OBOF TYMHM & MORE Vol 15 - No 4

OPINOINS  BASED  ON FACTS (OBOF)

&

THINGS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED (TYMHM)

YEAR ONE

YEAR TWO

YEAR THREE

YEAR FOUR

YEAR FIVE

 

OBOF YEAR FIVE INDEX
OBOF TYMHM	Jan. 07, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 1	Jan. 19, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 2	Feb.  03, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 3	Feb.  23, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 4	March 02, 2015

 

Agenda

1.  From Floyd - Hot Potato 1 & 2.

2.  Combat deaths.

3.  Congress averts Homeland Security         shutdown.

4.  Repaying Government debt to SS.

5.  Polluting politics - KOCH                         Industries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HELLO FROM FLOYD

 

Hello folks.  Well, we have two big issues happening this week.  I have read no less that 14 reports on one and 17 on the other.  Plus, the air ways have been full  about them too.  So, you have probably heard much of what I am going to say here.  However, I want to emphasize some of my thoughts for your consideration and summarize my take on what I have been reading and hearing.

 

THE FIRST HOT POTATO

 

The first is with regard to the threatened shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security.  In brief, the President and Democrats in both houses of Congress, want, what is called "a clean funding bill for the DHS that would provide funds for the DHS to the end of the physical year or through September 2015.  The Republicans in the Senate did what their Majority Leader; Mitch McConnell said they would do.  He had said there will be no shutdowns.  Accordingly, the Senate passed the clean bill the President asked for.

 

It went over to the House.  Here, as you might expect, is where the problem surfaced.  First, the ultra right Tea Party members didn't want to pass anything to fund DHS unless the President withdrew his EX Order stopping the deportation of 11 million illegal immigrants.  

 

Speaker Boehner wanted to pass a one week extension, but he couldn't even get that out of his own caucus.  Long story short without details, the House rejected a 3-week extension, with the Speaker saying he would bring a clean bill to the floor for a vote Wednesday March 4, 2015. 

 

However, an aid since then has said that the Speaker made no such commitment.  THEREFORE, WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IS ANYONE'S GUESS.  The general feeling is that if a clean bill were brought up for a vote, it would pass.

 

It should be noted, that every Republican President starting with Reagan has use their office in exactly the same way that President Obama has.  That is Reagan and two Bush Presidents.  When that was done, there was not one objection during those terms.

 

THE SECOND HOT POTATO.

 

This one really sets me on my ear.  If you don't know what that means, it means I am really upset and plain angry.  Speaker Boehner should loose his Speakership and be banished from Congress.  He has insulted the President in the worst way, in my opinion.  He is an arrogant __________.  He has placed himself above the President.  How?  By inviting the Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyahu, to speak to a joint session of Congress.  It is scheduled for tomorrow, March 3, 2015. 

 

First, Congress is not supposed to be directly involved with Foreign Policy.  Second, he did this deliberately, without consulting the President.  To me this is the height of insult.  You may ask how I know it was deliberate.  Naturally, it is an assumption on my part, but I don't think you have to give it much thought to realize it was deliberate.  He made some disparaging comments about this when asked by a reporter.  I didn't get them written down.  I just remember that when I heard it I thought he was trying to put the President down even more.

 

In an interview of the President about this matter, he was elegant as usual.  His main point was, that we shouldn't be giving any head of a foreign country such exposure just two weeks before he is up for re-election, as PM Netanyahu is.  It indicates that we are injecting our position in another country's politics.  Of course, to me, I think Boehner wanted to show the President that he wasn't going to be a little boy in school asking permission to go to the rest room.   

 

At this writing there are 12 Senators that have said they will not attend the joint session tomorrow, Tuesday March 3, 2015.

 

From Senator Bernie Sander's

Buz page.  3-1-15.

 

U.S. led negotiations to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon are at an important, difficult stage. A hotly-contested Israeli election is two weeks away. At this critical time in a volatile region, House Speaker Boehner asked Prime Minister Netanyahu to address Congress.  Ignoring protocol, neither one checked with the White House, which strongly disapproves.     Bernie was the first of a growing number of senators to say they won’t go to the speech next Tuesday.  Boehner’s invitation politicizes U.S. foreign policy, improperly injects Congress into Israeli politics and undermines President Obama's lead role in charting U.S. foreign policy, Bernie said in an interview for the PBS NewsHour.

 

~~~

It’s Been 80 Days Since the Last U.S. Military Combat Death.  That’s Remarkable.  

~~~

Congress averts Homeland Security shutdown with one-week extension

 

By Sean Sullivan and Mike DeBonis

 February 28

 

 

Congress managed at the last minute on Friday night to avert a partial shuttering of the Department of Homeland Security, passing a one-week funding measure for the agency.  President Obama signed it shortly before the midnight deadline.

 

The deal came together after a whirlwind day of negotiations in which the House Republican leadership suffered a humiliating defeat when its 20-day funding bill was rejected.  The arrangement is expected to prolong talks about longer-term DHS funding until at least early next week.

 

After the House bill went down, the Senate sought to pull DHS back from the brink by swiftly passing the one-week bill by a voice vote.  The House followed suit shortly thereafter, voting 357 to 60 in favor of it.

 

Earlier in the day, the House collapsed in failure when a last-ditch attempt to fund the agency for an additional three weeks died at the hands of most Democrats and dozens of Republicans who voted against it.  The defeat was a major blow to Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), whose struggles to get unruly members to fall in line have continued in the new Congress.  More broadly, it was an early black eye for the unified Republican majority that had vowed to govern effectively.

 

All but a dozen Democrats rejected the measure, as did 52 Republicans, in a tense procedure that stretched for more than 40 minutes.  Democrats have demanded a long-term funding bill that does not go after Obama’s executive actions on immigration. Republicans want to use the DHS debate to fight Obama on immigration.

 

From Floyd:

 

I have no idea whether the following chart will print, but I am going to leave it in, in hopes that it will.

 

 

Late Friday night, Republicans and Democrats sent conflicting signals about what will come next.  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sent a note to Democratic colleagues indicating that by voting on the seven-day bill, they would ­“assure that we will vote for full funding next week.”

 

But Michael Steel, Boehner’s spokesman, said, “We have made no such promise.”

 

Boehner hoped to give lawmakers more time to break the House-Senate impasse with his 20-day bill, which the Senate signaled it would have passed if the House did.  But his plans were spoiled once again, mostly by a faction of rogue conservatives at odds with his strategy.

 

“Our leadership set the stage for this,” complained Rep. John Fleming (R-La.), who voted against the measure and argued that last year’s debate over funding the entire federal government was the time and place to do battle with the president.  “That’s where we had the best chance and opportunity.”

 

In November, Obama announced the executive actions granting temporary relief from deportation for more than 4 million immigrants in the country illegally. Republicans accused him of overstepping his legal authority.

 

House Democrats rallied against the 20-day bill, arguing that a delay would only put off the inevitable: another 11th-hour standoff on March 19 and pressure from them to pass a “clean” bill with no immigration provisions.

 

“The bullet must get bit by Boehner,” said Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who represents a long stretch of the nation’s border with Mexico and who voted no.  “It either gets bit tonight . . . or it gets bit in three weeks.”

 

In a statement, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called on House Republicans to take up a bill the Senate passed Friday morning that would fund DHS through September and would not touch Obama’s immigration directives.

 

“Now is the time to drop the partisan political games and come together to avoid a Homeland Security shutdown for the good of our country,” Reid said.

 

The House has so far resisted that bill.  It passed its own measure weeks ago that would fund DHS for the same period and that would also undo Obama’s immigration actions.

 

The House passed a measure along party lines Friday afternoon to go to conference with the Senate to hash out the differ­ences between their long-term bills. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) later announced a motion to agree.  But Senate Democrats, who insist on a clean bill, are expected to block plans for a conference on Monday.

 

It is at that point that Democrats are hopeful Boehner will reverse course and clear the way for the more lasting bill passed by the Senate.

 

As it braced for a potential shutdown, DHS issued a 46-page document titled “Procedures Relating to a Lapse in Appropriations.”  In attempts to pressure Republicans to pass a clean long-term funding bill, Democrats have routinely invoked the threat of the Islamic State and other dangers the United States is confronting.

 

Signs emerged early in the day that Boehner was having trouble getting the votes he needed for his bill. He summoned his top lieutenants to a meeting in his office Friday afternoon amid nervousness about the bill.

conservative colleagues.ep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.)    

 

After the vote on the 20-day bill, some moderate Republicans and some Democrats expressed frustration with the actions of their hard-line Maryland fueled the conservative mutiny.

 

“They’re going to go up and pound their chest,” he said.  “That’s what this is about.  Safety second, bravado first.”

 

The final margin was also decided by more than a dozen Republicans whose support the leadership can usually count on, including four Virginia Republicans who were close allies of former majority leader Eric Cantor.  Cantor stunningly lost his 2014 primary to now-Rep. Dave Brat, who ran to Cantor’s right on immigration. Brat voted no on the 20-day bill.

 

Firm Democratic resistance complicated matters. Echoing Reid, House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) called on Boehner to take up the Senate bill after his stopgap bill was rejected.

 

“Surely there are 30 Republicans who will vote to fund Department of Homeland Security.  I’m confident of that,” he said.

 

While Democrats were united against the 20-day bill, they overwhelmingly supported the one-week stopgap.  Only five of 179 Democrats who cast votes rejected it.

 

But Republicans couldn’t seem to please everyone in their ranks, no matter what.  Fifty-five of them voted against the one-week bill.

 

Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), who voted for both bills, called Friday’s session a “significant emotional event” for House Republicans.

Womack, as many others, didn’t see any easy way out.

 

“Everybody who hasn’t hit ‘Miller Time’ yet knows that we probably were going to be in this spot in three weeks anyway,” he said.

~~~

ALLEN W. SMITH:

Repaying government debt to social security

 

 

By ALLEN W. SMITH / Contributing Writer

Published: Feb. 23, 2015

The short-term solvency of Social Security is in the hands of the federal government.  Enough payroll taxes have been paid to cover full benefit payments until 2033.  But $2.7 trillion of that money was taken by the government and spent for non-Social Security purposes.

The spent money was replaced with government IOUs, called Special Issues of the Treasury.  The public has been misled about the true nature of these IOUs for the past 30 years.  Most Americans seem to have the impression that the IOUs, held by the trust fund, are like the marketable Treasury bonds which China and other lenders hold.  But the IOUs are very different from marketable Treasury bonds.

The IOUs cannot be sold to anyone at any price, and they can’t be used to pay benefits.  The only way the IOUs have any value is if the government is able and willing to pay back all of the $2.7 trillion.  The IOUs are claims against future tax collections and can only be redeemed by raising taxes.

The government has made little effort to inform the public about the true status of the IOUs, but there have been a few exceptions.  On Oct. 3, 2013 President Barack Obama warned that unless the debt ceiling was raised, Social Security checks would not go out on time.  In reference to the checks, Obama said, “In an economic shutdown, if we don’t raise the debt ceiling, they don’t go out on time.”

On Jan. 21, 2005, David Walker, the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office, tried to make it clear that the trust fund did not hold any real bonds.  He said, “There are no stocks or bonds, or real estate in the trust fund.  It has nothing of real value to draw down.”

President Bill Clinton’s 2000 budget proposal included a statement of just what the IOUs truly were: “The Social Security Trust Fund does not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.  Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.”

This point was also emphasized in the summary to the 2009 Social Security Trustees Report.  The report stated, “Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions of other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.”

The $2.7 trillion taken from the Social Security trust fund, and spent for non-Social Security purposes, must be repaid.  That money was contributed by working Americans.  It belongs to the American people. All of the money doesn’t have to be repaid in one lump sum. It could be repaid in installments over a 15-year period, but the repayment must be guaranteed.  If the government repaid its debt to Social Security, there would be no short-term Social Security solvency problem.

Allen W. Smith is professor of economics (emeritus) at Eastern Illinois University.  He has devoted much of his professional life to promoting economic education and combating economic malpractice.

 

WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Letters to the Editor: E-mail to letters@pe.com.  Please provide your name, city and telephone number (telephone numbers will not be published).  Letters of about 200 words will be given preference.  Letters will be edited for length, grammar and clarity.

 

 

 

Polluting Politics: Koch Industries and Others Spend Millions to Gut Clean Water Act Protections

 

 Authors: Anastasia Pantsios

 | EcoWatch | News Report

Published: February 28, 2015

 

Americans like the Clean Water Act (CWA), which was passed in 1972 to clean up the country’s waterways polluted by decades of industrialization and weak regulation, because they like having access to safe drinking water as well as clean water for activities like swimming, boating and fishing.  It seems like a no-brainer. So it was no surprise when the general public submitted more than 800,000 comments during the public comment period last year in support of President Obama’s plan to restore CWA protections to the country’s small waterways.

 

However, a new report from Environment America, Polluting Politics: Political Spending by Companies Dumping Toxics in our Waters, shows opponents to the CWA are spending significant amounts of money to act against the public interest.

 

“Year after year, polls show that more Americans are concerned with the pollution and quality of our waterways more than any other environmental issue,” the report begins.  “And after toxins in Lake Erie left 400,000 Toledo, Ohio residents unable to drink the water coming out of their taps last August, the need to protect our waterways is clear and present.”

 

But, the report says, “Corporations and industry groups that oppose restoring Clean Water Act protections can drown out the voice of the average voter by spending enormous sums on election campaigns and lobbying.”

 

The report reveals that currently, half of the U.S.’s lakes, rivers and streams are unsafe for fishing, swimming and drinking, and that 206 million pounds of toxic materials are dumped in our waterways each year. Polluting Politics ties some of the polluters to investments in political candidates who might work to minimize CWA protections.

 

“As it turns out, the same companies that are polluting our waterways with toxic chemicals are also polluting our politics with their spending,” said report author Ally Fields, clean water advocate at Environment America.

 

What these companies want is to stave off regulations that would limit the discharge of industrial chemicals from fracking and agricultural runoff (especially from factory farms), and restore wetlands and protect them against development.  Those are regulations the public likes and wants.  But to a large degree, the public interest has been trumped by several U.S. Supreme Court decisions since 2006 that have left half the country’s waterways—which provide drinking water for a third of Americans—vulnerable to toxic pollution.  And these big spender have swooped in to try to exploit those loopholes.

 

The report revealed that AK Steel Holding Corp, the top water polluter, dumped 19,088,128 pounds of toxics into waterways in 2012. And in 2014 it spent $739,752 on lobbying to try secure its ability to keep on polluting.  Industrial foods company Tyson Foods, the second biggest water polluter with 18,446,749 pounds dumped, spent $1,163,838 on lobbying.  The U.S. Department of Defense was the third largest waterway polluter at 10,868,190, but does not spend money on lobbying. But chemical company Cargill, checking in at fourth, spent about $1,300,000 to allow it to keep dumping more than 10,600,000 pounds of toxic materials into U.S. waterways.

 

Those top polluters were not the biggest spenders though.  That honor went to the number six polluter, Koch Industries, a notorious source of large campaign contributions to industry-friendly candidate.                                                                                                                                        It dumped 6,657,138 pounds of toxics in 2014.  Last year, it spent a whopping $13,800,000 on lobbying, with another $7.7 million spent in last year’s elections, according to Polluting Politics.  Given the Koch brothers’ propensity for pouring campaign money into 501 (c) 4 groups that don’t have to reveal their funders, the amount was likely much more.

 

Some corporations feel it’s their right to dump what they want in public waterways.

 

Another outsized spender was chemical company DuPont, which dumped about 5,500,000 pounds of toxics and spent nearly $9,300,000 to protect its right to do so. According to the report, the top 10 companies were responsible for almost 100 million pounds of toxics in public waterways—as well as $53 million on lobbying and $9.4 million in campaign contributions.  And the three top polluting industries—energy/natural resources, agribusiness and construction—spent more than $237 million on campaign contributions in the 2014 elections. Meanwhile, industry groups such as the American Petroleum Institute and the American Farm Bureau, spent tens of millions more on lobbyists who were frequently well-connected former government officials.

 

“It’s clear that our nation’s polluters have deep pockets, but hundreds of thousands of Americans have raised their voices in support of doing more to protect our waterways, from the Chesapeake Bay to Puget Sound,” said Fields.  “It’s time for Congress to listen to citizens, not the polluters, and let the EPA finish the job to protect our waterways.”

~~~

If the good Lord is willing and the creek don't rise, I'll talk with you again next week or maybe later this week.  We'll just have to see how I can work it out.  Thanks for tuning in.

God Bless You All

&

God Bless the United States of America

Floyd