POLITICIANS

TOOLS: 

http://www.opencongress.org/people/bills/412567_Jim_Bridenstine  gives voted with and ~ most

http://www.washingtonpost.com/whorunsgov

excellent resource: http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

new tool; stock trades congr

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/

eg

poorest congr 2012:

cmd 3/14 ROI

"One of the most profitable investments they make, one of the biggest returns they get on their money is the money that they pay into campaign contributions to politicians -- pay a few million dollars and they get back billions on those investments," says Oil Change International research director Lorne Stockman.

The Center for American Progress backs up Stockman's assertion. Its research finds that for every dollar the top five oil companies spent lobbying in Washington, they got back $30 in tax breaks. That translates to a 3000-percent return on investment.

Of course, they don't limit their contributions to the federal level. If the pipeline is approved, state governments will have much to say about how it's routed, how construction will take place, and how landowners will be compensated when their property is seized. Many states are willing to pay for that privilege.

"States offer property tax breaks for pipeline companies to build pipelines through their states. So we see very favorable property tax terms on the state level for these kind of projects," says Stockton.

Of Course ALEC Is Involved in the Keystone Cash

Not willing to leave anything to chance, the oil industry is taking action to make sure state legislators see things their way. As the Center for Media and Democracy (which publishes PRWatch) reported, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) sent nine state legislators on an industry-paid field trip to the Alberta tar sands in 2012.

ALEC, which receives funding from TransCanada, the Koch brothers (whose Canadian subsidiary has tar sands investments), and other fossil fuel corporations, set up the event to put legislators in the same room as the industry lobbyists who paid for the lavish private-jet travel and fine dining. ALEC also prompted each of the nine legislators to send their corporate sponsors a thank you note, with a reminder of what the lobbyists had paid for the tour.

CMD also uncovered emails between TransCanada's lobbyist and Ohio state Rep. John Adams in which the lobbyist provided Adams with a model bill in support of KXL, with Adams swiftly introduced in the legislature. The bill was co-sponsored by another participant in ALEC's Alberta field trip.

Politicians Prey on the Poor's Jobs Hopes

Big Oil's influence extends even to, and perhaps most powerfully in, local politics. Port Arthur, Texas, where the KXL pipeline is slated to terminate, is essentially a one-industry town. What few jobs there are, are in the refineries that dominate the city's landscape, or in the small businesses that serve them. And with one in five people unemployed, and one in four living in poverty, those with jobs are unwilling to put their livelihoods at risk. Activists say that includes elected officials.

Community organizer and environmental activist Hilton Kelley says what success his organization has had has come with little help from local politicians.

"A lot of times local government stands as a stumbling block in the way of local activists that are pushing for clean air and clean water, because they get the biggest part of their tax base from these industries," he says. "Maybe one or two council members had the heart to stand up in city council in Port Arthur say something but they're soon ousted. They don't get reelected the following year."

Kelley recognizes that his independence from the refineries is a rare luxury in Port Arthur, and it allows him to take the lead. "I have no connections to the plants," he says, "therefore they can't really hurt me like they could someone who retired from the plant someone who has a kid who works at the plant."

"They could possibly lose their job and all they'd tell them is, 'We don't need you anymore,' or, 'We cut that position.' But the reason they're letting them go is because their mother or dad was seen on TV protesting with me. I don't hold any animosity toward those who are really intimidated to stand with me, because I understand the dilemma."

American Dreams Denied in American "Sacrifice Zones"

That dilemma is often exploited by industries that use economic desperation in the communities they occupy. In exchange for a few jobs, the companies get to pollute. It's a phenomenon called "sacrifice zones."

"Oftentimes front-line communities, which tend to be low-income and minority communities, are left out of the conversation, ignored, and they bear the brunt," says Colarulli of the Sierra Club. "They're often called 'sacrifice zones' these places where people are living in [squalid] conditions. This is not the American dream. This is not the way we should have people living in America."

Of course none of this could happen without the media's acquiescence. We're not even talking about right-wing talkers like Rush Limbaugh, 2011 winner of Media Matters' "Climate Change Misinformer of the Year" award who recently told his listeners that they cannot concurrently believe in God and climate change. We're talking about the mainstream media that have given very little time to the issue of climate change and how KXL could impact it.

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-members-of-congress-grow-wealthier-despite-recession/

gore RS

Many politicians, unfortunately, also fall into the same two categories: those who cheerlead for the deniers and those who cower before them.The latter group now includes several candidates for the Republican presidential nomination who have felt it necessary to abandon their previous support for action on the climate crisis; at least one has been apologizing profusely to the deniers and begging for their forgiveness.

"Intimidation" and "timidity" are connected by more than a shared word root. The first is designed to produce the second. As Yeats wrote almost a century ago, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

Barack Obama's approach to the climate crisis represents a special case that requires careful analysis. His election was accompanied by intense hope that many things in need of change would change. Some things have, but others have not. Climate policy, unfortunately, is in the second category. Why?

First of all, anyone who honestly examines the incredible challenges confronting President Obama when he took office has to feel enormous empathy for him: the Great Recession, with the high unemployment and the enormous public and private indebtedness it produced; two seemingly interminable wars; an intractable political opposition whose true leaders — entertainers masquerading as pundits — openly declared that their objective was to ensure that the new president failed; a badly broken Senate that is almost completely paralyzed by the threat of filibuster and is controlled lock, stock and barrel by the oil and coal industries; a contingent of nominal supporters in Congress who are indentured servants of the same special interests that control most of the Republican Party; and a ferocious, well-financed and dishonest campaign poised to vilify anyone who dares offer leadership for the reduction of global-warming pollution.

In spite of these obstacles, President Obama included significant climate-friendly initiatives in the economic stimulus package he presented to Congress during his first month in office. With the skillful leadership of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and committee chairmen Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, he helped secure passage of a cap-and-trade measure in the House a few months later. He implemented historic improvements in fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles, and instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to move forward on the regulation of global-warming pollution under the Clean Air Act. He appointed many excellent men and women to key positions, and they, in turn, have made hundreds of changes in environmental and energy policy that have helped move the country forward slightly on the climate issue. During his first six months, he clearly articulated the link between environmental security, economic security and national security — making the case that a national commitment to renewable energy could simultaneously reduce unemployment, dependence on foreign oil and vulnerability to the disruption of oil markets dominated by the Persian Gulf reserves. And more recently, as the issue of long-term debt has forced discussion of new revenue, he proposed the elimination of unnecessary and expensive subsidies for oil and gas.

But in spite of these and other achievements, President Obama has thus far failed to use the bully pulpit to make the case for bold action on climate change. After successfully passing his green stimulus package, he did nothing to defend it when Congress decimated its funding. After the House passed cap and trade, he did little to make passage in the Senate a priority. Senate advocates — including one Republican — felt abandoned when the president made concessions to oil and coal companies without asking for anything in return. He has also called for a massive expansion of oil drilling in the United States, apparently in an effort to defuse criticism from those who argue speciously that "drill, baby, drill" is the answer to our growing dependence on foreign oil.

The failure to pass legislation to limit global-warming pollution ensured that the much-anticipated Copenhagen summit on a global treaty in 2009 would also end in failure. The president showed courage in attending the summit and securing a rhetorical agreement to prevent a complete collapse of the international process, but that's all it was — a rhetorical agreement. During the final years of the Bush-Cheney administration, the rest of the world was waiting for a new president who would aggressively tackle the climate crisis — and when it became clear that there would be no real change from the Bush era, the agenda at Copenhagen changed from "How do we complete this historic breakthrough?" to "How can we paper over this embarrassing disappointment?"

Some concluded from the failure in Copenhagen that it was time to give up on the entire U.N.-sponsored process for seeking an international agreement to reduce both global-warming pollution and deforestation. Ultimately, however, the only way to address the climate crisis will be with a global agreement that in one way or another puts a price on carbon. And whatever approach is eventually chosen, the U.S. simply must provide leadership by changing our own policy.

Yet without presidential leadership that focuses intensely on making the public aware of the reality we face, nothing will change. The real power of any president, as Richard Neustadt wrote, is "the power to persuade." Yet President Obama has never presented to the American people the magnitude of the climate crisis. He has simply not made the case for action. He has not defended the science against the ongoing, withering and dishonest attacks. Nor has he provided a presidential venue for the scientific community — including our own National Academy — to bring the reality of the science before the public.

Here is the core of it: we are destroying the climate balance that is essential to the survival of our civilization. This is not a distant or abstract threat; it is happening now. The United States is the only nation that can rally a global effort to save our future. And the president is the only person who can rally the United States.

Many political advisers assume that a president has to deal with the world of politics as he finds it, and that it is unwise to risk political capital on an effort to actually lead the country toward a new understanding of the real threats and real opportunities we face. Concentrate on the politics of re-election, they say. Don't take chances.

All that might be completely understandable and make perfect sense in a world where the climate crisis wasn't "real." Those of us who support and admire President Obama understand how difficult the politics of this issue are in the context of the massive opposition to doing anything at all — or even to recognizing that there is a crisis. And assuming that the Republicans come to their senses and avoid nominating a clown, his re-election is likely to involve a hard-fought battle with high stakes for the country. All of his supporters understand that it would be self-defeating to weaken Obama and heighten the risk of another step backward. Even writing an article like this one carries risks; opponents of the president will excerpt the criticism and strip it of context.

But in this case, the President has reality on his side. The scientific consensus is far stronger today than at any time in the past. Here is the truth: The Earth is round; Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11; Elvis is dead; Obama was born in the United States; and the climate crisis is real. It is time to act.

Those who profit from the unconstrained pollution that is the primary cause of climate change are determined to block our perception of this reality. They have help from many sides: from the private sector, which is now free to make unlimited and secret campaign contributions; from politicians who have conflated their tenures in office with the pursuit of the people's best interests; and — tragically — from the press itself, which treats deception and falsehood on the same plane as scientific fact, and calls it objective reporting of alternative opinions.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-of-denial-20110622?print=true

 ---

POLARITY:

E.J. Dionne Jr.: Our Divided Political Heart (6/18/12)

clay/ wanted Am sys vs brit sys which was liassez faire

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/archive/podcast/ej-dionne-jr-our-divided-political-heart-61812

Click to embiggen.

Two things jump out. First, over the 32 years leading up to 2004, the mean Dem moved six points to the left and the mean Republican moved 22 points to the right. Much farther! And second, there is virtually no overlap left between the parties. The humps have almost entirely separated. In short, the chart shows asymmetrical polarization.

polarization: http://grist.org/politics/asymmetrical-polarization-the-lefts-gone-left-but-the-rights-gone-nuts/

===

the big sort: http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded/dp/0618689354#reader_0618689354

http://www.economist.com/node/11581447

personal worth

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/index.php

===

Jeffrey D. Sachs: America’s deepening moral crisis

Jeffrey D. Sachs: America’s deepening moral crisis

 Jeffrey D. Sachs | economics professor and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University madison.com | (14) Comments | Posted: Sunday, October 3, 2010 4:45 am

NEW YORK – America’s political and economic crisis is set to worsen following the upcoming November elections. President Barack Obama will lose any hope for passing progressive legislation aimed at helping the poor or the environment. Indeed, all major legislation and reforms are likely to be stalemated until 2013, following a new presidential election. An already bad situation marked by deadlock and vitriol is likely to worsen, and the world should not expect much leadership from a bitterly divided United States.

Much of America is in a nasty mood, and the language of compassion has more or less been abandoned. Both political parties serve their rich campaign contributors, while proclaiming that they defend the middle class. Neither party even mentions the poor, who now officially make up 15 percent of the population but in fact are even more numerous when we count all those households struggling with health care, housing, jobs, and other needs.

The Republican Party recently issued a “Pledge to America” to explain its beliefs and campaign promises. The document is filled with nonsense, such as the fatuous claim that high taxes and over-regulation explain America’s high unemployment. It is also filled with propaganda. A quotation from President John F. Kennedy states that high tax rates can strangle the economy, but Kennedy was speaking a half-century ago, when the top marginal tax rates were twice what they are today. Most of all, the Republican platform is devoid of compassion.

America today presents the paradox of a rich country falling apart because of the collapse of its core values. American productivity is among the highest in the world. Average national income per person is about $46,000 -- enough not only to live on, but to prosper. Yet the country is in the throes of an ugly moral crisis.

Income inequality is at historic highs, but the rich claim that they have no responsibility to the rest of society. They refuse to come to the aid of the destitute, and defend tax cuts at every opportunity. Almost everybody complains, almost everybody aggressively defends their own narrow and short-term interests.

What passes for American political debate is a contest between the parties to give bigger promises to the middle class, mainly in the form of budget-busting tax cuts at a time when the fiscal deficit is already more than 10 percent of GDP. Americans seem to believe that they have a natural right to government services without paying taxes. In the American political lexicon, taxes are defined as a denial of liberty.

There was a time, not long ago, when Americans talked of ending poverty at home and abroad. Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty in the mid-1960s reflected an era of national optimism and the belief that society should make collective efforts to solve common problems, such as poverty, pollution, and health care. America in the 1960s enacted programs to rebuild poor communities, to fight air and water pollution, and to ensure health care for the elderly. Then the deep divisions over Vietnam and civil rights, combined with a surge of consumerism and advertising, seemed to end an era of shared sacrifice for the common good.

The big campaign contributors to both parties pay to ensure that their vested interests dominate political debates. That means that both parties increasingly defend the interests of the rich, though Republicans do so slightly more than Democrats. Even a modest tax increase on the rich is unlikely to find support in American politics.

The result of all of this is likely to be a long-term decline of U.S. power and prosperity, because Americans no longer invest collectively in their common future. America will remain a rich society for a long time to come, but one that is increasingly divided and unstable.

Racism and anti-immigrant sentiments are an important part of the attack on the poor, or at least the reason why so many are willing to heed the propaganda against helping the poor. As other societies grapple with their own increasing diversity, they may follow the U.S. into crisis.

Economic growth is no guarantee of well-being or political stability. American society has become increasingly harsh, where the richest Americans buy their way to political power, and the poor are abandoned to their fate. In their private lives, Americans have become addicted to consumerism, which drains their time, savings, attention, and inclination to engage in acts of collective compassion.

The world should beware. Unless we break the ugly trends of big money in politics and rampant consumerism, we risk winning economic productivity at the price of our humanity.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. This column was provided by Project Syndicate, a Prague-based not-for-profit association of 390 newspapers in 145 countries.