Percentage of adult working population is at lowest level in 15 years.
Percentage of adult working population is at lowest level in 15 years.
According to The New York Times, “the share of adults who are working — 61.8 percent — is at its lowest level in 15 years…The share of adult men with jobs, which has been gradually falling for much of the last few decades, is now at its lowest level since a two-month period in early 1983.” October was the tenth consecutive month in which jobs declined. The U.S. has shed 1.2 million jobs in 2008.
- Comments
- 20
McCains would have received $55,000 a year from his capital gains tax cut proposal.
McCains would have received $55,000 a year from his capital gains tax cut proposal.
Last week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) proposed temporarily cutting the capital gains tax from 15 percent to 7.5 percent. On Friday, the McCain campaign released Cindy McCain’s 2007 tax returns, which show that the McCains made $746,395 in capitals gains last year. A new analysis by Michael Ettlinger, Vice President for Economic Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, reveals that McCain’s capital gains cut would have reduced the McCains’ taxes by $55,980 in 2007. This is on top of the more than $350,000 that the McCains would have saved due to the Senator’s other tax proposals. The Wonk Room has more.
Two-Thirds Of The Benefits From McCain’s New Tax Cut Go To Millionaires
Two-Thirds Of The Benefits From McCain’s New Tax Cut Go To Millionaires
As part of his new economic outline - The Pension and Family Security Plan - Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has proposed cutting the tax rate on long term capital gains and dividends to 7.5 percent in 2009 and 2010. The current tax rate for these capital gains is 15 percent.
Today, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center (TPC) released an analysis showing who would benefit from this cut. Like the rest of McCain’s tax cuts, this one overwhelmingly aids the wealthy, with two-thirds of the benefit going to those making over $1 million:
In 2009, under a plan that lowers taxes on both gains and dividends, those making $1 million or more would get two-thirds of the benefit, and an average tax cut of more than $72,000. Those making less than $50,000 would get, on average, nothing.
As the TPC pointed out, “75% of the benefit of low taxes on capital gains and dividends already go to those making $600,000 or more. Half goes to those making $2.8 million or more.”
In fact, as the Wonk Room noted when McCain first toyed with including this provision in his economic plan, under the current 15 percent rate, 93.9 percent of the benefits go to the top 5 percent of taxpayers, and 84.8 percent to the top 1 percent. The other 80 percent of taxpayers see only 1.7 percent of the benefits of today’s rate.
The McCain campaign claims that the cut will “strengthen incentives to save, invest, and restore the liquidity of markets.” But given the current economic situation - one in which “people do not have an awful lot of capital gains” - this measure will do nothing to stimulate the economy.
Furthermore, The Street noted that McCain’s cut “might have unintended consequences,” like encouraging investors “to make one-time sales to capture lower capital gains and increased tax write-offs,” which “would facilitate capital flight.”
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
McCain’s new economic proposal would cause ‘exodus of capital’ to the wealthiest Americans.
McCain’s new economic proposal would cause ‘exodus of capital’ to the wealthiest Americans.
Today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) gave a speech in Pennsylvania outlining his new economic proposal. Included in the plan is a provision temporarily lowering taxes on withdrawals from IRA’s and 401(k)s. During the speech, McCain touted this new provision, while saying that “it is essential we avoid an exodus of capital from the market.” Watch it:
But McCain doesn’t seem to understand that his proposal actively encourages the “exodus of capital” he is warning against. The Wonk Room explains here.
McCain’s original plan to make mortgage industry accept losses was ‘a simple mistake.’
McCain’s original plan to make mortgage industry accept losses was ‘a simple mistake.’
During the second presidential debate, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) unveiled a mortgage plan that would “reward predatory mortgage lenders” by not forcing them to accept the loss on depreciated mortgages. But the plan wasn’t always designed to aid lenders. As the Politico reported, the initial version of the plan — posted by the McCain campaign Tuesday night — included a provision that lenders “must recognize the loss that they’ve already suffered.” However, “when McCain reissued the document on Wednesday, that sentence was missing.” The campaign said that the inclusion of the provision forcing the banks to accept losses was “a simple mistake“:
That language was mistakenly included in the initial draft and it’s been corrected. It doesn’t reflect the intentions of the initiative, which necessitated the correction and the removal of the sentence. A simple mistake.
McCain has accepted over $1.5 million from the mortgage industry in 2008 alone. At least 21 top McCain aides and fundraisers have lobbied for such companies, including finance chairman Wayne Berman and senior adviser Charlie Black. The Wonk Room has more.
McCain Proposes A Progressive Housing Policy, But Still Wants To Reward Bankers Who Made Bad Loans
McCain Proposes A Progressive Housing Policy, But Still Wants To Reward Bankers Who Made Bad Loans
During the presidential debate last night, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) announced that, if elected President, he “would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes,” in order to enable troubled homeowners to stay in their homes:
I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes - at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those - be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.
Is it expensive? Yes. But we all know, my friends, until we stabilize home values in America, we’re never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy. And we’ve got to give some trust and confidence back to America.
McCain’s plan - the American Homeownership Resurgence Plan - is a good step because he recognizes what he failed to understand before: the mortgage crisis is at the root of the current financial trouble. As the Associated Press noted today, McCain’s plan is akin to one proposed by the Center for American Progress (CAP), which has “been pushing a similar idea for some time.”
In December, 2007, CAP’s Andrew Jakabovics proposed a plan modeled on FDR’s New Deal-era Home Owners Loan Corporation. Under the CAP proposal, the government “would issue new, fixed-rate mortgages to those borrowers ‘underwater’ and facing default or foreclosure,” while buying “the old adjustable-rate mortgages from lenders and investors” at current value.
McCain should be applauded for embracing the progressive goal of helping homeowners with decent credit, who are nevertheless burdened with bad mortgages. However, he wants to buy the mortgages at full face value, which means he “wants to give $100 billion of taxpayers’ money to America’s worst-behaving mortgage financiers.”
Here’s how McCain’s proposal works:
- If a homeowner bought a house for $300,000 - and the value then fell to $200,000 - McCain would have the government purchase the mortgage for $300,000, instead of forcing lenders to accept the loss and renegotiate the loan.
- The only way in which the government then makes a profit is if the house’s value rises above its original market value of $300,000, which is possible, but unlikely.
As Matthew Yglesias wrote, “instead of having the lenders take a haircut in order to avoid mass foreclosures, McCain wants the taxpayers to bare all the costs of doing so.”
Brad DeLong noted that McCain plans to “give a present of $100 billion to the bankers who made the loans,” and “acquire and regularize the mortgages of only two-thirds as many homeowners as could have been accomplished if the $300 billion were invested wisely.”
McCain’s idea to buy and restructure mortgages is a good one, but he can accomplish it without overpaying and rewarding bankers who made bad loans.
Cross-posted at The Wonk Room.
Conservatives Claim Obama Is ‘So Bad For The Economy,’ While Wall Street Donates More To Obama
Conservatives Claim Obama Is ‘So Bad For The Economy,’ While Wall Street Donates More To Obama
Conservatives have been trying to frighten investors about the prospects of a Barack Obama presidency. Larry Kudlow wrote, “Wall Street, beware,” while The Street’s Richard Moore suggested “that the market seems to do better when Barack Obama is having problems.” Michael Pento of Delta Global Advisers claimed another Depression is “where we’re headed” if Obama’s economic plans are adopted. Watch a compilation:
Wall Street however, disagrees, and is donating more to Obama’s campaign than to the campaign of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).
Bloomberg reports that Obama “has captured $9.6 million in donations from employees working for securities, mortgage and drug companies, compared with McCain’s $6.6 million.” From “brokers, bankers and traders in the securities industry” Obama has gathered $8.9 million to McCain’s $6.3 million, and “their support comes even as Obama seeks higher taxes for wealthy Americans.” Workers in the mortgage industry, meanwhile, “gave $278,937 to Obama and $133,475 to McCain.”
In 2004, all of these industries donated more to President Bush than they did to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA). Yet by rejecting McCain, Wall Street is showing its dissatisfaction with the past eight years of Bush’s presidency, which saw skyrocketing deficits and financial crises. Perhaps they also want to make sure that benefits are dispersed throughout the economy, rather than given to just the wealthiest Americans.
However, there are some industries with which McCain is more popular. Bloomberg notes that the oil and gas industries gave their “million dollar maverick” McCain “four times the amount” that they’ve given Obama.
Right-Wing Hate Group Blames Immigrants For Increasing Greenhouse Emissions
Right-Wing Hate Group Blames Immigrants For Increasing Greenhouse Emissions
In a new report, the right-wing Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is promoting its anti-immigrant agenda by suggesting that “Immigration to the United States significantly increases world-wide CO2 emissions,” and “future levels of immigration will have a significant impact on efforts to reduce global CO2 emissions.”
CIS criticizes “environmentalists” for using a “piecemeal” approach of opposing fossil fuels and promoting conservation, claiming that the real way to help the environment would be to stop immigration. From the report:
Immigration to the United States significantly increases world-wide CO2 emissions
because it transfers population from lower-polluting parts of the world to the United States, which is a higher polluting country. On average immigrants increase their emissions four-fold by coming to America.
CIS assumes that each American will always have the same “stabilized” rate of carbon emission, and thus population growth — fueled by immigrants — is entirely to blame for a rise in American CO2 levels. But instead of proposing that Americans modify their behavior and emit less carbon, CIS simply posits stopping immigration to cut down on population.
As the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) pointed out in a press release, CIS is using all these arguments to essentially scapegoat immigrants:
Immigrants are not the problem – the U.S. lifestyle and U.S. CO2 emissions are the problem. … We could choose any group of Americans – the wealthy, residents of a particular state, dog owners, accountants, redheads – and eliminating that group would lower emissions.
CIS, whose founder Mark Krikorian has said that “immigration is incompatible with modern society,” has a history of promoting outrageous ideas to control migration to the U.S. These include attempting to deport the spouses of American soldiers, and suggesting Americans try “making America a more inhospitable place” for immigrants.
But CIS is not alone on the right in blaming immigrants for environmental problems. Homeland Security Chairman Michael Chertoff has also said that immigrants “degrade the environment” with “human waste, garbage, discarded bottles and other human artifact.”
Toby Keith: ‘Black Society’ Thinks Obama ‘Talks, Acts and Carries Himself As A Caucasian’
Toby Keith: ‘Black Society’ Thinks Obama ‘Talks, Acts and Carries Himself As A Caucasian’
Country singer Toby Keith, who is on a media blitz promoting his pro-lynching movie, Beer For My Horses, said during a radio interview with Glenn Beck today that he believes “black society” will pull for Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), even though “they think in the back of their mind that…he talks, acts and carries himself as a Caucasian”:
KEITH: I think that the black people would say he don’t talk, act, or carry himself as a black person.
BECK: What does that even mean?
KEITH: I don’t know what that means, but I’m saying that’s what I think that they would say. Even though the black society would pull for him, I still think that they think in the back of their mind that the only reason that he is in is because he talks, acts and carries himself as a Caucasian.
Listen here:
Beck responded by simply saying “Oh.” But it’s an attack line Beck himself has used in the past, claiming that Obama is “colorless” and “might as well be white.”
Other conservative media hosts have joined Beck in employing this rhetoric. The day after Beck’s “colorless” remark, Rush Limbaugh said that Obama should “renounce” his race and just “become white.” Extreme conservative talker Melanie Morgan has called Obama a “halfrican” who “is not allowed to wear the African-American badge because his family are not the descendants of slaves.” Tucker Carlson wondered about Obama, “Is he black enough?”
McCain: Oil Rigs ‘Very Successfully’ Survived the Impact of Hurricanes
McCain: Oil Rigs ‘Very Successfully’ Survived the Impact of Hurricanes
Yesterday, Nancy Pfotenhauer, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) senior policy adviser, claimed that she had been “misinformed” when she falsely stated that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita “did not spill a drop of oil.” Today, McCain made another “misinformed” argument, claiming that oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico “have survived, very successfully, the impacts of hurricanes”:
Q: I’ve been listening to your comments around renewable resources – solar, tide, and wind – you’ve talked a lot about that, but you keep peppering your comments with offshore drilling. But I’m not sure what you think the impact on our environment is based on that.
A: Keep the microphone. I’m aware that off the coast of Louisiana and Texas there are oil rigs, as we well know, and those rigs have survived, very successfully, the impacts of hurricanes – hurricane Katrina as far as Louisiana is concerned.
McCain is wrong. According to press reports, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita “tore through the Gulf of Mexico’s offshore oil and gas fields, toppling production platforms, setting rigs adrift and rupturing pipelines.” The U.S. Minerals Management Service reported that the hurricanes totally destroyed 113 offshore oil platforms.
The hurricanes cost Transocean, the largest offshore driller, “about $135 million in repairs, downtime and equipment upgrades” alone, and damage to offshore producers accounted for 77 percent of the oil industry’s storm costs. One offshore rig, the Ocean Warwick, drifted 66 nautical miles before running aground.
Here are some photos of the success that McCain is touting:
Cross-posted in The Wonk Room.
Rove: ‘This Administration Put More Into Alternative Energy Research Than Any Administration in History’
Rove: ‘This Administration Put More Into Alternative Energy Research Than Any Administration in History’
Last night on The O’Reilly Factor, Karl Rove attempted to defend the Bush administration’s energy record by falsely claiming that it had spent more on alternative energy research than “any administration in history”:
ROVE: This president and this administration put more into alternative energy research than any administration in history by a significant factor. And as a result, things like the lithium ion batteries which are needed for cars, plug-in cars, all kinds of cellulosic and other forms of ethanol, hydrogen, wind, solar, all of these with one exception saw a dramatic movement in terms of being able to come to market.
Watch it:
O’Reilly questioned Rove’s assertion, saying “maybe that’s true and maybe it isn’t,” and called Bush’s actions on energy “invisible.” O’Reilly was right to be skeptical. Since 1980, federal spending on energy research has declined, and since the mid-1990s, “R&D spending has been stagnant for renewable energy and energy efficiency.”
In 2006, Bush stated that “America is addicted to oil.” However, his 2006 budget called for “significant cuts in renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean air, and climate change related-programs.” In fact, Bush has continually slashed funding for renewables from the federal budget, while threatening to block legislation that would have funded renewable energy by transferring money from oil and gas industry tax breaks. In 2007, the administration attempted to completely “eliminate federal support for geothermal power.”
The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) said that, though the President’s 2008 budget request included $2.7 billion for research, it “cuts 2007 spending for efficiency and renewables by 16%.”
The Wonk Room offers a further deconstruction of George Bush’s energy policies here.
Transcript: More »
Beck and Moore Falsely Claim U.S. Is ‘One Of Highest Taxed’ ‘In The World’
Beck and Moore Falsely Claim U.S. Is ‘One Of Highest Taxed’ ‘In The World’
Yesterday, conservative pundit Glenn Beck and Wall Street Journal economics writer Stephen Moore, falsely claimed that America is the second-highest taxed country in the world:
MOORE: It`s a real problem. I think it`s one of the reasons, Glenn, the stock market is down. I think it`s one of the reasons the dollar has been falling. You and I have talked about that many times on this show.
It`s the root of all evil, the collapse of our currency. And it`s because we have gone from 20 years ago being one of the lowest taxed countries in the world. Under Barack Obama, we would be one of the highest taxed countries in the world.
BECK: Well, we already are number two, are we not?
MOORE: Well, we`d move to number one.
Watch It:
Beck and Moore have their numbers all wrong. The Tax Policy Center reports that America’s “tax burden is low,” and notes that the U.S. “raises significantly lower tax revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product than do most other countries in the OECD.”
Similarly, the tax burden of the average American family is 11.9 percent, far below Sweden’s 42.4 percent, Poland’s 42.1 percent, and France’s 41.7 percent.
Beck’s reference to “number two” likely describes America’s corporate tax rate. And while the United States does have the second highest corporate rate on paper, the effective tax rate is “in line with the rest of the world’s”:
The effective tax rate on equipment financed by equity is 24 percent, the same as the G-7 average. The rate on equipment financed by debt is minus 46 percent, meaning that the government actually subsidizes these investments rather than taxing them.
Perhaps Beck and Moore should consult Eric Toder, former director of the office of research for the Internal Revenue Service, who explained simply, “When you look at the overall tax burden, the U.S. is quite low.”
Bolton Claims He Has ‘Always Said’ Striking Iran Is ‘Deeply Unattractive’
Bolton Claims He Has ‘Always Said’ Striking Iran Is ‘Deeply Unattractive’
On the Friday edition of Hannity and Colmes, Alan Colmes questioned former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton about his “statements over the last few months” advocating that the Bush administration use military force against Iran. Bolton denied having made such statements, replying that “would not be an accurate reflection of my view”:
COLMES: Well, you’ve said — statements over the last few months that either you believe the Bush administration is going to strike or that you would like if there were a first strike against Iran. Would that be an accurate reflection of your view?
BOLTON: No, it would not be an accurate reflection of my view. In fact, I’ve said most recently I don’t think the Bush administration will use force, and I have always said, Alan, always said, that the use of force against Iran’s nuclear program is deeply unattractive.
Watch it:
However, Bolton has not always found the use of force against Iran “deeply unattractive.” To the contrary, he has vigorously pushed the administration to attack Iran, believing it the “prudent” thing to do:
- Asked if he could imagine a scenario where Bush would strike Iran before the end of his term, Bolton responded “I think so, definitely.” [Fox News, 5/7/08]
- Bolton explained that a U.S. military strike on Iran is “really the most prudent thing to do.” [Fox News, 5/5/08]
- Bolton said that he “absolutely” hopes the U.S. will attack Iran in the “next six months.” [Fox News, 8/22/07]
But Bolton doesn’t only theorize about the U.S. striking Iran. On multiple occasions, he has suggested that Israel will attack Iran “after our elections and before the inauguration of the next President,” which he explained “makes a lot of sense.”
Phil Gramm’s Greatest Hits: ‘Poor People Are Fat’ And ‘There Should Be No Minimum Wage’
Phil Gramm’s Greatest Hits: ‘Poor People Are Fat’ And ‘There Should Be No Minimum Wage’
During the last two days, the McCain campaign has gone into damage control over top economic adviser Phil Gramm’s belief that America has “become a nation of whiners” and is only “in a mental recession.” McCain tried to disavow the remarks by saying that “Phil Gramm does not speak for me.” But McCain’s distancing doesn’t change the fact that Gramm is considered his “econ brain.” McCain thinks so highly of Gramm that he was even the chairman of his failed 1996 presidential bid.
As it turns out, this is not the first time that Gramm, a self-styled “foot soldier of the Reagan revolution,” has advocated controversial views on the economy. In the past, he has criticized public works projects, the existence of a minimum wage, and the federal welfare program. Here are some highlights from McCain’s “econ brain,” as compiled by the Houston Chronicle [2/20/95]:
- “Until we are on a pay-as-you-go budget, until we have stopped inflation, I do not intend to support any public works project in the United States.” — Gramm, 10/9/75
- “Minimum wage laws tend to cut the bottom rung off the economic ladder. The plain truth is there should be no minimum wage law in this great land of free enterprise.” — Gramm, 5/17/89
“We’re the only nation in the world where all our poor people are fat.” — Gramm, 9/6/81
In addition, Gramm is an advocate of the flat tax and wants to cut taxes on capital gains. [Concord Monitor, 9/26/96] As the Wonk Room has noted, such capital gains cuts would mostly benefit millionaires. Joe Conason writes on Salon that Gramm’s deregulation policies “helped spur the mortage crisis.”
But it is not only on the economy that Gramm is out of touch. During a 1984 Senate debate, he criticized his opponent’s stance on gay rights by saying, “I do not want homosexuals teaching my third-grade boy.” [Houston Chronicle, 2/20/95] He also reveled in the defeat of Hillary Clinton’s health care bill by saying that it would pass only over his “cold, dead, political body.” He then called it “deader than Elvis.”
This is all from a man that John McCain said has a “rare intellect that grasps complex issues and explains them to others in plain language [Washington Times, 2/27/95].”
Oversight Committee: Despite Denials, Administration Knew About Bush Donor’s Oil Contracts
Oversight Committee: Despite Denials, Administration Knew About Bush Donor’s Oil Contracts
The Bush administration has repeatedly claimed that it plays no part in contract negotiations between Western oil companies and Iraq. But the New York Times reported last week that the State Department actually had an “integral role” in the awarding of no-bid contracts to develop Iraq’s oil fields.
Today, the administration received another blow to its credibility, as the House Oversight Committee released documents further connecting it to Iraqi oil deals, this time through Dallas-based Hunt Oil. Hunt Oil is owned by Ray L. Hunt, a former Halliburton board member who has donated $35 million to the Bush presidential library.
In September 2007, Hunt Oil signed a contract with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) to develop oil fields in the Kurdish region of Iraq. At the time, the State Department criticized the deal, calling it “counterproductive,” and saying that “these contracts have needlessly elevated tensions between the KRG and the national government of Iraq.”
President Bush denied knowledge of the contract, saying that he “knew nothing about the deal” and was “concerned”:
I knew nothing about the deal. I need to know exactly how it happened. To the extent that it does undermine the ability for the government to come up with an oil revenue sharing plan that unifies the country, obviously if it undermines it I’m concerned.
However, the documents released by the Oversight Committee today include ample evidence that officials in the State Department and Commerce Department “knew about Hunt Oil’s interest in the Kurdish region months before the contract was executed”:
- Hunt sent two letters to the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board “making clear his intentions to pursue oil exploration in Kurdistan.”
- Hunt Oil’s general manager informed the Regional Reconstruction Team (RRT) that “Hunt is expecting to sign an exploration contract,” a warning that was sent to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and to the State Department.
- Hunt Oil officials met with the RRT to inquire about U.S. policy towards oil contracts with the KRG, and were told that the “U.S. has no policy, for nor against.”
- In an internal company e-mail, Hunt’s general manager said that there was “no communication” from the State Department that Hunt should not make the deal, despite “ample opportunity to do so.”
This isn’t the first time the Bush administration has helped out the billionaire Hunt. In 2006, a proposed border fence in Texas “abruptly ended” right before Hunt’s property.
In light of these findings regarding Hunt Oil and the administration, the Oversight committee has penned a letter to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice asking for more information about the “U.S. role in the efforts of other oil companies to obtain Iraqi contracts.” “This is a serious matter because of the widespread suspicion in Iraq and other nations that the United States went to war to gain access to Iraqi oil,” the committee wrote.
Louisiana Governor Jindal Unaware Katrina Caused ‘Major’ Oil Spills In His Own State
Louisiana Governor Jindal Unaware Katrina Caused ‘Major’ Oil Spills In His Own State
While serving in Congress in August 2006, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) slammed the Bush administration for its response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Jindal said the state suffered “trauma” from the “widespread incompetence of the federal, state and local government response.”
But yesterday on Fox News, it was Jindal who was displaying Katrina incompetence. Making a push for expanded offshore oil drilling, Jindal repeated the myth that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused “no major” oil spills in the state. Jindal called it a “great unwritten success story”:
Q: Real fast, Governor, the price of oil went up five bucks a barrel today. You’ve been drilling off the coast of Louisiana for a number of years. Any oil spills to worry about?
JINDAL: You know, that’s one of the great unwritten success stories, after Katrina and Rita, these awful storms, no major spills.
Watch it:
Jindal is clueless about the reality in his own state. As noted in the Wonk Room, the Hurricanes caused offshore oil spills so large that they could be seen from space (check out a picture here.) The Minerals Management Service reported that 113 oil platforms were “totally destroyed” — a total of 124 offshore spills.
In fact, oil seeped onshore into southeast Louisiana, which saw 44 onshore and offshore oil spills. The EPA called the spills “worse than the worst-case scenario.” Even oil industry representatives admitted: “nature can always topple you.”
It’s hard to see how this is a “great unwritten success story.”
Fox Analyst: Iraqis ‘Owe Us’ 100-Year Leases On Their Oil, ‘We Ought To Take It’
Fox Analyst: Iraqis ‘Owe Us’ 100-Year Leases On Their Oil, ‘We Ought To Take It’
Last week, the New York Times reported that four Western oil companies — Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total, and BP — are in the final stages of negotiating no-bid oil contracts “to service Iraq’s largest fields.” These contracts would run for one to two years, and give the oil companies a “foothold” in bidding on future contracts.
But one-to-two year service contracts aren’t enough for analyst Bob Beckel, a Fox News liberal. On the O’Reilly Factor last night, Beckel said that “what we ought to do is get Iraq to give us a 100 year lease” for exploring their oil fields:
BECKEL: OK, now, what we ought to do is get Iraq to give us 100 year lease on their unexplored — they’re the second largest source of oil in the world. Known reserves. Give the United States oil companies 100 year leases. Let us explore. We can get it quickly. It’s through sand. It’s the fastest way to get oil.
Beckel justified giving U.S. oil companies a century of business in Iraq by claiming, “The Iraqis owe us, Bill. We ought to take it.” Watch it:
As the New York Times notes, such no-bid contracts play into the suspicions of those who believe that the U.S. invaded Iraq “precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract.” It’s uncertain what role the U.S. played in negotiating the four no-bid contracts.
If U.S. companies were given 100-year leases like Beckel wants, more people would likely agree with former Centcom Commander John Abizaid’s 2007 claim about the war in Iraq: “Of course it’s about oil.”
Bachmann: Alaska’s Caribou Will Love Oil Drilling ‘Because Of The Warmth Of The Pipeline’
Bachmann: Alaska’s Caribou Will Love Oil Drilling ‘Because Of The Warmth Of The Pipeline’
During a radio interview on Wednesday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) attempted to argue that drilling for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) would be beneficial for Arctic wildlife. Bachmann claimed that drilling would cause not only an “enhancement of wildlife expansion,” but that the area around oil pipelines would also “become a meeting ground and ‘coffee klatch‘ for caribou”:
“Some suggestions are that perhaps we would see an enhancement of wildlife expansion because of the warmth of the pipeline,” she said. […] The pipeline has now become a meeting ground and “coffee klatch” for the caribou, she said.
Bachmann is not alone among conservatives in pushing this narrative of drilling being good for caribou. Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show last week that “the caribou have multiplied ’cause they like the warmth that surrounds the pipeline.” On Tuesday night, National Review’s Jonah Goldberg made a similar argument on Fox News:
GOLDBERG: People don’t realize that at Prudhoe Bay, where they have been drilling for 30 years, the central Arctic caribou herd has increased fivefold since they started drilling up there. Some people say it’s because they get to hide from the bugs. It’s a little easier for them. But people say it’s because of the lack of hunting. But it is not dangerous to the caribou up there.
Watch it:
Science, however, tells a different tale. Though the Central Arctic herd in Prudhoe Bay has grown, the Porcupine caribou in the Arctic refuge are “very different.” Wildlife biologists say drilling proponents are making an “oversimplified” argument when they tout Prudhoe Bay to justify disrupting the much larger Porcupine herd in the refuge:
Although the same animals, the two herds are very different. The Porcupine herd migrates over a much larger range, an arduous journey that takes its toll on the herd. Scientists also believe the Central Artic herd, a much smaller herd, has access to several acceptable calving grounds. The Porcupine herd has fewer alternatives and the herd has suffered declines in years when deep snow cover made it difficult to reach its preferred calving grounds on Alaska’s coastal plain.
Far from becoming a meeting ground, surveys have shown that the Central Arctic “caribou reduced their use of the more heavily developed Prudhoe Bay oil fields by 78 percent, and their east-west movements declined by 90 percent.” “As surface development continues, the caribou are effectively crowded out of these areas,” said Ray Cameron, a wildlife biologist who studied caribou for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “They’ve decided it’s not the place to be.”
Studies have also found that pipeline construction near caribou calving and summering areas can lead to “greater calf mortality” and the “reduction of the population.”
FLASHBACK: McCain Brushed Off Allen’s ‘Macaca’ Remarks, Praised Him For His ‘Courage’
FLASHBACK: McCain Brushed Off Allen’s ‘Macaca’ Remarks, Praised Him For His ‘Courage’
During a press conference today, a reporter asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) if he was offended when, in August 2006, former Virginia senator George Allen used the word “macaca” to refer to a campaign volunteer of Indian descent working for Jim Webb’s campaign. McCain brushed off the question about the racial slur, saying only that he “thought it was very wrong” and “urged Senator Allen to apologize for that very quickly“:
Q: Many voters in Virginia took offense when Senator Allen used the word ‘macaca’ to describe one of Senator Webb’s volunteers who was of mixed ethnic background. Did you take offense when Senator Allen used that word?
McCAIN: Well, I thought it was very wrong and in fact, right away I urged Sen. Allen to apologize for that very quickly.
At the time, however, McCain didn’t seem all that offended by Allen’s remark. McCain appeared with Allen at a rally in Norfolk, VA, just five days after the incident. During that appearance, he praised Allen for his “leadership, his vision and his courage.” “We all make mistakes, and I have made my share,” said McCain [RichmondTimes-Dispatch, 8/17/06].
In fact, it’s not clear that McCain understood why the Macaca reference was offensive. Macaca often refers to a “monkey,” but can also be “considered a racial slur against African immigrants.” Yet at that rally with Allen, McCain remained attached to monkeys and cracked a joke about a man who used a monkey to get out of performing air raid drills. In the end, the monkey — rather than the man — is promoted to admiral. An excerpt from the joke:
I caught this monkey, and I trained the monkey that when the siren went off, he’d come out of the jungle, get into my airplane, start the engine, sit there, the “all clear” siren would go off, he’d shut down the engine, get out of the airplane and go back in the jungle. It was wonderful. I was sleeping like a baby.
Well, sure enough, one night it was not just Washing Machine Charlie. It was a real Japanese air raid. I came out of my tent just in time to see that monkey taking off in my airplane. I said, ‘Well, I can certainly see why you were not promoted!’ He said, ‘That’s not what makes me mad. The monkey retired as an admiral last week!’
Allen also went on to showcase McCain in television ads during his campaign.
Pipes: Bush Will Attack Iran If A Democrat Wins The White House
Pipes: Bush Will Attack Iran If A Democrat Wins The White House
Daniel Pipes, a far right-wing pseudo scholar who called the NIE report on the halting of Iran’s nuclear program a “shoddy, politicized, outrageous parody of a piece of propaganda,” said he believes that President Bush will attack Iran if a Democrat wins the White House in November. During an interview posted at the National Review Online, Pipes said that the U.S. and its allies should tell Tehran to “watch out” for “an American attack”:
What I suspect will be the case is, should the Democratic nominee win in November, President Bush will do something. And should it be Mr. McCain that wins, he’ll punt, and let McCain decide what to do.
Pipes also said that countries like Russia and China should aid the U.S. in pressuring Iran, if they want to prevent America attacking unilaterally:
Look, if you don’t want an American attack, then you have to join us in being very serious with the Iranians and making clear to them we will attack if they don’t stop.
Pipes, who has a history of what The Nation calls “signature distortions,” is just the latest in a rising chorus of voices advocating that Bush attack Iran before his term ends. The Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot reported that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert planned to encourage Bush to prepare an attack against Iran during his meeting with the President yesterday.
The White House denies any intent to strike Iran, but that hasn’t stopped Vice President Dick Cheney or former U.N. ambassador John Bolton from promoting the idea.
