with the French edition of Vogue for its December issue, the 44-year-old singer and supermodel said: "I'm rather in favor because I have a lot of friends ' men and women ' who are in this situation and I see nothing unstable or perverse in families with gay parents."

    France's Socialists are pushing a bill that could see gay marriage legalized early next year. Though surveys have found that the majority of French people favor gay marriage, there has been a vocal backlash from religious leaders, voters in rural areas and ex-President Sarkozy's own UMP party.

    "My husband is opposed for reasons linked to his political vocation, because he sees people as groups of thousands rather than people we know personally," she told the magazine ' which featured a 20-page photo spread of her decked out in designer clothes, harking back to her supermodel days.

    Bruni, no stranger to speaking her mind, also called feminism outdated ' a view seemingly at odds with her image as an independent woman who forged careers in both fashion and music before settling down with Sarkozy.

    "There's no need to be feminist in my generation," she said.

    It's not the first time Bruni has sparked controversy on the subject. Last month, Bruni said her successor, Valerie Trierweiler, should marry her partner, President Francois Hollande, and ditch her career as a journalist.

    In an interview with the French edition of Elle magazine, she dished out advice to Trierweiler, saying: "I think it is simpler to be the legitimate wife of the head of state rather than being his partner."

    She added, "For my part, I felt a real easing of the general concern about me when I married Nicolas."

    _____

    Follow Thomas Adamson at http://Twitter.com/ThomasAdamsonAP

    Also on HuffPost:

    • Netherlands

      The Netherlands was the first country to recognize gay marriage in <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4081999.stm" target="_hplink">2001</a>. <em>Pictured: Jan van Breda and Thijs Timmermans.</em>

    • Belgium

      Belgium legalized same-sex marriages in <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4081999.stm" target="_hplink">2003. </a> <em>Pictured: Marion Huibrecht and Christel Verswyvelen.</em>

    • Spain

      Spain legalized gay marriage in <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4081999.stm" target="_hplink">2005</a>.

    • Canada

      Canada followed Spain and approved gay marriage in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10650267" target="_hplink">2005. </a>

    • South Africa

      South Africa legalized same sex marriage in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10650267" target="_hplink">2006.</a> <em>Pictured: Vernon Gibbs and Tony Hall. </em>

    • Norway followed suit in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10650267" target="_hplink">2009.</a> <em>Norwegian finance minister and chairwoman of the Socialist Left party Kristin Halvorsen (L) stands next to wedding figurines outside the House of Parliament in Oslo on June 11, 2008, where she celebrated the passing of a new law awarding equal rights to same sex partnerships as those enjoyed by heterosexual marriages. (Getty)</em>

    • Sweden

      Sweden recognized same sex marriage in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10650267" target="_hplink">2009.</a> <em>Pictured: Johan Lundqvist (L) and Alf Karlsson. </em>

    • Portugal

      Portugal recognized gay marriage in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10650267" target="_hplink">2010.</a> <em>Pictured: Teresa Pires and Helena Paixao. </em>

    • Iceland

      Iceland legalized gay marriage in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10650267" target="_hplink">2010.</a>

    • Argentina

      Argentina legalized same sex-marriage in <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4081999.stm" target="_hplink">2010.</a> It was the only Latin American country to do so. <em>Pictured: Giorgio Nocentino (L) and Jaime Zapata.</em>

    "; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });