BUFFER 2

TAG BUFR 921 +/- = mod?

disagregate thing from property?

see mod tag and Moderation node

bak 1219 shift to physical systems eg OCEANS?

Buffers are reserves of resources that give systems resilience

but BAD buffer trade groups, are a reservoir of secret cash (that can be used for political donations,  they are corps thus cu?], but have legal capability, some prolly have PR flaks the  real deep state?

Tendency to engineer out as inefficient, eg  just in time supply chain

plus libtard capitalist grifters want to loot the buffer, eg charter schools, pension funds, extraction

yikes: aha: evil mirror of leverage/synergy jiu itsu isbad juju: carbon/ methane bombs sudden release of vast old buffer (soil, ice)

---

an common dr 5 24

echoing early May criticism of U.S. House Republicans' blueprint for the next Farm Bill, anti-hunger and green groups on Friday fiercely condemned the GOP's discussion draft text of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024.

Released by U.S. House Committee on Agriculture Chair Glenn "GT" Thompson (R-Pa.), the draft is competing with a Democratic proposal—Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow's (D-Mich.) Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act.

While Thomspon claimed that his bill "is the product of extensive feedback from stakeholders and all members of the House, and is responsive to the needs of farm country through the incorporation of hundreds of bipartisan policies," Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), the panel's ranking member, said that the draft "confirms my worst fears."

"House Republicans plan to pay for the farm bill by taking food out of the mouths of America's hungry children, restricting farmers from receiving the climate-smart conservation funding they so desperately need, and barring the USDA from providing financial assistance to farmers in times of crisis," he warned, referring to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The economic impact of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cuts alone "would be staggering," Scott emphasized. "A $27 billion reduction in food purchasing power would not only increase hunger, but it would also reduce demand for jobs in the agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, and grocery sectors."

Leaders at advocacy groups on Friday similarly slammed the Republican bill. Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, reiterated her previous condemnation of GOP attempts to cut the benefits of hungry families, saying that "this is unacceptable; Congress should reject it."

"Every SNAP participant would receive less to buy groceries in future years than they would under current law, putting a healthy diet out of reach for millions of people. This would be the largest cut to SNAP since 1996 if enacted and these cuts would grow even deeper over time," Jones Cox explained, debunking Thompson's description of the changes.

"And the cut to future SNAP benefits isn't the only harmful policy in this bill. For example, it would allow states to outsource SNAP administration to private contractors. But prior privatization efforts delayed benefits for people in need, worsened errors, and increased costs," she continued. "Congress should reject Chair Thompson's harmful proposal and instead work to pass a farm bill that truly protects and strengthens SNAP." Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, executive director and CEO of MomsRising, argued that "at this time when skyrocketing food prices have increased hunger and food insecurity, forcing tens of millions of U.S. families to make impossible choices between food and other essentials, it would be mean-spirited and shameful for Congress to cut the SNAP benefits moms and families rely on; and it also would be damaging to our economy."

Describing the benefits, formerly called food stamps, as "the nation's first line of defense against hunger," Rowe-Finkbeiner highlighted that "more than 42 million people count on SNAP benefits each month and nearly four in five of them are children, seniors, people with disabilities, or veterans."

"In contrast, the bipartisan Senate Farm Bill—the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act—aids farmers and treats hunger in America as the emergency it is," she noted. "It is a bold bill that would protect SNAP benefits and increase access to this essential program for groups that have long been excluded, reducing barriers to participation for older adults, military families, some college students, and others. It is an easy choice. Without question, the Senate Farm Bill is the version that should become law." The GOP's efforts to restrict food assistance aren't limited to the United States, as Gina Cummings, Oxfam vice president for advocacy, alliances, and policy, pointed out Friday, declaring that "at a time when over 281 million people are suffering from acute hunger, any proposal to undercut crucial international food assistance programs is damaging."

As Cummings detailed:

The resilience-building programs housed in Food for Peace are vital to preparing frontline communities for future shocks that could impact their food security—whether it be from climate change, conflict, or economic downturns.

Oxfam has raised concerns about the American Farmers Feed the World Act, which is where many of the cuts to Food for Peace originate from—since its introduction last summer. The bill has proposed gutting funding for resilience-building activities that ensure communities can build up their local markets, withstand the next drought, flood, or conflict, and not go hungry. The House Farm Bill as it is currently written includes some of the most concerning provisions of the bill and would render these vital interventions inoperable, resulting in as many as 3 million fewer people being reached by these programs based on their current scale.

The House must reject the provisions of the American Farmers Feed the World Act included in the House Farm Bill draft as the bill goes for markup. The inclusion of such provisions is a threat to global food security and a shift towards a less-efficient model of international aid by the United States.

The AFL-CIO said on social media that it "strongly opposes" the Republican proposal, adding: "Families rely on Food for Peace—and also SNAP, SNAP's Thrifty Food Plan, and other federal nutrition and food security programs. We cannot support making harmful policy changes or funding cuts to any of them."

In addition to calling out the GOP for trying to leave more people hungry, advocates denounced Republican efforts to gut climate-friendly requirements from the Inflation Reduction Act and enact the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act.

"The Farm Bill is a seminal opportunity to reform our food and agriculture sector away from factory farms and corporate greed," said Food & Water Watch managing director of policy and litigation Mitch Jones. "Instead, House Republicans want to double down."

"Some of leadership's more dangerous proposals would take us backwards on animal welfare, and climate-smart agriculture—both the EATS Act and support for factory farm biogas must be dead on arrival," he asserted. "It's time Congress put the culture wars aside and got back to work on a Farm Bill that puts consumers, farmers, and the environment above politicking and Big Ag handouts." Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that "weakening safeguards that protect people from pesticides, slashing protections for endangered species, and recklessly expanding industrial logging should have no place in the Farm Bill."

"It's unfortunate that chairman Thompson has put forward such a destructive farm bill to appease the most fringe members of Congress," Hartl added. "This bill can't pass the House and it's a waste of everyone's time."

In a joint statement released Friday after a meeting with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Democrats on Thompson's panel, Scott and Statenow stressed that members of their party are "committed to passing a strong, bipartisan Farm Bill that strengthens the farm and family safety nets and invests in our rural communities."

"America's farmers, families, workers, and rural communities deserve the certainty of a five-year Farm Bill, and everyone knows it must be bipartisan to pass," the pair said, blasting divisive GOP proposals. "Democrats remain ready and willing to work with Republicans on a truly bipartisan Farm Bill to keep farmers farming, families fed, and rural communities strong."

==

omfg

https://www.alternet.org/2022/07/record-deforestation-amazon-tipping-point/

jake j cmn dr

the Brazilian government published data Friday showing that more than 2,500 fire hotspots were recorded in the Amazon rainforest last month, the highest number for June since 2007—one of the worst years ever for the critical ecosystem.

The latest report from Brazil's National Institute for Space Research showed that the Brazilian Amazon has lost 1,450 square miles of jungle since the start of 2022.

Greenpeace Brazil said in response to the alarming figures that the far-right Bolsonaro government's systematic rampage against basic environmental protections is responsible for the surge in rainforest fires and overall deforestation, which have helped transform parts of the Amazon—long known as a key carbon "sink"—into sources of planet-warming greenhouse gas.

"Agribusiness is hitting new records for forest destruction as the dry season arrives in the Amazon," said Cristiane Mazzetti, a spokesperson for Greenpeace Brazil. "Illegal burnings and deforestation have accelerated over the last three years as a direct result of the Brazilian government's anti-environmental agenda that encourages the destruction of the forest."

"If this trend does not change," Mazzetti added, "we will approach the tipping point of no return in which the Amazon could fail as a rainforest."

Brazilian academics have warned in recent months that a Bolsonaro victory in the October presidential election would mean total demise for the Brazilian Amazon. Recent polling shows that Bolsonaro is trailing leftist former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who has vowed to pursue "net-zero deforestation" if elected.

"If Bolsonaro remains in the power of presidency, it's hopeless in terms of the environment," Marcio Astrini, executive secretary of the São Paulo-based Climate Observatory, told HuffPost in April, a record-shattering month for Amazon deforestation.

"There will be more deforestation," said Astrini. "The Amazon will fast forward to its collapse point."

Environmental groups have voiced dismay at the Biden administration's failure to confront Bolsonaro on the international stage over his government's assault on the Amazon. The U.S. is Brazil's second-largest trading partner.

Last month, during the U.S.-hosted Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles, President Joe Biden went as far as to praise Bolsonaro for trying to "protect the Amazon."

"In addition to being divorced from reality, Biden's statement is remarkably tone-deaf," Maria Laura Canineu and Luciana Téllez Chávez of Human Rights Watch wrote on the final day of the summit, where the two leaders met for the first time. "Biden has shamefully squandered the opportunity to leverage his meeting with Bolsonaro to support the courageous defenders of the Amazon."

"These defenders are putting their lives on the line to protect the world's largest rainforest and a vital bulwark against climate change," they continued. "Biden should correct this mistake and press Bolsonaro to reverse his damaging policies, urging Bolsonaro to get Brazil back on track in fighting deforestation and protecting forest defenders from violence."

Diana Ruiz, the head of forests at Greenpeace USA, said in a statement Friday that "up to now, the Biden administration has only legitimized the Brazilian government's anti-Indigenous and anti-environmental agenda."

"The U.S. has a responsibility to act and stop making deals with President Bolsonaro, who continues to wage an assault against Indigenous Peoples and environmental defenders," Ruiz added.

tom b raw an 5 23

https://www.alternet.org/brett-kavanaugh-lobbed-the-judicial-version-of-a-grenade-at-sam-alito-this-week-analysis-2660660997/

reacting to a blunt-talking concurring opinion submitted by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh taking on the ruling authored by colleague Sam Alito, Loyola Law School Professor Jessica Levinson suggested in a new column for MSNBC there is the makingsof a schism developing within the conservative majority court.

At issue was the court severely limiting the ability of the government to enforce theClean Water Act,with Kavanaugh agreeing with the ultimate decision, but siding with the liberal wing in pointing out that the court is making law instead of interpreting it.

According to Levinson, the court's ruling was an egregious assertion of the court's authority and "the court’s ruling isn’t merely practically pernicious for those who care about the environment; it is legally wrong."

As she notes, the conservative wing of the court continually emphasizes that they are jurists and not elected lawmakers and, surprisingly, Kavanaugh reminded Alito of that in the text of his concurrence.

"It is unusual for Kavanaugh to break with his conservative colleagues, and the fact that he did so here shows us how truly baseless the court’s reasoning is," she suggested before explaining, "Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion explains why the court’s interpretation of the text of the Clean Water Act is fundamentally unmoored from the text itself. To use his words, 'the Court is imposing a restriction nowhere to be found in the text.'"

"The question before the court in this case was which wetlands are considered to be 'adjacent' to a body of water covered by the act, and therefore itself protected by the act," she wrote. "While the court’s ultimate decision was unanimous, its reasoning was splintered. A thin five-member majority of the court, defying basic rules of legal interpretation, concluded that 'adjacent' means 'adjoining.'"

As she notes Kavanaugh pointed out that the court went out of its way to ignore the obvious meanings of the words involved.

"Kavanaugh tells us exactly why Justice Alito got it wrong, as well: his interpretation goes against the 'ordinary meaning' of the word 'adjacent' and the 'longstanding agency practice' of the Army Corps.Referring to dictionaries for the plain and ordinary meaning of the word adjacent, Kavanaugh notes, 'the definitions of "adjacent" are notably explicit that two things need not touch each other in order to be adjacent,'" she elaborated.

According to Levinson, Kavanaugh was being brutally blunt with Alito and his other conservative colleagues when he wrote, "I would stick to the text.”

"These six words are nothing less than the judicial version of a grenade," the law professor wrote before adding, "Kavanaugh is essentially reminding the majority that they had one job, and one job alone, when interpreting a federal law: to follow the text. They failed to do so. We will live with the practical and legal consequences of that failure for years to come."

You can read her whole column here

==

yikes another kind of bad buffer: Peltzman Effect /  risk compensation

The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation Author(s): Sam Peltzman Source: Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 83, No. 4 (Aug., 1975), pp. 677-726. Sam Peltzman criticises the quality of his own analysis here. (seat blts? --> graham air bag BS? --> risk asses?

:{

}:

:{

}:

I kinda forgot about this until

https://kpfa.org/episode/upfront-june-22-2022/  nordhaus fraction of % gdp 2100 now 14%/yr much earlier, he got nobel; state CA fla pick up when mkt bails, perfect design to go over cliff?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qkpBizCFYo apr 2022 commonwealth

Fire and Flood: A People’s History of Climate Change, from 1979 to the Present

https://www.harvard.com/book/fire_and_flood/

Eugene Linden wrote his first story on climate change, for Time magazine, in 1988; it was just the beginning of his investigative work, exploring all ramifications of this impending disaster. Fire and Flood represents his definitive case for the prosecution as to how and why we have arrived at our current dire pass, closing with his argument that the same forces that have confused the public’s mind and slowed the policy response are poised to pivot with astonishing speed, as long-term risks have become present-day realities and the cliff’s edge is now within view.

Starting with the 1980s, Linden tells the story, decade by decade, by looking at four clocks that move at different speeds: the reality of climate change itself; the scientific consensus about it, which always lags reality; public opinion and political will, which lag further still; and, perhaps most important, business and finance. Reality marches on at its own pace, but the public will and even the science are downstream from the money, and Fire and Flood shows how devilishly effective moneyed climate-change deniers have been at slowing and even reversing the progress of our collective awakening. When a threat means certain but future disaster, but addressing it means losing present-tense profit, capitalism’s response has been sadly predictable.

Now, however, the seasons of fire and flood have crossed the threshold into plain view. Linden focuses on the insurance industryas one loud canary in the coal mine: fire and flood zones in Florida and California, among other regions, are now seeing what many call “climate redlining.” The whole system is teetering on the brink, and the odds of another housing collapse, for starters, are much higher than most people understand. There is a path back from the cliff, but we must pick up the pace. Fire and Flood shows us why, and how.

doh/belated: enough fails of right kind and magnitude (or inter-lock/ cascade) can lead to systemic failure/crisis?  texas is failure to think sys b/c we know weather chaos coming, cold as well as warm; free mkt dereg bs is reductive sys theory; naomi k says texas // to covid fail, mkt see "excess" capacity as inefficiency so no resilience to bigger shocks sys tell us are coming; me vs we, short vs long term; RESTORE THE COMMONS, BUILD BACK BETTER

who said small price to pay to keep gubmint out of our business?

https://www.alternet.org/2021/02/green-new-deal/

Author and environmentalist Naomi Klein argued in a New York Times column Sunday that Republicans rushed to attack the Green New Deal as disaster struck in Texas because the popular push for a sweeping transformation of the U.S. energy system poses a genuine threat to the deregulated, fossil-fuel dependent status quo that left the Lone Star State vulnerable to extreme weather driven by the climate crisis.

"Texans are living through the collapse of a 40-year experiment in free-market fundamentalism, one that has also stood in the way of effective climate action," Klein wrote. "Fortunately, there's a way out—and that's precisely what Republican politicians in the state most fear."

Klein characterized the ongoing power, water, and food crises in Texas as the consequence of "an energy-market free-for-all" stemming from "a fateful series of decisions [that] were made in the late-'90s, when the now-defunct, scandal-plagued energy company Enron led a successful push to radically deregulate Texas' electricity sector."

"As a result, decisions about the generation and distribution of power were stripped from regulators and, in effect, handed over to private energy companies," Klein wrote. "Unsurprisingly, these companies prioritized short-term profit over costly investments to maintain the grid and build in redundancies for extreme weather. Today, Texans are at the mercy of regulation-allergic politicians who failed to require that energy companies plan for shocks or weatherize their infrastructure (renewables and fossil fuel alike)."

In the aftermath of Winter Storm Uri, ordinary Texans are beginning to see the direct impact of the deregulatory push on their material wellbeing as electric companies hit them with bills topping $17,000—"a consequence," Klein argued, "of leaving pricing to the whims of the market."

Alluding to her previous work on "the shock doctrine"—a term she coined to describe how the right has exploited past disasters to force through unpopular privatization and austerity agendas—Klein noted that "large-scale shocks... become ideal moments to smuggle in unpopular free-market policies that tend to enrich elites at everyone else's expense."

"I often quote a guru of the free market revolution, the late economist Milton Friedman," Klein wrote. "In 1982, he wrote about what he saw as the mission of right-wing economists like him: 'Only a crisis—actual or perceived—produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable."[gop sez BO cos chic guy]

The difference between past shocks such as the 9/11 attacks, Hurricane Katrina, and the 2008 financial crisis and the current emergency in Texas, Klein argued, is that "Republican ideas are no longer lying around—they are lying in ruin."

Texas' Republican Gov. Greg Abbott attacked the Green New Deal—a proposal that has not even been implemented—in an appearance on Fox News last week because he knows its promise to "create millions of union jobs building out shock-resilient green energy infrastructure, transit, and affordable housing" is "extremely appealing" to Texans as they "suffer under the overlapping crises of unemployment, houselessness, racial injustice, crumbling public services, and extreme weather," Klein wrote.

"All that Texas' Republicans have to offer, in contrast," Klein added, "is continued oil and gas dependence—driving more climate disruption—alongside more privatizations and cuts to public services to pay for their state's mess, which we can expect them to push in the weeks and months ahead." [death spiral]

As The Houston Chroniclereported last week, Republican members of the Texas state legislature are already signaling that "one of the most immediate reforms they will push for is recalibrating the state's electricity grid to ensure more fossil fuels are in that mix and fewer renewables."

But Klein contended that "unlike when the Republican Party began deploying the shock doctrine, its free-market playbook is no longer novel."

"The horrors currently unfolding in Texas expose both the reality of the climate crisis and the extreme vulnerability of fossil fuel infrastructure in the face of that crisis," Klein wrote. "So of course the Green New Deal finds itself under fierce attack. Because for the first time in a long time, Republicans face the very thing that they claim to revere but never actually wanted: competition—in the battle of ideas." twt

in recent days, as Common Dreams has reported, progressive advocacy groups such as the youth-led Sunrise Movement and Greenpeace USA have made the case that—contrary to the GOP's bad-faith attacks—a Green New Deal is precisely what's needed to help Texas equitably recover from the present emergency and build the resilience necessary to withstand future climate-driven disasters.

"Many people across the country are realizing for the first time that fossil fuels are not only polluting, they are unstable. Millions of Texans are being let down by coal, oil, and gas right now," Greenpeace climate campaigner Ashley Thomson said last Thursday.

On Monday, activists with the Sunrise Movement of Texas are expected to rally at the state capitol in Austin to demand immediate relief for struggling Texans, the resignations of Abbott and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas.), and passage of a Green New Deal that would "make our state and country more resilient to future disasters, and create millions of good union jobs in the process of transforming these necessary structures."

"Texas is the perfect example of what happens when our politicians cater to fossil fuel executives instead of the young people who have been shouting from the rooftops for years, warning of an impending climate emergency like this," said Chante Davis, a 17-year-old Sunrise Movement leader and Houston resident.

"I've survived three once in a lifetime storms in my 17 years of life," added Davis, whose family moved to Texas in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. "We need change, and the Green New Deal is the obvious, urgent solution. As our communities come together to fill the void of our government, our leaders must invest in us to provide jobs that directly address the crises we face."

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

• The Green New Deal can work — here's how - Alternet.org ›
• Green New Deal champion Chloe Maxmin unseats powerful state ... ›
• The Sunrise Movement warns Pelosi: Your actions on climate fall ... ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

• Green New Deal ›
• What Is the Green New Deal? A Climate Proposal, Explained - The ... ›
• Text - H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the ... ›

https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/retirement/

pro publ

The Federal Reserve, which these days seems to be the only major part of the federal government capable of operating drama-free, has done a lot to help keep our economy afloat. It has cut interest rates to unprecedented low levels, bought billions of dollars of corporate IOUs, helped stabilize the debt markets and helped rescue a stock market that had begun falling sharply in mid-February when the COVID-19 recession started and that seemed headed for a crash.

In the process, the Fed has indirectly provided support to house prices and to the vital home construction business by forcing down mortgage interest rates to all-time lows of about 3%. Given that home equity is a major asset for many middle-class Americans, supporting home prices is especially important. As is supporting the home construction industry, which is a major source of blue-collar jobs.

But if you dig deeper, you'll see that the Fed is unintentionally worsening economic inequality by providing the most help to Americans who are least in need of it. And it's also putting stress on the middle class' most important asset: retirement benefits.

Higher stock prices are great for people (including me) who own a lot of stocks, but those people are primarily the top 10% of the country, in terms of wealth. According to Fed statistics, more than half of stocks — 52% — are owned by the wealthiest 1% of Americans, and 88% are owned by the top 10%.

To show you a different aspect of helping the upper class but not the working class, the Fed's securities purchases include buying debt issued by firms that are laying off workers while paying substantial dividends to shareholders. And for some imprudent or troubled corporate borrowers, the Fed's moves have been hugely helpful.

But those moves are hurting prudent savers of modest means by greatly reducing the income they can earn on Treasury securities and other no-risk investments such as bank certificates of deposit. That tends to drive people seeking income into the stock market, where their capital is at risk. By contrast, if you buy a Treasury security, you're sure of getting your money back when the security comes due, even though the security's market value will fluctuate both up and down while you hold it.

Interest rates are so low that they've largely erased the key benefit — income — Treasury bonds are theoretically supposed to provide over stocks. If you own a low-cost Standard & Poor's 500 index fund, you're getting much more income from dividends than the interest you'd earn having the same amount invested in a 10-year Treasury note. For example, the dividend yield (a year's worth of dividends divided by the current market price) on Admiral shares of Vanguard's S&P 500 fund is more than double the interest yield of a 10-year Treasury. It's even higher than the yield on a 30-year Treasury bond, something that you rarely see.

The yield on the Vanguard fund was 1.65% as of Sept. 30, the most recent available date. As I write this, the yield on a 10-year Treasury, the security it generally makes the most sense for a retail investor to buy and hold to maturity, was 0.76%. The yield on the 30-year Treasury was 1.56%.

Despite its good intentions, the Fed is setting the stage for huge problems down the road for pension funds and, therefore, for potential pension recipients. There are also going to be problems for insurance companies and for other firms onto which many corporate employers have offloaded their pension obligations in order to clean up their balance sheets and minimize their future financial risks.

The firms that have assumed the responsibility for paying these pensions typically own bond-heavy portfolios. And while bond prices have risen because interest rates have fallen — I'll explain how that works some other day — rates seem much more likely to rise from their current low levels in the future than to fall even lower. And when rates rise, it will decrease the market value of the bonds held by the firms that have assumed responsibility for paying pensions.

What it all adds up to: The Fed is trying to salvage the present by pumping trillions of dollars into the U.S. and world financial systems but in the process is putting our economic future at risk. “We're bailing out the present and making the future pay for it," said Gene Steuerle, a co-founder of the Tax Policy Center.

Please note that I'm not blaming the Fed for what it's doing. It's trying to fulfill its mandate to keep employment high, inflation relatively low, the dollar reasonably stable and interest rates at what it considers an appropriate level. The Fed's job, which is already difficult in strange and uncertain economic times like these, is being made much harder by the lack of new economic stimulus packages from Congress and the White House. These packages, as we saw when they were in effect earlier this year, not only help individuals but also stimulate the economy when recipients spend the money they've gotten.

The Fed, by contrast, can help the financial markets and the economy but can't directly help individual people.

Now, let me show you how the Fed's near-zero rates, the culmination of a dozen years of ultralow rates and which Fed Chair Jerome Powell says will continue indefinitely, are undermining the long-range future of the U.S. retirement system. This matters — a lot — because Fed statistics show that retirement benefits (not including Social Security) are hugely important to the middle class.

Prof. Edward Wolff of New York University, who specializes in studying income and wealth inequality, told me that Fed statistics show that pension wealth accounts for 70.3% of the net worth of the middle class, which he defines as people ranking in the 20^th through 80^th percentiles in terms of wealth. By contrast, he said, retirement benefits are only 2.2% of the upper class' wealth.

This makes the middle class particularly vulnerable to rising rates in the future. Let's take this piece by piece.

For starters, near-zero rates are making the financial problems of the already-stressed Social Security system worse than they would otherwise be by sharply reducing the interest that Social Security can earn on its $2.9 trillion trust fund. That trust fund consists entirely of Treasury securities and is legally barred from owning stocks. That means that the fund's interest yield is falling and it's not benefiting from the 50% rise in stock prices since the market bottomed on March 23.

The near-zero rates also affect private pensions. David Zion of Zion Research estimates that the pension funds of the Standard & Poor's 500 companies, which he says were underfunded by a total of $279 billion at the end of 2019, were underfunded by $407 billion as of June 30. “The main driver of the increase is lower interest rates," he said. (I'll explain the math behind lower rates raising pensions' underfunding in a bit.)

Large as it is, the S&P companies' total shortfall is only a fraction of the underfunding afflicting state and local government pension funds. Keith Brainard, director of research for the National Association of State Retirement Administrators, estimates that the 5,332 retirement funds sponsored by state and local governments were $1.96 trillion underwater as of June 30, the most recent available number, up from $1.90 trillion as of year-end 2019. This has happened, he said, even though the funds' assets totaled about $4.65 trillion, an all-time high.

What's more, if you use dispassionate math rather than the generous accounting principles that public pension funds are allowed to use, you see that lower long-term interest rates are doing much more damage to these funds' financial status than the numbers from Brainard's organization suggest. For instance, Steve Church of Piscataqua Research estimates that the shortfalls of the 127 public pension funds that he follows, which have a total of about $4 trillion of assets, are about $7.44 trillion. That's more than quadruple the funds' reported $1.53 trillion shortfall.

This huge difference stems mostly from different assumptions about interest rates and different ways of calculating how much money a fund needs to have on hand today to meet a future obligation. A public pension fund comes up with how much it needs to have on hand today based on the income it expects to earn on its portfolio. Corporate pension funds engage in the same process, but they are required to make far less optimistic assumptions. They have to set aside enough money to meet that obligation if the money were invested at the interest rate on high quality, long-term risk-free bonds.

Let me give you one example of the difference. If a pension fund expects to pay someone $10,000 in 10 years and anticipates it will earn 7% a year, compounded, today's cost of that benefit — what numbers crunchers call its “present value" — shows up on its books as a liability of $5,083. If, however, the fund predicts it will receive 3% per year, which is about the rate that corporate pension funds use these days, the fund would need to set aside $7,441.

All of this is leading private and public pension funds to take on more risk. “When yields are low, you go looking for income somewhere else," Zion told me.

That means putting money into stocks and various aggressive (and high-cost) Wall Street schemes such as private equity and venture capital funds.

In addition, some public pension funds are borrowing money to try to earn what financial types call “spread income" by investing the borrowed money in assets whose returns exceed the funds' borrowing costs. “When the risk-free rate is zero and you need seven, that's what prompts plans to move outside their traditional comfort zones," Steve Foresti, chief investment officer of Wilshire Consulting, said.

Foresti, who advises numerous public pension funds, says that the use of borrowed money, alternative investments and such began getting more popular about a decade ago. That's about when the Fed knocked rates to near zero and has pretty much kept them there.

One prominent example of a fund trying to borrow its way out of trouble is the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), the nation's largest government pension fund. It's considering borrowing up to $55 billion more than it has already borrowed, hoping that its return on the assets it will buy with that borrowed money exceeds what it will pay in interest.

The fund, which says it currently has about $25 billion of borrowed money for which it's paying an average interest rate of 0.18%, now has authority to borrow up to 20% of its assets. That's roughly $80 billion. CalPERS says borrowing has helped it because it's been earning more on the assets it bought with the borrowed money than the interest it's paying.

“It's a moderate use of leverage. We will do it opportunistically and gradually," Marcie Frost, CalPERS' chief executive, told me. “We can tie up our capital for a long time. …We are able to be opportunistic." However, as Frost readily acknowledges, “Leverage can exacerbate your losses."

Or let's look at another big fund, the Teacher Retirement System of Texas, which last year lowered the assumed rate of return on its investment portfolio to 7.25% from the previous 8%. Among other things, that lower assumption is indirectly responsible for teachers, school districts and the state of Texas having to increase their future contributions to the pension fund to avoid the fund having to slash future benefits.

Jase Auby, TRS' chief investment officer, says the fund has been borrowing 4% of its assets for about a year. The idea, he said, is “to diversify away from equity risk" — the danger that stock prices will fall — caused by low interest rates. “Equity risk is greater because interest rates are low," he said.

The fund says its borrowing cost is currently about 0.25% a year. TRS says there were no specific assets financed by its borrowings, but it's ahead so far because its total fund return has exceeded its borrowing costs. If, however, the value of the assets bought with the borrowed money goes down, the fund obviously will be worse off than if it hadn't borrowed the money.

By forcing bond yields down sharply and helping drive up stock prices, the Fed's low-interest rate regime has made 401(k) and 403(b) and other individual retirement accounts more valuable — for now — by boosting the market values of both stocks and bonds.

However, these low rates are now exposing those individual accounts to considerably more risk than if stock prices were lower and bond yields higher.

Why do I say this? Because high stock prices can fall — we've had two 50% market drops in the past 20 years — and low-yielding Treasury securities will lose value if interest rates move higher.

How can U.S. Treasury securities lose value, given that the federal government can create as many dollars as it needs in order to redeem its obligations? Let's say that you spend $10,000 to buy a 10-year Treasury note yielding 0.76%, the current rate. You'd collect $76 in interest a year, $760 over the issue's lifetime, before getting your $10,000 back in 2030.

But let's say that a year from now, despite Fed Chair Powell's predictions, the rate on such a security has risen to 1.76%, around where it was for parts of last year. The market value of your now-nine-year security would be only about $9,174, according to my handy-dandy online bond calculator. That $826 decline in value is more than the total interest you stand to collect over the Treasury note's lifetime. You can take your loss directly by selling your security, or you can take it indirectly by collecting $76 of annual interest for 9 years rather than the $176 that holders of market-rate securities would be getting.

I'd love to be able to quote Fed people to give you the Fed's side of all of this. Alas, none of the people I've talked with or approached, some of whom I've known for years, are willing to be quoted by name.

Privately, various Fedniks past and present readily agree that there are serious downsides to what the Fed has been doing since then-chair Ben Bernanke (who declined, through a spokeswoman, to talk with me) first cut rates to near zero in 2008 and successfully ended the stock market meltdown and financial panic.

These Fedniks are also familiar with the risks that ultralow rates pose to the retirement system and the impact these rates have on economic inequality by sharply raising the values of financial assets, which are owned disproportionately by high-net-worth people, while doing relatively little for the less well off.

But they won't talk about it publicly.

Still, the issue needs to be recognized. If we don't do something to offset the damage to our retirement system, today's problems could end up looking like a rounding error compared to what the future holds.

==

social safety net is a buffer, so are pensions

https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/scientists-find-new-signs-of-climate-breakdown-in-study-of-warming-oceans

In  a rare calm moment during a historically active Atlantic hurricane season, an international team of climate scientists on Monday published a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change showing that human-caused global heating is making the world's oceans more "stable"—which, as co-author Michael Mann explained, is "very bad news."

Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State, detailed researchers' findings about ocean stratification in a piece for Newsweek. Using "more comprehensive data and a more sophisticated method for estimating stratification changes" than past studies, the scientists found that "oceans are not only becoming more stable, but are doing so faster than was previously thought."

The team—led by Guancheng Li of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics in China—specifically found that stratification globally increased by a "substantial" 5.3% from 1960 to 2018, mostly in the upper 650 feet or so of the world oceans. "This seemingly technical finding has profound and troubling implications," Mann noted.

"The more stable the upper ocean, the less vertical mixing that takes place. This mixing is a primary means by which the ocean buries warming surface waters. So the surface warms up even faster. It's what we call a 'positive feedback'—a vicious cycle," he wrote. "That's bad for a number of reasons."

Thank you to ⁦@MichaelEMann⁩ for patiently and clearly explaining to non scientists why increased ocean stabilizati… https://t.co/yW2BmQhKGp

— Dr Naomi Wolf (@Dr Naomi Wolf)1601306893.0

Noting the ongoing storm season and previous warnings from scientists—including him—that the increasingly devastating recent hurricanes "have fed off warmer surface waters," Mann explained that "a more stably stratified ocean potentially favors more intense, destructive hurricanes." Warmer waters also "absorb less atmospheric carbon dioxide" and "hold less dissolved oxygen."

In other words, the new study indicates that "humans have made the oceans more stable, and the result will be more extreme weather and the acceleration of climate change," as study co-author John Abraham wrote Monday for The Guardian. Like Mann, he detailed the research team's findings about the stratification of the oceans, and the implications. Then, he added:

It is not all doom and gloom. The good news is we know why the climate is changing and we know how the oceans are responding. We can do something about this problem—we have the ability to slow down climate change. We just lack the will and leadership.

But if 2020 has shown us anything, it has revealed that humans can change and adapt quickly to situations. There is hope that we can navigate the challenges resulting from a more stable ocean—but we must start immediately.

Both co-authors' pieces provoked calls for swift, bold, global efforts to address the climate crisis:

Canada has oceans on 3 sides-we can't ignore the climate news that The Oceans Appear to Be Stabilizing. Here's Why… https://t.co/SfWJWWRHr7

— Friends Of Halifax Common (@Friends Of Halifax Common)1601308426.0

"Das bedeutet, dass das CO2-Budget, das zur Vermeidung kritischer Erhitzung (z.B. 1,5°C) übrig bleibt, möglicherwei… https://t.co/675YBTSybJ

— Parents For Future #SystemChangeNotClimateChange (@Parents For Future #SystemChangeNotClimateChange)1601315583.0

Ending his piece on a similar note, Mann wrote that "in short, it's unwise to be complacent given the accumulating scientific evidence that climate change and its impacts may well be in the upper end of the range that climate scientists currently project. There is ever-greater urgency when it comes to acting on climate. But there is agency as well. Our actions make a difference—something to keep in mind as we head into a presidential election whose climate implications are monumental."

Mann is on the mounting list of climate experts and advocates supportingDemocratic presidential nominee Joe Biden in his effort to oust President Donald Trump—who has, at various points, ignored and exacerbated the climate emergency. Earlier this month, the editors ofScientific American as well as the political action arms of both 350 and Friends of the Earth also endorsed the former vice president.

"The stakes are clear and present," Tamara Toles O'Laughlin from 350 Action said of the general election, for which early voting is already underway in some states. "The planet cannot withstand four more years of Trump."

==

romney?

https://www.alternet.org/2020/05/the-gops-covert-plot-to-gut-social-security-is-gaining-steam/

==

==

congressional GOP rejects a second round of stimulus checks as unemployment hits 36 million

Matthew Rozsa / SalonMay 21, 2020

Congressional Republicans are attempting to stop the passage of another relief package for Americans economically suffering as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, even as an estimated 36 million Americans have…

==

ctr-pt: to covid bailout bill as dis cap'l NEW STORY? WE CAN SAVE $ AND PPL BY GOING GREEN

https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-crisis-economic-growth-2645724784.html

Every country around the world would see economic gains from combating the climate crisis and trying to keep global heating within the bounds of the Paris agreement, according to a new study published in Nature Communications.

The straw man argument against taking action on the climate crisis is that the cost of limiting emissions and investing in green infrastructure is too steep and would cripple economies. It turns out, according to the research, that the opposite is true.

In fact, the study found that if nations around the world fail to curtail greenhouse gas emissions within the bounds of the Paris agreement, the global economy will lose anywhere from $150 trillion to nearly $800 trillion by the year 2100, as CBS News reported. The upper end of the range is if countries fail to meet their current commitments, which are inadequate to meet the Paris agreement as they are expected to lead to 3 degrees Celsius in warming.

The study's authors, from the Beijing Institute of Technology and other Chinese institutions, billed their findings as a self-preservation strategy for government, according to The Guardian.GUK

The researchers calculated the potential benefits of emissions reductions by looking at the social welfare aspects of cutting greenhouse gases and its affect on economic growth. They found that the benefits from cutting emissions would provide the largest boost to developing countries with large populations of poor and vulnerable people, who are most likely to be negatively affected by droughts, floods, fires, storms and food shortages, as The Guardian reported.

While all countries would benefit in the long term, the most immediate benefits would go to developing countries with high emissions, such as India, Indonesia, Nigeria and China, according to The Guardian.

The Paris agreement is composed of voluntary commitments known as Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs, made by each country in the accord. The main aspect of the commitments is to reduce greenhouse emissions by cutting the burning of fossil fuels, thus reducing global warming and the adverse impacts of warming. However, many countries are witnessing economic damage from the coronavirus lockdowns and are rethinking their commitment to their NDCs. Already, government bailouts for the fossil fuel industry and the airline industry are in the works, as well as a rollback of their carbon emission reductions, as CBS News reported.

"A number of studies have proved that current [NDCs] are not enough to achieve the global warming targets," said Biying Yu, from the Beijing Institute of Technology and a co-author of the study, as CBS News reported.

The research shows that the choice between climate action and economic growth is in fact a false dichotomy. The authors' work concludes that countries could reach their climate goals and at the same time see an increase in their net income.

According to CBS News, Yu and her team calculated ideal strategies for countries to improve their NDCs, minimize economic losses and maximize gains. They found that if nations are able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, then the net global economic benefit would range between $127 trillion and $616 trillion by the end of the century.

"Early and quick action will provide a better chance to close the widening emissions gap, even though a large amount of abatement cost would occur in the short term," said the study.

"The literature overwhelmingly shows the economic benefits of serious mitigation efforts exceed the costs in the long run," said Noah Kaufman, a climate and energy economist from Columbia University, to CBS News.

However, Yu is concerned that governments will be short-sighted and balk at the upfront cost of investing in infrastructure to combat the climate crisis. She also sees that the climate emergency takes commitments from every country.

"Combating climate change is not a matter for one country. It requires collective action and cooperation from all countries around the world," Yu explained, as CBS News reported. "Let's work together and save ourselves"...

==

COVID IS A STRESS TEST WE FAIL:

aha soc safe net is a buffer, adds resilience, includes unemployment insurance that keeps workers alive when they get fired (slowly in case of "creative destruction" mkt shifts, or more sudden recession / pandemic); so it enables capitalism, basically a subsidy to corps?!

eg

https://www.alternet.org/2020/04/this-is-horrible-florida-republicans-furious-after-unemployment-system-they-mangled-puts-trumps-re-election-in-jeopardy/

no lnx

‘This is horrible’: Florida Republicans furious after unemployment system they mangled puts Trump’s re-election in jeopardy

==

https://www.alternet.org/2020/03/how-trump-has-made-it-harder-for-the-u-s-to-weather-a-recession/

no lnx

How Trump has made it harder for the US to weather a recession

President Donald J. Trump listens as Assistant to the President for Economic Policy Larry Kudlow speaks at a press conference during the 50th Annual World Economic Forum meeting Wednesday, Jan. 22, 2020, at the Davos Congress Centre in Davos, Switzerland. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)]

Written by Cody Fenwick March 17, 2020

As the coronavirus send the United States and the entire global economy hurtling toward recession, President Donald Trump and his defenders have claimed the administration’s policies have left the United States better prepared for the downturn. But in reality, the president’s effects on the course of the economy thus far have been greatly exaggerated, and many of his policies have actually put Americans at greater risk in the event of financial catastrophe.

To understand why Trump’s policies have put us at risk, you have to appreciate the best possible policy response to a recession: automatic stabilizers.

Many automatic stabilizers are actually very familiar to most people. The category includes, for example, SNAP (commonly called food stamps) and unemployment insurance.

These policies are critically important because as a recession worsens, they automatically start ramping up.As more people lose their jobs, more people go on unemployment, and the program starts paying out more money. When more people on short on cash and need help buying for food — a common occurrence in a recession — they apply for and get SNAP to feed their families. The government starts doing exactly what it should do in a recession: spending public money to make up for the private shortfall in spending.

The best policies are “automatic” in the sense that lawmakers don’t have to change the law in a recession for the programs to spend more money; they respond to the need, and if there’s more need, the programs spend more money.

This is a great way to fight a recession because it provides support to the people who are hurt worst by the downturn. That’s good for humanitarian reasons, but also in crudely economic terms because it means the money the government is almost guaranteed to be spent back into the economy. If you give money to people who are doing OK in a recession, they might just try to save it for later. Since recessions are defined by a reduction in economic activity, policies that can efficiently promote economic activity will help soften the blow and speed the recovery. And since these policies ramp up automatically, there’s less uncertainty about how much support there will be, which can help reassure businesses and investors that the recession won’t be as severe as it might otherwise be. And you can skip entirely the interminable debates and political gamesmanship endemic to the U.S. Congress.

But because of the anti-government and anti-welfare ideology that still poisons the GOP and conservative movement, under the Trump administration, many automatic stabilizers have been significantly weakened.

For example, in December 2019, the Department of Agriculture Secretary Sonny Purdue announced a plan that could kick almost 700,000 people off the rolls of SNAP. It imposes stricter work requirements on the program, which makes it harder for adults who don’t have jobs to get support. Purdue framed this as an effort to fight back against “dependency” on government:

“We need to encourage people by giving them a helping hand but not allowing it to become an indefinitely giving hand,” said Secretary Perdue. “Now, in the midst of the strongest economy in a generation, we need everyone who can work, to work. This rule lays the groundwork for the expectation that able-bodied Americans re-enter the workforce where there are currently more job openings than people to fill them.”

The administration has worked in other ways, too, to limit access to the program. Even in good economic times, these kinds of rules can impose large burdens on people who, for whatever reason, struggle to get or keep a job and need help buying food. If a recession hits, these restrictive measures are even worse. As recently as last week, BuzzFeed reported that the administration had considered delaying the implementation of the rule but had decided to push forward. On Monday, a federal judge halted the change, as Chicago Tribune reported:

“Especially now, as a global pandemic poses widespread health risks, guaranteeing that government officials at both the federal and state levels have flexibility to address the nutritional needs of residents and ensure their well-being through programs like SNAP, is essential,” wrote Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

…

Howell halted the rule’s implementation until the court makes a final decision on its legality, saying it will likely be deemed “arbitrary and capricious” because it didn’t appear to consider the hundreds of thousands of submitted comments that raised concerns. The USDA had estimated 1.1 million people would be newly subject to the work rules and nearly 700,000 people nationwide were likely to lose food assistance as a result of the change. Some 36 million Americans are enrolled in SNAP.

But as the Tribune pointed out, tens of thousands have already been kicked off the rolls of SNAP because of similar federal rules under the Trump administration.

The problem goes far beyond SNAP. Catherine Rampell at the Washington Post reported that under Trump — as well as before him — states and the federal government have weakened other policies that could serve as automatic stabilizers:

Elsewhere, the administration has been demanding states add additional paperwork requirements for enrollment in both Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, causing eligible families to lose coverage.

The administration also recently announced a proposal to convert part of Medicaid to block grants. This would mean states would get a capped annual amount of federal dollars for the program. It would also limit states’ ability to expand enrollment during a downturn.

Then finally there’s the unemployment insurance program, yet another policy designed to serve as a safety net both for individual families and the macroeconomy as a whole. In theory, it allows jobless people to keep paying bills and patronizing local businesses.

…

This problem clearly pre-dates Trump. Even so, his administration has since encouraged states to add more bureaucratic hurdles — including by doing more widespread drug testing as a condition of benefit receipt. This appears to be a solution in search of a problem, based on the handful of states that have experimented with similar programs before. It’s also expensive, and it slows down benefit receipt.

And it’s not just public health insurance that has been diminished under Trump. After his extensive efforts to undermine Obamacare, the uninsured rate began rising under his administration after consistently falling under his predecessor. This, too, will impose greater burdens on Americans in a recession — especially a recession driven by a public health threat.

Rampell also noted that Larry Kudlow, director of the National Economic Council under Trump, had touted the benefits of automatic stabilizers in the face of a recession without acknowledging how significantly they had been diminished.

Now, it does appear as if Congress and the administration are prepared to move forward with some non-automatic stabilizers to fight the coming recession. This could potentially be stimulus spending in the form of direct cash to families, which would likely be the best option. But many argue that Democrats — who generally favor such policies — should only agree to go along with such a plan if Republicans agree to make the policy automatic. That way, if a recession happens under the next Democratic president, the same beneficial counter-cyclical measures could ramp up without Congress needing to act. Because as Republicans proved in 2009, if a Democrat is in the White House, the GOP is much less willing to spend money to benefit the American people.

==

==

cfpb designed to ctr predatory? captured?

NB aha: fire/banks have been hosing up foreclosures (recall that house appreciation only real source of wealth/battery/buffersince wages flat 30 yrs, AA ppl predatory/redlined) MNUCHIN, 500k homeless, often medical bills?  CDS on debt again?

https://www.salon.com/2015/03/22/vulture_capitalists_are_picking_us_dry_why_consumer_debt_buyers_are_on_the_rise_partner/

no lnx

Vulture capitalists are picking us dry: Why consumer debt buyers are on the rise

The great recession laid waste to the U.S. economy. Now debt collectors are feasting on the carrion

JIM HIGHTOWER

MARCH 22,2015

==

https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2020/02/10/fox-henhouse-koch-backed-opponent-consumer-financial-protection-bureau

Conservative Foundations Finance Push to Kill the CFPB

by Alex Kotch | February 13th, 2020

===

azar hhs 

swamp thing COI?

point man on covid 19 but got blindsided on podium by vp pick "alarmist"

apparently tried to get to djt on covid in jan? but blocked by aides? cuck-blocked?

cut pandemic team just ~ BO or eliminate buffer/expert?

220 cascade interactions between economic and climate collapse?

aha: recessions are periodic, fed no suffic buffer? trump keeps money free to goose stock mkt so can boast 401k; blew up fed deficit, household debt and student debt high; authoritarian growing everywhere, what effect of worldwide recession again? Greece?

what if we get hit by huge agw costs at the same time as worldwide recession?  how wd such costs affect economies?

==

aha 2: related debt is the opposite of a buffer?  many/most american do not have 400$ for emergency? but debt is an asset on someone's books?  tho in recession/depression or even a stock downturn, wealth evaporates?!

we know thaty inequality is destabilizing, more likely to generate fails that system must cope with?!

==

voodoo

https://www.alternet.org/2020/02/trumps-plan-to-unveil-next-round-of-tax-scam-just-before-2020-election-slammed-as-another-political-ploy/

no lnx

Trump’s plan to unveil next round of ‘tax scam’ just before 2020 election slammed as ‘another political ploy’

President Donald J. Trump hosts a tax reform industry and business leaders meeting | October 31, 2017 (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

Written by Jessica Corbett / Common Dreams February 14, 2020

The Tax March movement responded critically on Friday after National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow revealed that President Donald Trump has instructed him to unveil the second round of what opponents call the GOP “tax scam” ahead of the presidential election in November.

“Announcing an ambiguous set of so-called middle-class tax cuts just ahead of the November election is yet another political ploy,” Tax March executive director Maura Quint declared in a statement.

“We know the truth: the first punch of the Trump tax scam brought higher taxes on working people to pay for the massive giveaways to billionaires and corporations,” she said. “And now, to top it all off, Trump is trying to land a second punch to our pocketbooks. The only promise Trump is fulfilling with this second round of tax cuts is his commitment to enrich the rich at the expense of working people.”

When Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) into law in December 2017, he told reporters at the White House that “corporations are literally going wild over this, I think even beyond my expectations,” shortly after touting the legislation as “a bill for the middle class.”

The TCJA slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and included various other permanent benefits for companies and wealthy Americans. Although the legislation also included tax cuts for families and individuals, those benefits are set to expire after 2025.“And once the individual tax rates revert to their former levels, a stingier inflation gauge would raise taxes for most households,” CBS News noted in 2017.

Fox Business reported Friday that the next round of the administration’s tax agenda is “a middle-class tax cut plan,” and that Kudlow said the president recently told him to “get it out by September,” just two months before Trump will face off with the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee.

According to Fox Business:

“It’ll come out sometime in September,” Kudlow told Fox Business‘ Maria Bartiromo.

The administration, he said, will likely use the Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought’s $1.4 trillion budget request to craft the package and make tax cuts permanent.

Kudlow said the administration plans to give the middle class a 10% tax cut in addition to strengthening and making permanent “some of the other tax cuts.”

Chye-Ching Huang, senior director of economic policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, tweeted Friday that reporting on Kudlow’s comments was “yet another occasion for a reminder that the 2017 tax law was costly, tilted to the top, and invites tax gaming by the wealthy.”

Chye-Ching Huang

@dashching

Yet another rumor of the Trump Administration working on "tax cuts 2.0" https://thehill.com/policy/finance/domestic-taxes/483087-kudlow-new-tax-cuts-will-probably-come-out-sometime-in …

Yet another occasion for a reminder that the 2017 tax law was costly, tilted to the top, & invites tax gaming by the wealthy -- & all attempts at "2.0" since then shares those flaws: https://twitter.com/dashching/status/1194368530088693760 …

Kudlow: New tax cuts will 'probably come out sometime in September'

National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow on Friday said that the White House hopes to introduce new middle-class tax cuts by the fall.

thehill.com

Chye-Ching Huang

@dashching

All of these things are pretty much just like the others, tax policy edition.

2017 tax law: tilted to the well-off.https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/2017-tax-law-tilted-toward-wealthy-and-corporations …

Tax March’s Quint said Friday that “if Trump had wanted to help the middle-class, he would have done so already. Instead, he continues to push tax giveaways to the wealthy and major corporations while also proposing massive cuts to services that everyday Americans pay into and depend upon.”

As Common Dreams reported Monday, just two days after promising that the White House “will not be touching your Social Security or Medicare,” Trump unveiled a budget blueprint for 2021 that calls for doing exactly that. Critics condemned the president’s proposal to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from those and other programs as “savage” and “shameful.”

In a floor speech this week, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) tied Trump’s proposed safety net cuts to the administration’s “tax scam” for corporations and the wealthy.

Sherrod Brown

@SenSherrodBrown

President Trump’s budget is his blueprint for how he wants to pay for his #GOPTaxScam - cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Embedded video

==

on g zero pbs show all ppl of color in bronx mention the word resilience in face of inequality and hardship

==

a GOOD one

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/corporate-giants-form-alliance-to-create-a-boom-in-us-clean-energy.html

Some of the nation's top tech firms, manufacturers and consumer companies are banding together to create a boom in renewable energy purchases throughout corporate America.

The corporate giants and their nonprofit partners on Thursday launched the Renewable Energy Buyers Alliance, a trade organization that will help companies take advantage of new ways to purchase clean energy. The goal is to support construction of new green power projects by striking renewable energy deals pioneered by companies such as Google parent Alphabet, General Motors and Walmart in recent years.

"This is really about bringing as many players to the market as possible and giving everyone access to clean energy," said Michael Terrell, head of energy market strategy at Google.

Over the last six years, a handful of corporate giants have created a new way of meeting their sustainable energy goals. By striking deals to buy blocks of energy from utilities and power plant owners, they are underwriting the construction of new wind towers, solar farms and other renewable projects.

==

local power grid resilient b/c it's local, not dependent on larger system.

3rd industrial revo non-hier; must be glob-LOCAL; feed-in tariffs let local ppl go to bank and get loan b/c knew could repay

merkel

china big green grid investment 12 wks after mtg w/ Jeremy Rifkin wrote The Green New Deal: Why the Fossil Fuel Civilization Will Collapse by 2028, and the Bold Economic Plan to Save Life on Earthaudio interview 9/19.

rifkin

==

diversity?

mitchell the nation amazon

As a result of the economic shifts that Amazon is helping to propel, the country is being divided into a starkly unequal geography. Only a handful of metro areas are gaining significant numbers of good jobs from Big Tech. And as the formation of new businesses declines, they’re also being consolidated into fewer places: In contrast with previous recoveries, when new firms were widely dispersed, half of all businesses started between 2010 and 2014 were located in just five metro areas. Even winning cities are marked by disparity: In Seattle, where Amazon is headquartered, the median home value now exceeds $700,000, while the unsheltered homeless population doubled over 10 years. It’s not hard to imagine a future in which Amazon’s cashier-less supermarkets and nondescript bookstores populate better-off neighborhoods, while other communities become increasingly barren of commercial activity.

In the left-behind towns and neighborhoods, the despair that has set in stems from more than just economic hardship. There is a pervasive sense of powerlessness that is toxic to democracy. In 1946, the sociologist C. Wright Mills and the economist Melville J. Ulmer published a detailed study of several matched pairs of cities. The cities in each pair were similar in all respects except for one main difference:One city’s economy was composed of many locally owned firms, while the other’s was largely controlled by absentee corporations. The cities that possessed a degree of local economic power had a bigger middle class and a greater variety of jobs, Mills and Ulmer found. But their most important findings had to do with civic health. The cities with a robust local economy invested more in public infrastructure and services, and their residents were involved in community affairs in greater numbers.

==

ca farm bureau

3/19 primary, evil pending, BUFFER on chemicals and water

11 tags

===

aha:

offshore banks are secret vs transparency thus boost corruption, but also allow tax dodge for rich ppl and corps to park assests offshore, thus evade tax thus extraction from economy (as our country becomes de-industrialized/finanacialized) so a huge buffer untapped to stimulate economy and build infrastructure

COURTS:

see hope, holding actions

Our Children's Trust (lives as of 11/18)

consistently saving our ass

==

pension plan preserves bench strength, as does gerrymandering; big money discourages challenge by rival (tho flank a danger which drive begging for war chest, which makes pol further in debt/corruption) 

https://www.ecowatch.com/tesla-australia-battery-2568719032.html

Tesla's Giant Australian Battery Saved Consumers $35 Million in Four Months

Since switching on in December, Tesla's massive battery in South Australia has already drastically lowered prices in the region's frequency and ancillary services market (FCAS) and has taken a major share of that market, Renew Economy reported.

During Australian Energy Week, McKinsey and Co. partner Godart van Gendt boasted about the stunning efficiency of the 100-megawatt Powerpack system, which is connected to Neoen's Hornsdale wind farm....

==

https://www.alternet.org/world/why-denmark-dominates-world-happiness-rankings-year-after-year

new World Happiness Report again ranks Denmark among the top three happiest of 155 countries surveyed – a distinction that the country has earned for seven consecutive years.

The U.S., on the other hand, ranked 18th in this year’s World Happiness Report, a four-spot drop from last year’s report.

Denmark’s place among the world’s happiest countries is consistent with many other national surveys of happiness (or, as psychologists call it, “subjective well-being”).

Scientists like to study and argue about how to measure things. But when it comes to happiness, a general consensus seems to have emerged.

Depending on the scope and purpose of the research, happiness is often measured using objective indicators (data on crime, income, civic engagement and health) and subjective methods, such as asking people how frequently they experience positive and negative emotions.

Why might Danes evaluate their lives more positively? As a psychologist and native of Denmark, I’ve looked into this question.

Yes, Danes have a stable government, low levels of public corruption, and access to high-quality education and health care. Thecountry does have the the highest taxes in the world, but the vast majority of Danes happily pay: They believe higher taxes can create a better society.

Perhaps most importantly, however, they value a cultural construct called “hygge” (pronounced hʊɡə).

The Oxford dictionary added the word in June 2017, and it refers to high-quality social interactions. Hygge can be used as a noun, adjective or verb (to hygge oneself), and events and places can also be hyggelige (hygge-like).

Hygge is sometimes translated as “cozy,” but a better definition of hygge is “intentional intimacy,” which can happen when you have safe, balanced and harmonious shared experiences. A cup of coffee with a friend in front of a fireplace might qualify, as could a summer picnic in the park.

A family might have a hygge evening that entails board games and treats, or friends might get together for a casual dinner with dimmed lighting, good food and easygoing fun. Spaces can also be described as hyggelige (“Your new house is so hyggeligt”) and a common way of telling a host thank you after a dinner is to say that it was hyggeligt (meaning, we had a good time). Most Danish social events are expected to be hyggelige, so it would be a harsh critique to say that a party or dinner wasn’t hyggelige.

Research on hygge has found that in Denmark, it’s integral to people’s sense of well-being. It acts as abuffer against stress, while also creating a space to build camaraderie. In a highly individualized country like Denmark, hygge can promote egalitarianism and strengthen trust.

It would be fair to say that hygge is fully integrated into the Danish cultural psyche and culture. But it has also become a bit of a global phenomenon – Amazon now sells more than 900 books on hygge, and Instagram has over 3 million posts with the hashtag #hygge. Google trends data show a big jump in searches for hygge beginning in October 2016.

Nor is Denmark the only country that has a word for a concept similar to hygge – the Norwegians have koselig, the Swedes mysig, the Dutch gezenlligheid and the Germans gemütlichkeit.

In the U.S. – which also places a high value on individualism – there’s no real cultural equivalent of hygge. Income is generally associated with happiness; yet even though the country’s GDP has been rising and its unemployment rates have been declining, levels of happiness in the U.S. have been steadily decreasing.

What’s going on?

Income inequality continues to be an issue. But there’s also been a marked decrease in interpersonal trust and trust toward institutions like the government as well as the media. In the end, more disposable income doesn’t hold a candle to having someone to rely on in a time of need (something that 95 percent of Danes believe they have).

At its core, hygge is about building intimacy and trust with others.

Americans could probably use a little more of it in their lives.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Marie Helweg-Larsen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment

https://www.alternet.org/environment/new-map-reveals-which-countries-are-most-likely-survive-climate-change

Climate change is one of the most pressing crises facing humanity. Caused by an immense and continual buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere as a result of human activity, climate change is already causing a series of alarming environmental events.

Once snowy landscapes are slowly melting away to leave an uninhabitable and barren wilderness, rising sea temperatures are killing thousands of miles of coral reef and marine life, while freak weather events are becoming more common and costing affected nations billions of pounds. For example, early estimates suggest that 2017’s Hurricane Harvey caused between $66 billion and $185 billion worth of damage.

These serve as a worrying indication of the catastrophic effect that climate change could have on our planet in the future if nothing is done to tackle the phenomenon.

While it's clear that no single corner of the globe is safe from the changes that are happening to our climate, we wanted to find out which countries are the most (and least) at risk of the effects of climate change.

To answer this question, we looked at data from the University of Notre-Dame's ND-Gain Index. This report analyzed 181 countries on their vulnerability to climate change and how ready they are to adapt to a warming planet, based on factors such as healthcare, food supply and government stability.

We also scrutinized how much carbon dioxide all 181 countries emit every year to give an indication of each nation's contribution towards climate change. This allowed us to compare a country’s likeliness to survive changes to the global climate against their responsibility for the phenomenon.

So which country is the most likely to survive climate change?

The answer is Norway, thanks to its low vulnerability score and high readiness score. The nation's Nordic neighbors also fared well, with Finland (3rd), Sweden (4th), Denmark (6th) and Iceland (8th) landing 5 out of the 10 top spots for survivability. So we should all flee to the countries of northern Europe and theNorthh Atlantic to live out our final days should our planet become uninhabitable.

Interestingly, the U.K. and U.S. did not make the top 10, ranking 12th and 15th respectively. Both these nations were named among the 10 countries most likely to survive climate change in the 2015 version of this map, but an overall worsening of their vulnerability and readiness scores led to this slip in rank.

Even more surprising is China's position in the ranking: 59th. Despite arguably being the world's biggest contributor towards climate change—emitting a massive 9,040 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year—the country is somewhat sensitive to the effects of a warming planet. This is largely due to the nation's growing population which is putting a strain on China’s natural resources and public services. Rather ironically, China's vulnerability to climate change, therefore, means that they may eventually reap what they sow.

And who are the biggest losers?

At the other end of the scale, it comes as no surprise that the world's poorest and least developed nations have the lowest chance of surviving climate change. Countries in sub-Saharan Africa fill the bottom 10 spaces for survivability, with Somalia being named the country least likely to survive climate change.

Chad, Eritrea, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo also fared badly, owing to their unstable governance, poor infrastructure, lack of healthcare and a scarcity of food and water.

....

==

==

GOOD BUFFER is a knowledge repository, eg university, library, WWW? (unfiltered) [no censor can be good or bad]

Love canal led to "clearinghouses" so greens did not have to reinvent wheel every time a new toxic leak found: repertoire of political and legal strategies: lawsuits and grassroots [evil perversity is SLAPP and astroturf).

BAD BUFFER reduces transparency and accountability:  if we don't know about evil actions of corps, we can't resist through regulations, boycotts, divestment: trade groups function as fronts/buffers to launder money.

API takes over from Exxon, replaced by Donors Trust (term fun to explore,as in trust buster, but also as in the psychological quality re the commons), gives insulation from accountability b/c of lack of transparency, money laundering, which is interstingly agaijst "personal responsibility" and magic of market rw rhetoric). v Powell Memo explictly laws this out as role of USCoC

Mira Michelle Kennedy - Cultivating Resilience: At the Personal, Community and Ecological Levels

What is resilience? This workshop will define personal resilience, community resilience and ecological resilience. We explore how these three dimensions of resilience are interconnected and how resilience can be fostered at each level. The workshop will then offer a hands-on experiential activity about how to cultivate resilience in our daily lives. Participants will explore expressive arts using materials from nature in order to identify personal strengths and challenges. The workshop will incorporate resource mapping, applied ecopsychology, and permaculture principles.

Mira Michelle Kennedy

Mira Michelle Kennedy has worked in the field of education and sustainability for the last fifteen years. She was the residential coordinator at the Program in Community and Agroecology (PICA) at UCSC, which focused on food justice issues and training student leaders. Mira also established a program for young women focusing on personal empowerment through self-expression. She has presented at the International Expressive Art Therapy Conference, the Ecopsychology Conference and the Awakening Global Action Conference in Bali. She currently works with author Fritjof Capra, managing a course on the systems view of life and principles for building sustainable communities.

RWI has a pipeline to recruit and train (and support) more IDEOLOGICAL ENTREPRENEURS and thus higher quaity ppl:  BUFFER  then it provides lots of ways for them to openly or clandestinely fight [a full employment plan, leave no flack behind], then if they get damaged, there's the pension plan; moreover the revolving door and rwi preserves bench strength in DC [if only the VA was as faithful and effective for wounded vets] . gerrymander. THE RIGHT IS REALLY CLOSET LIBERALS

FREEDOM [GOD TERM] TO HAVE A GUN

FREEDOM TO FIRE/BEAT UP ON UNIONS, DUMP PENSIONS

Insurance/hmo is pooled resources, spreads risk

right destroys buffers:

AlterNet [1] / By David Atkins [2]

5 Reasons the Rich Are Ruining the Economy by Hoarding Their Money

June 26, 2014 |

It has been nearly four decades since the Reagan revolution in supply-side economics came to power in the United States. Tax rates on the wealthiest Americans are at near record lows, asset values have been pumped up to record highs, and corporate America is sitting prettier than ever before. There can be no question but that the ideologues who promoted supply-side economics have succeeded in enforcing their vision policy on our lives. But their decades-long experiment has also proven to be structural failure at every possible level (except for padding the pockets of the top 1%.) Here are five things we know without doubt about supply-side economics today:

1. The money doesn't trickle down.

Of all the failures of supply-side economics, this is the most damning. Conservatives often excuse poor wage growth and high unemployment as part of the global competitive marketplace, saying that everyone needs to tighten their belts. But not everyone is struggling--in fact, the rich are better off than ever. They control half of all the wealth [3], and the top 10% control almost 9/10ths of it [4]. Corporate profits are at or near record highs [5], disproving the myth that the middle class must suffer due to competitive pressures. The Dow Jones index is threatening to burst past 17,000. Meanwhile, wages have stagnated since the Reagan era [6], even though productivity continues to increase [7]. Corporate executives, in other words, are forcing workers to toil longer, harder and smarter than ever, but all the proceeds are going into the hands of the very rich while the people actually creating the wealth are struggling harder than ever to get by. Republicans either wave away this phenomenon as insignificant, or desperately attempt to blame regulation and "crony capitalism." Of course, the last time economic trends were so disproportionately imbalanced against workers was the era before the regulatory and tax increases of the New Deal, nor is there any significant sense (outside perhaps of military contractors favored by the GOP establishment) in which government contracts play a larger role in the economy. Instead, the truth is obvious: corporations don't exist to create jobs but to rake in money, and most rich people didn't get rich by being generous. When you give corporations and the rich more money, they simply hoard it and find ways to make themselves even more money--preferably by employing as few people as possible, at the lowest wages possible.

2. The rich aren't investing almost half of their resources.

This one is almost comical. In concept, supply-side economics is supposed to work by the corporate rich taking money gleaned by tax breaks and subsidies, and plowing it back into investments that theoretically employ people. Now, we already know that the economic life doesn't actually work that way: when wealthy individuals and companies invest, they tend to do it in financialized vehicles, mergers, acquisitions and interest-bearing accounts while employing the fewest people possible at awful wages.

But even if it did work as supply-siders theorize, the brutal reality is that the rich aren't investing almost half of their money [8] (corporations aren't doing much better, as their record profits sit largely idle [9] avoiding taxation). 40% of the assets of the wealthy are sitting in deposits: the rich person's equivalent of stuffing money into a mattress. Money sitting in deposits in Swiss and Cayman Islands accounts is essentially wasted wealth. It does as little good for the world economy as gold hoarded by a dragon in Middle Earth. It essentially sits there uselessly as an economic security blanket for the very people who need it least. By contrast, putting more money into the hands of the poor and middle class pays off immediately for the economy, as most people living paycheck to paycheck spend the money immediately or at least create a small backstop against bankruptcy and delinquency--thus creating immediate economic and social benefits. So not only does giving the rich more money not pay off when they do invest, it doesn't even have the opportunity to pay off at all since almost half of the money isn't even being invested.

3. Supply-side economics leads to a bubble economy with bigger and longer recessions.

One of the most dramatic and intentional yet underreported effects of supply-side economics was to convert a stable wage-based economy into an unstable asset-based economy[10]. An economy focused on wage growth and broad prosperity tends to have slower overall growth and is at somewhat greater risk for inflation. It was understandable after the 1970s that some political elites would want to steer far in the other direction.But one of the many downsides to boosting asset growth at all costs is that assets fluctuate in value. Stocks and real estate both tend to rise over the long haul, but in the short term they are subject to bubbles and crashes. And the more money gets thrown into asset markets, the greater is the risk of irrational exuberance, the larger are the bubbles--and the worse are the plunges and panics.

This is extremely problematic at both the individual and macro levels. Individuals whose investments are inadequately diversified and/or who lack enough liquid cash face ruin during downturns. Individuals who lack assets at all find themselves out of work and underpaid when increasingly large recessions slash both wages and jobs. At the broadest level, entire societies bear the burden of asset bubbles when the downturns are so devastating as to threaten the very solvency of the markets themselves. Taxpayers are then forced to shoulder the burden of socializing the market's losses even though its gains are privatized and go almost entirely to the top 1% of incomes. Lastly but not least, inflating housing markets by orders of magnitude within a generation may help those who already own homes to feel richer despite their stagnant wages--but at the severe social cost of making housing largely unaffordable to younger generations [11].

4. High inequality frays society and reduces trust in institutions.

It is not an accident [12] that trust in major institutions has declined on a linear track with rising inequality. Study [13] after study [14] has shown that trust in our fellow citizens and in institutions at large are dependent on the level of inequality and corruption in society. This stands to reason: people know when they're getting the short end of the stick, even if they can't agree on why. Conservatives wrongly blame government spending and regulation. Liberals rightly blame disproportionate rewards going to the very wealthy. Not surprisingly, then, high levels of inequality also create strong partisanship within society [15] as politicians and pundits alike ratchet up the rhetoric of blame. As both secular and religious institutions seem equally powerless to address increasing economic and social insecurity, the social fabric begins to fray and people tend to self-segregate in many ways, including politically [16]. Economic tension and social tension tend to go hand in hand.

5. Supply-side economics creates deficits.

Keynesian economists like Paul Krugman will note up front that deficits don't matter nearly as much as most conservative economists claim they do, and that conservatives only seem to care about the deficit when Democrats are in power.Still, insofar as government deficits do matter, it's clear that supply-side economics exacerbates them. Remember that supply-side economics requires tax cuts for the wealthy in order to work. There was a time when conservatives could claim without derision that reducing tax burdens on the rich would lead to so much increased growth that government revenues would actually expand to cover and surpass the upfront tax losses.

That argument has been proven laughably untrue. Government deficits nearly tripled under Ronald Reagan [17]. The tax cuts passed by George W. Bush dramatically increased the budget deficit [18] without even considering increased military and homeland security spending after 9/11. We now know beyond a doubt that whatever the inflection point on the Laffer curve [19] where decreased taxes do lead to greater revenues actually is, it's apparently far higher than the pre-Reagan marginal rates on the wealthy. Liberals often accuse conservatives of intentionally creating large deficits while in power, then using deficit hysteria to "starve the beast" and slash government spending--which in turn damages the economy, reduces consumer demand and slows growth, thus increasing deficits again. Regardless of the merits of that claim, however, we do know for certain today that conservative economics inexorably increases government deficits.

In short, whatever excuses there might have been for voters and policymakers to buy into conservative economic theories in the 1980s, those excuses are now gone.

We know better. We know that supply-side money does not trickle down to workers. We know that corporations and the rich don't even bother to invest a huge portion of their wealth. We know that pumping up assets and investments leads to more unstable economies. We know that supply-side economics is creating larger deficits, and we know that the rampant political corruption and massive inequality caused by supply-side economics is eroding the very fabric of our society.

rich [21]

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/economy/5-reasons-rich-are-ruining-economy-hoarding-their-money

Links:

[1] http://alternet.org

[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/david-atkins

[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/richest-1-percent-wealth_n_4072658.html

[4] http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html

[5] http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/27/3420092/corporate-profits-record-2013/

[6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-sorscher/we-all-do-better-when-we-all-do-better_b_1469635.html

[7] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/sunday-review/americas-productivity-climbs-but-wages-stagnate.html?_r=0

[8] http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/11/the-worlds-richest-people-are-sitting-on-gigantic-piles-of-cash-that-arent-earning-them-anything/

[9] http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2012/07/16/idle-corporate-cash-piles-up/

[10] http://www.salon.com/2014/05/04/how_the_rich_stole_our_money_and_made_us_think_they_were_doing_us_a_favor/

[11] http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/10/31/millennials-failure-to-launch-is-a-function-of-poor-u-s-housing-policy/

[12] http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/in-no-one-we-trust/

[13] http://www.gvpt.umd.edu/uslaner/uslanersocialcapitalhandbookelgar.pdf

[14] http://blogs.iq.harvard.edu/sss/attachments/Social.Trust.You.081905.pdf

[15] http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/5395/inequality5.pdf

[16] http://www.economist.com/node/11581447

[17] http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/

[18] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/02/the-legacy-of-the-bush-tax-cuts-in-four-charts/

[19] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

[20] mailto:corrections@alternet.org?Subject=Typo on 5 Reasons the Rich Are Ruining the Economy by Hoarding Their Money

[21] http://www.alternet.org/tags/rich

[22] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

The Nicotine Network

How Big Tobacco and Republican congressional leaders help each other gain power.

By Peter H. Stone | Tue Apr. 30, 1996 11:00 PM PDT

Just four blocks from the headquarters of RJR Nabisco in Winston-Salem, N.C., is a small company called the Ramhurst Corp., which has been playing an instrumental role in the beleaguered tobacco behemoth's political fortunes. Its key mission: to quash the biggest political and financial challenges the tobacco industry has ever faced--from federal efforts to regulate tobacco at the Food and Drug Administration to state attempts to impose excise taxes and smoking restrictions.

Launched in 1993 with the support of RJR, Ramhurst--which coordinates many of its activities closely with RJR--combines "grassroots" lobbying with inside-the-Beltway influence-peddling. "Grassroots" coalitions have become a vital tool for tobacco's survival because of the industry's increasingly negative public image.By forming coalitions with business groups, conservative activist organizations, and other industries, tobacco companies like RJR obtain useful cover and, in effect, go from being a "black hat" to a"white hat"in the political world.

Ramhurst occupies a special niche among grassroots organizers for tobacco, however: Its operatives have also forged ties with some of the most powerful GOP leaders in Washington, including Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and Arizona Rep. John Shadegg, Newt Gingrich'shand-picked choice to succeed him as director of the powerful political action committee GOPAC.

Most significantly, a key Ramhurst operative has been tapped to head House Majority Whip Tom DeLay's leadership PAC, considered by many the pre-eminent fundraising vehicle in the GOP, after Newt Gingrich's money machine.

Source URL: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1996/05/nicotine-network

12 lev pts:

11: Size of Stabilizing buffers:  we've touched on this above, but institutional memory (diversitry of viewpoint), checks and behaviors of fair play are important and have accumulated over time.  Analogy of FM radio: easy to destroy and difficult to reconstitute. {aquifer)

Barry Commoner points out that the slowest cycle is often the limiting factor.  24/7 compresssed news cycle creates appetite which elcitis bad information is is corrected belatedly if at all.

It's usually easier to slow down than speed up a system, since some (at least natural processes like the growth of a child) cannot be accelerated.   Moreover, if we could slow economic system, it would lessen GHG and give us more time to cope.

Ctr-cultural tactics of 60's are the commons, the earth's immune system see hawken multitude of NGO, autonomous but united; efficient b/c small w/ few resources.

WWW is a buffer of memory, but also unfiltered, too fast moving, "narrow-casting" so polarizing