Fracking Insiders Score Big in New Gas Bill, But Americans Not Told the True Costs of Massive Drilling Plan

Saturday 9 April 2011
by: Steve Horn, PR Watch

Corporate insiders peddling the claim that drilling for methane gas will solve America's energy needs just scored big in Washington -- and for these insiders fracking [5] for gas is very lucrative business. House Resolution 1380, given the feel-good moniker of the "New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act " or "NAT GAS Act," was announced on Wednesday, April 6, in the U. S. House of Representatives. The bill [6] is 24-pages long and rewards the fracking industry with tax credits and products to help "drive" consumption. The bigger the vehicle, the more tax credits given.

This initiative to expand the controversial fracking [5] process -- which has already resulted in contaminated wells and rivers [7] and even ignitable tap water [8] for some -- is being spearheaded in Congress [9] by Reps. John Sullivan (R-Oklahoma) [10], Dan Boren (D-Oklahoma) [11], John Larson (D-Connecticut) [12], and Kevin Brady (R-Texas) [13]. The bill has 77 co-sponsors [14], with 40 Democrats [15] in support, and 37 Republicans [16], from 33 different states [17].

But, perhaps its most powerful supporter or potential supporter is President Barack Obama [18]. Just two weeks ago, he alluded to being a strong supporter of a bill of this nature in a speech on March 30 [19] on "America's Energy Security" at Georgetown University. In that address, he specifically mentioned T. Boone Pickens [20]'s name when discussing legislation to support expanded fracking for methane.

Pickens Hearts Methane: A Quick Review

As has been documented by PR Watch [21], T. Boone Pickens is a diehard advocate of methane gas [22] drilling in the Marcellus Shale [23] basin of the U.S. and elsewhere, vis-a-vis what he has coined as the "Pickens Plan [24]".

Announced in July of 2008, his PR pitch is about "getting off of foreign energy sources" and "using the resources we have at home." In theory, these soundbites could refer to greater investment in renewable resources like wind and solar energy. In practice, it has meant a push by Pickens for relentless fracking for methane in virtually every crevice of American land.

Though hailed by Pickens and other uncritical observers as an "energy efficient solution" and a "clean" energy resource, this PR spin ignores the true dangers and consequences of fracking and of the methane distribution and consumption process. Fracking [25] -- using a drilling technique pioneered by Halliburton [26] that forces a concoction of hazardous chemicals and drinkable water into shale--has been well-documented in movies like Gasland [27], as well as by the Center for Media and Democracy's Water Portal [28], as a dangerous and destructive process that shortchanges land owners, enriches drillers, and spoils land and water.

Obama Embraces the Pickens Plan

President Barack Obama [18] has fully embraced the Pickens Plan. In his March 30th speech [19] at Georgetown, Obama gave a shout out to the plan, saying,

But the potential for natural gas is enormous. And this is an area where there's actually been some broad bipartisan agreement. Last year, more than 150 members of Congress from both sides of the aisle produced legislation providing incentives to use clean-burning natural gas in our vehicles instead of oil. And that's a big deal. Getting 150 members of Congress to agree on anything is a big deal. And they were even joined by T. Boone Pickens, a businessman who made his fortune on oil, but who is out there making the simple point that we can't simply drill our way out of our energy problems.

Obama also referenced [29] Pickens in a March 11 address, using the same "This is one emergency we can't drill our way out of" talking point. In an interview after the March 11 address, Pickens praised [30] Obama in appearances on Fox News [31] and CNN [32]'s Larry King Live [33].

The headline [34] of a March 30 Dallas Morning News article gets the headline right on what just happened: "Obama endorses Pickens plan for natural gas vehicles." Seconding that, the Miami Herald headline [35] from April 3 reads, "Obama, oilman Pickens allied on natural gas push." The lead of that article states, "The centerpiece of President Barack Obama's new energy policy mirrors the plan trumpeted for more than two years by a one-time GOP juggernaut: Dallas oilman T. Boone Pickens."

This is the same oilman who was a huge funder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth [36] -- he gave some $3 million, according to a story by Politico.com [37], to the organization that is infamous for the smear campaign it ran against [38] John Kerry [39] in the 2004 Presidential Election [40].

Obama [41] and Pickens [42] both also claim that, for "national security" purposes, we need to end our addiction to foreign oil, particularly from OPEC [43] countries. Yet, government reports show that gas companies are exporting an increasing amount of methane gas drilled throughout the U.S. to other countries [44], thus adding to the profits of the industry as it depletes the gas supply available to Americans.

Furthermore, the Wall Street Journal [45] reported [46] that two big Houston, Texas methane gas drilling companies, Freeport LNG [47] and Cheniere Energy [48], are entering the export market. U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), one of the bill's original four sponsors, represents Texas's 8th congressional district [49], which is located just outside of Houston. These two [50] companies [51], lo and behold, are headquartered in Houston.

The Wall Street Journal article also mentioned [46], "Major gas producers, including Chesapeake Energy [52] Corp. and EnCana Corporation [53], are enthusiastic about the idea."

Additionally, a cursory look toward Afghanistan [54] and Iraq [55], two countries the United States military is currently occupying, shows that fossil fuels are on the minds of the powers-that-be and will be for years to come. The Trans-Afghainstan Pipeline [56], located in the heart of Pipelineistan [57], was a project spearheaded [58] by U.S. oil company Unocal [59]. The pipeline procures methane gas.

Similarly, the Sourcewatch article titled "Oil and War in Iraq [60]" also shows that Iraq sits on one of the largest oil reserves in the world, much of it consisting of methane gas. That article, citing a Sept. 2008 report from The Guardian [61], states, "In September 2008, oil giant Shell [62] became the first western oil company to win significant access to the energy sector in Iraq since the 1970s, in a $4 billion deal...Shell signed an agreement with the Oil Ministry to form a joint venture with the South Oil Company [63] ... to process and market natural gas extracted on 19,000 sq km (7,300 sq miles) of land."

A National Security concern? Certainly a concern for big profits, accompanied by big spin [64].

How the "NAT GAS" Bill Story Broke and What that Tale Tells

The way the story on the bill was broken reveals a lot about how the bill came to be. The first four entities to break the story are all, as will be seen, in some way, shape and form, well-connected to Pickens: School Transportation News [65] (STN) and Natural Gas Vehicles for America [66] (NGVA), and the American Natural Gas Alliance [67] (ANGA), and Clean Energy Fuels [68] (CEF). All four originally broke the story before the bill was publicly available.

ANGA consists of all of methane's key players [69], including Cabot Oil and Gas [70], Chesapeake Energy [52], Seneca Resources [71], and EQT [72], among others. (SourceWatch has new profiles on these companies and the political donations and activities of their leaders.) ANGA showered Obama's March 31 address with praise [73].

NGVA, on the other hand, is called a "peer group partner" of the so-called "American Clean Skies Foundation [74]." NGVA has a programming agreement through the Foundation's PR channel, Clean Skies TV Network [74], and the Foundation is funded by Chesapeake Energy CEO, Aubrey McClendon [75]. NVGA's spokesperson is the author of its press release on the announcement of the NAT GAS Act, and Denise McCourt, according to her LinkedIn page [76], is the former Industry Relations Director of the American Petroleum Institute [77] (API). Before that stint, she was the Director of General Membership and Member Relations.

CEF is another "peer group partner" of the American Clean Skies Foundation [74] that has a programming agreement with Clean Skies TV Network. Coming full circle, Pickens sits on its Board of Directors [78], as does John S. Herrington [79], the former United States Secretary of Energy under Ronald Reagan [80] during his second term as President. The President and CEO of CEF, Andrew J. Littlefair, according to his biography [81] on their website, is also the President of NGVA. According to that same biography, he formerly served as President of Pickens Fuel Corporation. A glance at the American Clean Skies Foundation webpage shows that he also sits on the Board of Directors [82] with McClendon.

Pickens Fuel Corporation is the predecessor of CEF, which Littlefair co-founded in 1997 with Pickens. It was reincorporated [83] as CEF in 2001. CEF dedicated [84] its first Liquified Natural Gas plant to Pickens in May 2006, according to its website. The plant is called the "Pickens Plant." CEF's homepage includes links to the American Clean Skies Foundation [85], Clean Skies TV Network, and the NGVA website.

A bit trickier to figure out, STN, according to its website [86], "is a monthly news and feature magazine serving the field of pupil transportation." Two of its "industry contacts" for "vendors and suppliers" in the "alternative fuel and equipment" category include, lo and behold, NGVA [87] and CEF [88].

An e-mail exchange with the Editorial Director of STN and the author of STN's article on the House' introduction of the NAT GAS Act [65], John Gray, confirms that he had not yet seen a copy of the legislation when he wrote his article, but was flagged about it via a direct contact from a representative from the NGVA. Gray predicts that NGVA "were likely key authors of the legislation. My hunch is that they helped write it. Standard procedure in DC. They are a lobby."

Many Questions to Answer, and Avenues to Explore

To be fair, it is unfortunately not uncommon for lobbyists to write drafts of legislation but that does not make it not unseemly. This situation does raise legitimate questions. The age-old questions are about wealthy interests dictating law to willing servants in the legislature. Or to put it another way, the question is whether the gas industry's money is basically throwing its voice, like a ventriloquist, through the public's (or industry's) servants in Congress. And, relatedly, given all the access expensive lobbyists and donations can procure in Congress, what access if any has been given to ordinary people who have deep concerns about the the methane industry's grand plans? Here are some more specific questions:

1. If well-connected and multi-billion dollar industries represented by groups such as CEF, the ANGA, and NGVA were the first to see this bill and know its details before it was available to the general public, did they actually write the thing, in part or in whole, themselves, as Gray suggested? Why and how did they get a head start?

2. Was there some sort of bargain negotiated between President Obama and Pickens in their mid-August 2008 meetings [89] before he became President? Did candidate Obama [90] promise to support drilling in those pre-election meetings [91]?

3. Did the $4,800 Pickens that gave to two the bill's sponsors, Rep. John Sullivan (R-Oklohoma), and Rep. John Larson (D-Oklahoma), (figures according to the Center for Responsive Politics [92]) have any influence on their decision to propose this bill? How about the $10,000 Pickens gave to two swing states' [93] Democratic Parties in the 2008 Presidential election, Colorado and New Mexico? Both [94] of these states [95] also sit on huge potential beds [96] of gas. How often have these reps or their staff been meeting with gas lobbyists and how much time has been given to citizens with concerns?

4. How much influence did the $327,400 campaign cash [97] doled out [98] in the 2010 election from the hand of [99] Big Oil [100] (much, but not all of which comes from methane gas companies) have on these four representatives?

5. How about the $11,000 from Aubrey McClendon [75] ($4,800 to Boren and $4,800 to Sullivan, as well as $2,300 to Obama)? How about the $37,000 that the corporation he is CEO of, Chesapeake Energy [52], doled out to the bill's four co-sponsors? Did that money carry with it any clout?

6. Will there be any public hearings that will let people like Josh Fox and others who have documented concerns about fracking be allowed to testify before Congress?

The Center for Media and Democracy plans to keep digging into this troubling proposal and its details in the coming days and months ahead.

http://truthout.org/print/878

The Mindless Mantra of Wall Street: The Corporate Tax Rate Is Too High

Published on Friday, April 8, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

(A 35% corporate tax rate means zero taxes. So go ahead, cut it to 25%.)

Paul Buchheit

In 2010 General Electric made $14 billion and received a $3 billion tax refund. The response by business? The 35% corporate tax rate is too high. Tax cuts, they continue to say, will spur economic growth and create jobs, and allow American companies to compete in a global economy.

All very emotional. But the facts can be found in U.S. Office of Management (OMB) figures, which show a gradual drop over the years in Corporate Income Tax as a Share of GDP, from 4% in the 1960s to 2% in the 1990s to 1.3% in 2010. The unweighted global average in 2005 was 3.4%.

Also coming from the OMB is the percent of Total Tax Revenue derived from corporate taxes (OMB Historical Table 2.1). The corporate share has dropped from about 20% in the 1960s to under 9% in 2010.

Finally, in a U.S. Treasury report of global competitiveness (Table 5.3), it is revealed that U.S. corporations paid 13.4% of their profits in taxes between 2000 and 2005, compared to the OECD average of 16.1%. (Although the Tax Foundation notes that tax rates of other nations have fallen while the U.S. has remained unchanged.)

The Treasury Dept. report is consistent with a PayUpNow.org analysis of the 10-K financial statements of 100 of the largest U.S. companies, which found that less than 10% of pre-tax profits in 2010 were paid in non-deferred U.S. federal income taxes.

These 100 companies, with $5.67 trillion in 2010 revenue and almost $600 billion in pre-tax earnings, paid $57 billion, or 9.7%, in federal incomes taxes. If these 100 companies had paid the 35% tax designated by U.S. tax law, an additional $150 billion would have been collected in federal taxes in just one year. This is approximately equal to the total budget deficits for all 50 states.

From 2008 to 2010, Chevron paid less than 5% a year. Merck paid 5%. Hewlett-Packard 3%. Exxon 2%. IBM 2%. Carnival 1%.

Verizon and Boeing and Dow and DuPont all made profits three years in a row, but all paid zero taxes over the three-year period.

Banking leaders Citigroup and Bank of America, with a combined $8 billion of pretax earnings in 2009 and 2010, each paid zero taxes two years in a row.

So go ahead, cut the corporate tax rate to 25%. 25% of zero is the same as 35% of zero.

But if it means anything to the corporate CEOs, the United States is where you built your companies, utilize the infrastructure and transportation systems, benefit from years of scientific research, and make most of your sales.

Your tax avoidance may be 'legal,' but it's taking down our country.

Paul Buchheit is a faculty member in the School for New Learning at DePaul University, author of UsAgainstGreed.org and RappingHistory.org, and the editor of "American Wars: Illusions and Realities" (Clarity Press). He can be reached at paul@UsAgainstGreed.org.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/08?print

Sadr calls for an end to 'US occupation'

Shia cleric threatens to relaunch armed resistance unless the US withdraws from Iraq by year-end.

09 Apr 2011 10:22
Tens of thousands of Sadr supporters marched in Baghdad calling for an end to US presence in Iraq [Reuters]

Moqtada al Sadr, a prominent Iraqi Shia cleric, has threatened to revive his Mehdi Army and relaunch armed resistance against continued US presence in the country.

The threat came as tens of thousands of people marched across the capital Baghdad, marking the eighth anniversary of former leader Saddam Hussein's fall on Saturday.

A spokesperson of al Sadr, said the US had until the end of the year to meet the cleric's demands.

The Shia leader,  returned to Iraq from a self-imposed exile following a strong showing by his bloc in the 2010 parliamentary election in January 2011.

Al Jazeera correspondent Jane Arraf, reporting from Baghdad, said that this time Sadr had not only warned US troops but also the contractors.

"The rally marks the start of new campaign by one of the most powerful political forces in Iraq and it must be remembered that the Shia leader had fought against the US army in 2004," she said.

"The protests were also directed against the government for not providing jobs and basic services to the people."

Shortly after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Shia leader had spoken out against the Coalition Provisional Authority, led by Paul Bremer.

He has continually criticised the US military presence in Iraq.

Al-Sadr froze his militia in 2007, dramatically reducing violence in the country.

His appeal to the poor and dispossessed accounts for much of his popularity, but some Iraqis support him as symbol of resistance against US presence.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/04/20114975436936287.html

House Passes Anti-Net Neutrality Resolution

Saturday 9 April 2011
by: Nadia Prupis, Truthout

The Republican-controlled House of Re­presen­tatives on Friday, with the sup­port of a han­d­ful of De­moc­rats, pas­sed a joint re­solu­tion to re­pe­al the Feder­al Com­munica­tions Com­mis­sion's (FCC) net neut­ral­ity re­gula­tions that would en­for­ce com­petitive be­havior among In­ter­net com­pan­ies.

De­moc­rats who voted in favor of the re­solu­tion along with their Re­pub­lican col­leagues are Reps. Dan Boren (D-Oklahoma), San­ford Bi­shop (D-Georgia), a con­ser­vative Blue Dog, David Scott (D-Georgia), Kurt Shrad­er (D-Oregon), Be­nnie Thompson (D-Mississippi) and Col­lin Peter­son (D-Minnesota).

H.J. Res. 37, which dis­approves of FCC rules “re­lat­ing to the matt­er of pre­serv­ing the open In­ter­net and broad­band in­dust­ry prac­tices,” pas­sed 240-179. The re­solu­tion will now be sent to the Sen­ate for a vote, where it is un­like­ly to be approved by the De­moc­ratic major­ity.

As Trut­hout pre­vious­ly re­por­ted, the re­solu­tion of dis­approv­al is a rare­ly used pro­cedure that al­lows Con­gress to for­mal­ly re­ject and re­ver­se the ac­tions of a feder­al agen­cy. House Re­pub­licans pre­vious­ly in­troduced a re­solu­tion of dis­approv­al last Novemb­er to over­turn the Dodd-Frank fin­an­ci­al re­form law, but were un­suc­cess­ful.

Rep. Greg Wald­en (R-Oregon), chair­man of the House Com­munica­tions Sub­com­mittee, said the anti-net neut­ral­ity re­solu­tion amoun­ted to Con­gress re­cog­niz­ing that it had not “aut­horized the FCC to re­gulate the In­ter­net.”

“If not chal­lenged, the FCC's power grab would allow it to re­gulate any in­terstate com­munica­tions ser­vice on bare­ly more than a whim and with­out any ad­dition­al input from Con­gress,” Wald­en said.

Parul P. Desai, poli­cy co­un­sel for the Con­sum­ers Union, said FCC re­gula­tions are neces­sa­ry to pre­vent In­ter­net pro­vid­ers from li­mit­ing or block­ing ac­cess to legal web­sites.

“When con­sum­ers spend money on In­ter­net ser­vice, they ex­pect to be able to surf the web op­en­ly,” Desai said. “In­ter­net pro­vid­ers should not limit your choices to their pre­fer­red sites. That's why we need rules, like the FCC’s framework, to main­tain an open In­ter­net.”

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-California), whose dis­trict in­cludes Facebook and Goog­le as con­stituent com­pan­ies, said that if the re­solu­tion “were about in­nova­tion, jobs, com­peti­tion, or con­sum­ers, the major­ity would­n't rea­l­ly be of­fer­ing it, be­cause it dis­ables a free and open In­ter­net,” not­ing that “more than 150 or­ganiza­tions... have lined up against it.”

Dur­ing a House com­mit­tee hear­ing on April 4, Eshoo said that “with­out the FCC's basic 'rules of the road,' noth­ing will pre­vent large cor­pora­tions from carv­ing the In­ter­net into fast and slow lanes, de­cid­ing which sour­ces of news, in­for­ma­tion, and en­ter­tain­ment con­sum­ers and busi­ness can ac­cess.”

One of the major back­ers of the anit-net neut­ral­ity re­solu­tion is Freedom Works, a right-wing non­profit or­ganiza­tion, that has re­ceived fund­ing from Verizon and AT&T, who stand to be­nefit if the law is over­tur­ned, and the Koch Broth­ers fami­ly foun­tain.

The group's pre­sident, Matt Kibbe, said net neut­ral­ity, “is li­ke­ly to crip­ple com­peti­tion, re­strict in­nova­tion, re­duce em­ploy­ment and raise costs for all con­sum­ers... The FCC's net neut­ral­ity re­gula­tions would re­strict the freedom of all In­ter­net users while furth­er harm­ing our fragile economy.” .

While a major­ity of De­moc­rats and Re­pub­licans voted on the re­solu­tion along party lines, sever­al re­presen­tatives did agree that the tim­ing of the vote sym­bolized the poten­tial­ly de­struc­tive sparr­ing in Con­gress.

“We would not be here today if the De­moc­rats in the last Con­gress had bot­hered to take up a bud­get and pass it or even vote on it,” Wald­en said; Rep. Nor­man Dicks (D-Washington) asked his col­leagues, “Why are we con­sider­ing H.J. Res. 37 when we are on the verge of shutt­ing down the House of Re­presen­tatives?”

Rep. Henry Wax­man (D-California), rank­ing mem­b­er of the En­er­gy & Com­mer­ce Com­mit­tee, said that H.J. Res. 37 “would give big phone and cable com­pan­ies con­trol over what web­sites Americans can visit, what applica­tions they can run, and what de­vices they can use. The In­ter­net may be the greatest en­gine in our economy today... [be­cause] it is open.”

One ques­tion that re­mains un­answered is wheth­er the FCC ac­tual­ly has the aut­hor­ity to re­gulate the In­ter­net. A feder­al ap­pe­als court in April 2010 ruled that the com­miss­ion does not have that power, stat­ing that Con­gress must have ex­plicit­ly aut­hor­ize it to do so; rath­er, the FCC has “an­cil­la­ry juris­dic­tion” gran­ted by sec­tions of the Telecom­munica­tions Act of 1996.

http://www.truthout.org/house-passes-anti-net-neutrality-resolution/1302332400

Wisconsin court candidates hire Bush and Franken’s recount lawyers

By Kase Wickman
Saturday, April 9th, 2011 -- 11:52 am

Though neither of the candidates in the Wisconsin Supreme Court justice race, JoAnne Kloppenburg and incumbent David Prosser, have officially called for a recount, state officials and the candidates themselves are preparing for one. Kloppenburg's campaign staff has set up a fund, the Kloppenburg for Justice Committee ^[1], to pay legal fees for the battle to come, and hired the lawyer who represented Sen. Al Franken during the recount to determine his senate seat. Prosser has hired the lawyer who spearheaded the Bush-Gore recount ^[2].

Kloppenburg declared victory by a 204-vote margin Wednesday, but late Thursday, an election clerk announced that there had been an error at the polls, and that Prosser had garnered an additional 7,000 votes.

The State Column reports ^[3] that since the margin of victory in the election, in which nearly 1.5 million votes were cast, is less than 1 percent, a call for recount is expected. The Journal-Sentinel reports that it would be the state's first recount effort in 20 years, and fundraising rules are unclear.

Brian Nemoir, Prosser's campaign director, told the Journal-Sentinel ^[4] that he had been through about 10 recounts in his political career, but none involving a statewide race.

"There's no playbook for this," he said.

A Kloppenburg aide said ^[5] that they had already filed the necessary documents to investigate how the 7,000 votes for Prosser suddenly surfaced.

URL to article: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/09/wisconsin-court-candidates-hire-bush-and-frankens-recount-lawyers/

URLs in this post:

[1] the Kloppenburg for Justice Committee: https://www.completecampaigns.com/public.asp?name=Kloppenburg&page=1

[2] spearheaded the Bush-Gore recount: http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/07/prosser-hires-bush-v-gore-recount-lawyer-who-claims-gop-opposes-equal-protection/

[3] The State Column reports: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/wisconsin-election-results-officials-prepare-for-recount/

[4] told the Journal-Sentinel: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/119308059.html

[5] Kloppenburg aide said: http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/119476659.html

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/09/wisconsin-court-candidates-hire-bush-and-frankens-recount-lawyers/print/

House GOP votes to overturn net neutrality

By Reuters
April 8, 2011 @ 5:53 pm
By Kevin Drawbaugh

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives voted on Friday to reject Internet "neutrality" rules that were adopted last year to keep big Internet service providers from blocking certain traffic

House Republicans, in a 240-179 vote, pushed through a measure disapproving the Federal Communications Commission's rules. Tech and telecom giants such as Verizon Communications Inc and Microsoft Corp could be affected.

The outlook for further progress by the Republicans in rolling back the FCC's actions was uncertain, however.

While a similar measure has been offered in the Senate and has 39 co-sponsors, the White House said on Monday that President Barack Obama's advisers would recommend that he veto any such resolution.

The FCC's rules, approved in late December, banned Internet service providers from blocking traffic on their networks, while allowing providers -- such as Verizon, Comcast Corp and AT&T Inc -- to "reasonably" manage their networks and charge consumers based on usage.

Republicans argued in House debate that the FCC's rules needlessly impose government regulation on the Internet.

"The FCC has never had the authority to regulate the Internet," said Republican Representative Cliff Stearns.

House Republican Leader Eric Cantor called the House's vote "an important step to bring down the FCC's harmful and partisan plan to regulate the Internet."

Democrats argue that the FCC rules are needed to curb the growing market power of large service providers.

Disapproving the FCC rules "would give big phone and cable companies control over what websites Americans can visit, what applications they can run, and what devices they can use," said Democratic Representative Henry Waxman.

Democratic Representative Anna Eshoo called the Republican push against the FCC's rules "an ideological assault on a federal agency and its ability to provide basic consumer protections."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Monday dismissed challenges to the FCC rules that had been filed by Verizon and MetroPCS Communications Inc, ruling that the challenges were premature.

"In most parts of the country, companies like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast have a virtual monopoly over access to the Internet," Waxman said. "Without regulation, they can choke off innovation by charging for the right to communicate with their customers."

(Editing by Gary Hill)

Source: Reuters US Online Report Internet News

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/08/house-gop-votes-to-overturn-net-neutrality/print/

Impound the Private Computer of the Katherine Harris of Wisconsin and Bring in the Feds

Submitted by mark karlin on Fri, 04/08/2011 - 4:43pm.
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

The Madison Cap Times is calling for a federal probe into the two-day delayed "discovery" of 7,582 votes for David Prosser, just enough to put the election out of the range of a state-funded recount for the "presumptive" winner Joanne Kloppenburg.

Without a federal investigation - given that Gov. Scott Walker loyalists would control an administrative State Board of Elections review - we can only maintain the deepest suspicions over what is occurring, and that it may be another theft of an election by the Republicans.

You have to go back to the 2000 Florida standoff to find a figure who so matches Katherine Harris as does Waukesha County clerk Kathy Nickolaus, who claims to have made a "mistake" unheard of before in the Badger State.

As the CapTimes and other Wisconsin outlets have noted, Nickolaus kept election results on her personal computer, even though she had been formally warned not to do so. She was given immunity from prosecution in 2002 for campaigning for Republicans on taxpayer's time. Furthermore, as the CapTimes notes, Nickolaus is "a former Republican legislative staffer who worked for Prosser when he served as Assembly speaker and with Gov. Scott Walker when he was a GOP rising star."

The Republicans have already brought in the lead attorney for the GOP in Bush v. Gore to ensure Prosser gets reseated on the high court.

But nothing short of the immediate impounding of the Nickolaus personal computer in question and the ballots of Waukesha County will ensure an untainted federal investigation - that is assuming the Obama administration has the resolve to ensure that election crimes were not committed. The email from Nickolaus's personal computer - if not yet removed from the hard drive - would be valuable enough in and of itself to see if there was coordination of this 48-hour "mistake."

BuzzFlash at Truthout was publishing during the 2000 Florida election - and we can say that, based on that experience, only the full force of a federal investigation can resolve the highly suspicious emergence of 7,582 votes for Prosser, after a considerable delay, by a county election chief with a history of not following vote-counting security measures and has personal relationships with both Prosser and Walker, not to mention an ongoing history with the Republican Party as an operative.

If the White House and the Department of Justice get weak-kneed about this one, it will be like letting Bush get anointed by the Supreme Court all over again.

Let the investigation into vote fraud in the Waukesha County election clerk's office begin with experts from DC.

http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/12581

Video: Prescience - Keith Olbermann on the Citizens United ruling

Video: Bernie Sanders - An Extraordinarily Unfair Budget, 4-6-11

Labor Battles Hit Washington State: Protesters Demand Legislature Close Corporate Tax Loopholes

First Posted: 04/ 8/11 03:37 PM ET Updated: 04/ 8/11 07:01 PM ET

This story has been updated.

WASHINGTON -- Inspired by the uprising in Wisconsin over workers' rights, Washington state residents have turned out at the state Capitol this week to protest deep budget cuts the legislature is considering to address a looming $5 billion deficit.

The protesters are arguing the state should close tax loopholes for corporations and wealthy individuals before cutting valuable public services. Organizers are expecting anywhere from 4,000-6,000 people on Friday and said it could end up as one of the largest protests in the state in years.

"The main message is directed at the legislature," said Tim Welch, spokesman for the Washington Federation of State Employees. "Budget cuts are going so deep and we're cutting so deeply into the safety net that we really want them to consider closing several billion in closing tax loopholes. We just don't think it makes sense to give big tax breaks to banks and to those who own private jets...when you've got potentially more slots closing up at state colleges and universities."

The anger at corporations has been reflected in protesters' chants: "Hey hey, ho ho. Corporate greed has got to go!" and "Cut tax loopholes!" Fuse Washington, the state's largest progressive organization, also launched "Living Greedy" site -- a parody based on the popular Living Social site focusing on how the state can fix its budget problems.

One tax deduction targeted by protesters "exempts banks from paying taxes on the interest income they make from first mortgages," according to The Olympian. It would bring in about $86.6 million in taxes in 2011 if eliminated.

"Every single proposal that has come out of the legislature has made cuts on the back of the working people, the poor people, the immigrants, the students," said Kathy Cummings, communications director for the Washington State Labor Council. "Not one single tax exemption for corporations has been touched. We had something like $6.5 billion in business tax loopholes just last year. It's getting way out of hand. The only way we can get their attention is by banging on their doors, sleeping in the Capitol, having rally after rally."

Organizers said they believe the protests are already starting to have an effect. They're hearing from legislators who are sympathetic to the message and are starting to talk about closing tax loopholes. Some lawmakers even handed out food, coffee and other provisions to protesters who spent the night in the Legislative Building.

But advocates are facing a tough uphill battle. Under a ballot measure adopted last year, the legislature needs a 2/3 majority to approve any tax increase -- including closing loopholes -- or it must be directly approved by voters.

The state House of Representatives is expected to vote on a budget proposal on Friday or Saturday that would reduce state spending by $4.4 billion in the 2011-2013 budget cycle. According to the Associated Press, Senate leaders will be unveiling their plan next week.

Though the protesters are taking inspiration from their Midwest brethren in Wisconsin, there are some key differences between the situations facing the two states. Washington's protests are not directly related to collective bargaining rights, and the rallies are more organized by a coalition of labor and community groups. In Washington, Democrats control both chambers of the legislature and the governor's office, although the state Senate has a group of moderate Democrats who often cross the aisle and vote with Republicans.

On Thursday, police arrested 17 people who tried to storm Gov. Christine Gregoire's (D) office. Protesters reportedly shouted, “let us in” and “we want the governor.” Just one person was charged. Many of the protesters, according to organizers, were trying to get arrested in an act of civil disobedience.

Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles has sponsored legislation that would add sunset dates to about 300 tax exemptions in the state. In a recent Seattle Times letter to the editor, she explained, "While it is true that eliminating tax preferences is by no means the silver bullet to our historic budget challenges, the hundreds of tax loopholes and exemptions currently in state law cost taxpayers billions each year. Two examples are tax breaks for elective cosmetic surgery and private airplanes."

She told The Olympian that she believes the protests have helped strengthen the case for her proposal, and Gregoire has agreed to meet with a group of protesters.

The actions are being led by a coalition calling itself, "We Are One, Put People First." It's made up of labor unions and community organizations in Washington state.

On Tuesday, approximately 100 members of the Olympia community slept overnight in the Capitol. On Wednesday, the focus was on a group called Washington Community Action Network, a statewide group that lobbies on behalf of lower-wage earners, immigrants and people of color. They brought 500 people down to the Capitol.

The focus on Thursday was on health care, including mental health services for seniors and people with disabilities. Adam Glickman with SEIU Healthcare 775NW told The Huffington Post that approximately 500 in-home care and mental health workers came to the Capitol to engage in civil disobedience. Some of the patients of these workers also came to the capitol to lobby their legislators against cuts to social services.

Linnea Riesen, communications director for SEIU Local 1199NW, which represents mental health workers, said that the union's members were on strike on Thursday -- But instead of a traditional strike against employers, it was a strike against the state.

"Community mental health agencies get 90 percent of their funding from the state," she said. "For the last several years, the governor and the legislature have underfunded critical community health services, and they've been taking away the health care supports in our communities that keep people off the streets and safe. ... So our message really was, our community and our state leaders have gone on strike against the state every day through their actions."

On Friday, expected to be the largest day of action yet, there will be a special guest of honor: Wisconsin state Sen. Spencer Coggs, one of the Democrats who left the state in order to protest Gov. Scott Walker's (R) budget repair bill.

WATCH VIDEO OF THE PROTESTS, 4/6/11:

Mauro Mora contributed reporting.

UPDATE: 6:47 p.m. -- Jared Miller is a mental health worker who primarily works with children, and he's also a member of SEIU Local 1199NW. He attended the protests on both Thursday and Friday, and on Thursday, he was one of the few union members who was able to meet with Gregoire. According to Miller, there were five union members and two union employees at the meeting.

"She definitely still feels like she still has a lot of obstacles in front of her in order to close tax loopholes," relayed Miller. "The legislature feels like their hands are tied by our initiative that requires 2/3 a vote of the legislature to enact any new taxes. The positive note was that she definitely doesn't believe in what's going on. She agrees with us that it's immoral, the cuts that are coming across our state. She said she's there with us. She just needs us...to continue to speak out to the public to make sure the public understands it's not about paying extra money on soda. It's not about paying a few dimes here on candy. It's about people's health care. It's about people having stable lives."

According to the AP, thousands of people flooded the capitol on Friday, making it by far the largest protest this week. The Washington State Patrol estimated the crowd size to be about 7,000 people, while labor organizers estimated 12,000.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/08/washington-protests_n_846659.html?view=print

Poll: 46 percent of Mississippi Republicans want interracial marriage ban

And more of those who oppose interracial marriage have a favorable view of Sarah Palin, a new poll reports

By Justin Elliott
Thursday, Apr 7, 2011 15:15 ET

The Dem-leaning firm Public Policy Polling has a new survey out that's sure to raise some eyebrows.

When usual Republican primary voters in the state of Mississippi were asked if they think interracial marriage should be legal or illegal, a whopping 46 percent said it should be illegal, compared to 40 percent who think it should be legal. The remaining 14 percent were unsure.

PPP also breaks down how these voters view the GOP presidential field, with some interesting results. Here's how those respondents would vote:

As PPP's Tom Jensen notes, there are some interesting differences between the candidates' favorability ratings when broken down according to respondents' views of interracial marriage:

Palin's net favorability with folks who think interracial marriage should be illegal (+55 at 74/19) is 17 points higher than it is with folks who think interracial marriage should be legal (+38 at 64/26.) Meanwhile Romney's favorability numbers see the opposite trend. He's at +23 (53/30) with voters who think interracial marriage should be legal but 19 points worse at +4 (44/40) with those who think it should be illegal

Dustin Ingalls, assistant to the director at PPP, tells me that the firm also asked non-Republican voters the interracial marriage question, and he expects those results will be released sometime in the future. He added that PPP also asked whether respondents believe the right side won the Civil War. Those results should also prove interesting.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/07/poll_mississippi_interracial_marriage

Johnson & Johnson fined for bribing doctors

By Agence France-Presse
Friday, April 8th, 2011 -- 11:53 pm

WASHINGTON — US authorities fined cosmetics and drugs giant Johnson & Johnson $70 million on Friday for bribing doctors in Europe and paying kickbacks for contracts under a UN relief program in Iraq.

The Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission said since 1998 the firm had paid doctors and hospital administrators in Greece, Poland and Romania for contracts and to promote its drugs and medical devices.

Johnson & Johnson also paid kickbacks between 2000-2003 for 19 contracts under the UN Oil for Food Program, which provided humanitarian supplies to Iraqis while the country, still ruled by Saddam Hussein.

The firm, the 15th largest US company by market capitalization, agreed to pay US authorities $70 million to settle the charges, including $48.6 million to the SEC and $21.4 million to the Justice Department.

US prosecutor Mythili Raman that the company had "cooperated extensively" with the investigation.

"The message ... is plain -- any competitive advantage gained through corruption is a mirage," said SEC enforcement director Robert Khuzami.

"J&J chose profit margins over compliance with the law by acquiring a private company for the purpose of paying bribes, and using sham contracts, offshore companies, and slush funds to cover its tracks."

The charges detailed that J&J subsidiaries Cilag AG International and Janssen Pharaceutica made $858,000 dollars in payoffs to Saddam Hussein's government to win $9.0 million in contracts under the deeply corrupted Oil for Food Program.

"The kickbacks were concealed from the United Nations by inflating Janssen and Cilag's contract prices by 10 percent," they said.

The SEC said J&J was under a related investigation by Britain's Serious Fraud Office and that a resolution was also expected.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/08/johnson-johnson-fined-for-bribing-doctors/print/

'Long dance' that ended in a deal to avoid a government shutdown

By: Glenn Thrush and JonathanAllen
April 9, 2011 02:50 AM EDT

The low point may have come Thursday night.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) had spent more than an hour meeting with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, inching towards a deal to avert a shutdown, but he kept insisting that it include a prohibition against federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

That was a non-starter for Obama. As the meeting was breaking up, Vice President Joe Biden told the speaker, in no uncertain terms, that his demand was unacceptable. If that became the deal-breaker, Biden said, he would “take it to the American people,” who would presumably punish the GOP for shutting down the government over an ideological issue.

“They were faced with a choice - they would either have to give in or shut down the government,” said a senior administration official, describing how the negotiations went from there.

In the end, Boehner agreed to a package of $38.5 billion in cuts, a significant victory for a man who said his goal was to extract as much as possible from the federal budget. He also won limited victories on a handful of policy riders attached to the bill. But Boehner was forced to abandon some major demands, including Planned Parenthood, restrictions on the Environmental Protection Agency and efforts to restrict Obama’s health reform bill.

Administration officials cast the deal as proof Obama and Boehner can forge a longer-lasting relationship to negotiate the perils of divided government, but it was a rough week punctuated by several near deals, a few blow-ups and a resolution that came 90 minutes before the government shuttered.

“It’s been a long dance,” said an Obama aide involved in the talks.

The tense negotiations have been less a high-stakes game of chicken – like most budget wrangling — than an effort to jerry-rig a deal that would be acceptable to House conservatives, Senate Democrats and a president intent on proving he could pull off a bipartisan deal for the second time in five months.

Compared to Boehner’s juggling act, the president’s objectives have been relatively simple: Craft a bipartisan deal that proved he was willing to make deep spending cuts, look like a grown-up, and hold the line on GOP challenges to core Democratic programs.

The drama ended – for now - shortly before 11 p.m. on Friday, when Boehner announced the deal after what he said was “a lot of discussion and a long fight.”


Next up: negotiations over raising the debt ceiling, which Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison has described as “Armageddon.”

That challenge would be even more daunting if the budget deal had collapsed – as it nearly did Thursday night and in the early hours of Friday morning.

After Boehner left the White House, negotations were supposed to resume on the staff level. Although the Planned Parenthood issue was still in dispute, Obama’s aides, led by Hill liaison Rob Nabors and budget chief Jack Lew, believed Boehner had agreed to a broad overall cut – about $78 billion in annual terms.

Yet when the groggy delegation arrived in the speaker’s Capitol office, they were greeted by Boehner’s chief of staff, Barry Jackson, who told them he wanted to see cuts in excess of $80 billion, administration officials say.

Obama’s senior aides didn’t view the setback so much as a breach of faith as an unsettling reminder that Boehner – as companionable and trustworthy as they regard him to be — was an unpredictable bargaining partner who didn’t quite have the measure of his membership. Now, instead of having agreement on everything except the riders, they had to re-litigate the size of the cuts.

By the time the sun rose on a rainy Friday morning, Obama and his staff were completely fed up and exhausted, according to people familiar with the process. At around 10:45 Obama called Boehner with a firm message.

“I’m the president of the United States and you’re the Speaker of the House,” he told Boehner, according to a senior administration official. “We are the two most consequential leaders in the U.S. government. We had a discussion last night and the [staff] negotiations don’t reflect that.”

For his part, Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said the speaker never made any commitment or suggested there was ever a deal: “It became clear very quickly they weren’t serious about making real cuts,” he said. “When talks broke up around 3 a.m., it was still over inadequate spending cuts – both the number and the composition.”

Boehner and Obama talked another three times during the day, making steady progress, despite the increasing acrimony of their public surrogates - and Boehner himself.

“Almost all of the policy issues have been dealt with,” he told reporters at the Capitol. “The big issue is over the spending … We’re not going to roll over and sell out the American people like has been done time and time again in Washington … We’re damn serious.”

But privately, the two sides kept on talking.

The intensity and frequency of their communication was new. For weeks, Obama largely held himself back from direct negotiations, leaving the heavy lifting to Boehner, Reid and aides Lew and Nabors, chief of staff Bill Daley, and Biden.

Obama spoke with Boehner directly only twice between March 4th and April 2nd, prompting complaints from both parties that he waited too long to wade into the process. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) at one point accused Obama of having “failed to lead” as the government lurched toward a shutdown – and Boehner himself used almost the same language earlier in the week.

The talks, which began in earnest on Monday and ratcheted up as the week dragged on, followed a familiar and, to the White House, depressing pattern: Obama would demand that Boehner abandon dozens of the riders – including the Planned Parenthood cuts, the health care reform rollback, and the EPA restrictions.

For leverage, Boehner crafted a short-term spending measure that included long-term funding for the Pentagon – a move Republicans hoped would force Obama into accepting a third temporary spending bill. On Thursday, the Office of Management and Budget responded unequivocally – Obama would veto any such measure.

As the hours passed on Friday and the midnight deadline to prevent a shutdown drew near, there were encouraging signs that the Planned Parenthood issue could be overcome.

Rep. Chris Smith, a leading abortion foe who once ran the New Jersey Right to Life Committee, blasted Planned Parenthood but declined to say whether he could accept a bill that didn’t end its federal funding. Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), both with impeccable records in opposing abortion, said Republicans should take the spending cuts agreed to by the White House and leave social policy “riders” alone.

So, too, did the Wisconsin freshman, Sen. Ron Johnson, a tea party favorite.

“I encourage all my colleagues – Democrats and Republicans – to stay focused on the issue: restoring fiscal sanity,” Johnson said in a statement. “We need to get past this year’s budget, and move onto the more serious discussion of our nation’s long-term fiscal health.”

It all added up to a major turning point. By saying it was better to keep a scaled-back government operating than shut it down over a quixotic bid to win on a hot-button social issue, they were giving cover to other skittish Republicans.

And in the end, Democrats agreed to about two-thirds of the spending cuts Boehner initially requested, signing off on nearly $40 billion worth. For every fit and start that frustrated the White House and Senate Democrats, Boehner had won another few billion dollars.

For several hours Friday evening, Republican leaders and aides vetted a final White House counterproposal. Some time after 8 p.m., a small clutch of the top Republican leaders and their aides gathered in Boehner’s suite of offices on the second floor of the Capitol to discuss the latest offer — and their plan of action.

“Sounds like we’re probably a go,” one GOP aide told POLITICO as the plan was being reviewed.

At 9 p.m. Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) told reporters there was no deal yet and that the rank and file would have to be called together to discuss the latest proposal. After gaining their approval, Boehner emerged to make his brief announcement that a deal had been struck.

Obama made his own statement at the White House a few minutes later.

But there’s still no guarantee that some new snag will scuttle the current deal next week – or that the compromise crafted this week makes it more likely future deals can be cut.

“It may be a good night for the future here,” said a senior administration official. “It’s a pretty important demonstration that our divided government can come together.”

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3905F4EE-EC9D-DBA1-487311D820E433C3

Kathy Nickolaus: the history is staggering