~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your World Beyond The Sound Bytes We are all citizens of the world...stay informed! Look to this blog to bring you occasional, eclectic news, videos and viewpoints you might not otherwise be exposed to. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Though oil demand is at its lowest since 1997, oil prices (and gas prices along with them) are once again on the rise and the GOP wants even more handouts to Big Oil.
Analysts project that gas prices will top $4 a gallon nationally and perhaps reach record highs later this year. Despite relatively low demand and surging production levels in the U.S., prices are rising due to a variety of factors, including instability in the Middle East, but even more so, unregulated Wall Street speculation.
Historically, financial speculators accounted for about 30 percent of oil trading in commodity markets, while producers and end users made up about 70 percent. Today it's almost the reverse.
"On Tuesday," according to reporting by McClatchy's Kevin G. Hall, "Oil [prices] rose past $106 a barrel and gasoline averaged $3.57 a gallon — thanks again in no small part to rampant financial speculation on top of fears of supply disruptions. Because speculators dominate the market, their predictions of higher oil prices -- which were rampant on Tuesday -- can make their prophecies self-fulfilling."
Hall's report highlights the fact that despite rising prices at US gas pumps, demand in the US was so low it has "become a net exporter of gasoline, unable to consume all that it generates."
This fact contradicts the familiar refrain from GOP politicians and operatives who claim that the Keystone XL pipeline is absolutely needed to solve US energy woes or would lead to lower prices for consumers.
Financial speculators are "piling into the market, torquing the Iranian fear factor into ever-higher prices... oil's price shot up because it trades in financial markets, where Wall Street firms and other big financial players dominate the trading of oil, even though they have no intention of ever taking possession of the oil whose contracts they are trading..."
In short, oil prices are inflated due to speculation....and speculation is now part of the DNA of oil prices, not supply and demand.
Fadel Gheit, a 30-year veteran of energy markets and an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. says, "These people are not there to be heroes. They are there to make
money. It's our fault because we are allowing them to do that. Obviously these people are very strong, and the financial lobby
is the strongest of any single lobby. I've been in this business 30
years, and I can tell you I think this is smoke and mirrors."
For their part, Republicans have latched on to these rising prices as proof that President Obama has pursued an “outrageously anti-American” energy policy. As with most other overheated conservative attacks on the president, the facts don’t line up in their favor.
Here are FIVE Key Facts about Rising Gas Prices, the GOP, and Big Oil.
1. Domestic Energy Production Has Soared Under President Obama: The number of oil drilling rigs in the U.S. hit a record last week, having quadrupled in number over the past three years. Between oil and gas drilling rigs, the U.S. now has more rigs at work than the rest of the world combined. The current oil boom has buoyed the projections of some leading oil industry analysts:
“It’s staggering,” said Marshall Adkins, who directs energy research for the financial services firm Raymond James. “If we continue growing anywhere near that pace and keep squeezing demand out of the system, that puts you in a world where we are not importing oil in 10 years.”
2. President Obama Has Taken Huge Steps to Reduce Our Dependence on Oil: In addition to overseeing a dramatic increase in domestic energy production (including from renewable sources), the president has also taken steps to reduce the amount of oil we consume. Most notably, new modern standards requiring cars and light-duty trucks to achieve an average fuel economy rating of 54.5 miles per gallon will cut U.S. oil use by 2.2 MILLION barrels of oil per day by 2025 — a move that will save consumers $1.7 TRILLION and also cut greenhouse gas pollution by 6 BILLION metric tons. The 54.5 MPG standard by 2025 builds on an earlier Obama administration policy to increase fuel efficiency to 35.5 MPG by 2016, a one-third improvement to fuel economy standards that had previously languished in neutral for more than 20 years. Even as gas prices are rising, Americans’ cars are becoming significantly more efficient.
3. Big Oil Made a Record $137 BILLION in Profits Last Year: Just the five largest oil companies — ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, BP, Chevron, and Shell — booked a combined profit of $137 BILLION in 2011, even though these companies produced 4 percent less oil in 2011. And of course Big Oil’s record profits are directly related to increasing pain at the pump for American consumers.
4. Republican Politicians Oppose Ending Taxpayer Handouts to Big Oil: Every Republican presidential contender and nearly every Republican member of the House and Senate has signed a pledge to oppose ending taxpayer handouts to Big Oil — handouts that will add up to more than $40 BILLION over the next ten years. In addition, Republicans have repeatedly voted in lockstep to block efforts to repeal the tax giveaways to Big Oil. President Obama, however, remains undaunted and has once again included repeal of these wasteful giveaways in his budget for 2013.
5. Republican Politicians Want to Cut Big Oil’s Taxes Even More: Both the House Republican budget plan released last year (and supported by nearly every Republican member of the House and Senate) and the tax plans of every GOP presidential contender call for cutting the corporate tax rate by one-third or more. This huge tax cut could result in another big windfall of billions of dollars for Big Oil. By contrast, President Obama has proposed closing wasteful tax loopholes and wants to clamp down on the use of foreign tax shelters (ExxonMobil uses at least 20) that allow huge corporations to avoid paying their fair share in U.S. taxes.
In summary, instead of giving billions more in handouts to Big Oil despite the industry’s record-breaking profits, President Obama has presided over a dramatic increase in domestic energy production coupled with unprecedented efforts to decrease Americans’ spending at the pump by modernizing fuel economy standards.
Read more on this subject : http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/02/21/139521/once-again-speculators-behind.html http://www.chron.com/business/article/U-S-oil-gusher-blows-out-projections-3341919.php?cmpid=twitter http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/oil_infrastructure.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/11/16/we-can-t-wait-driving-forward-new-fuel-economy-standards http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/five-facts-about-gas-prices/
Conservative Economist Bruce Bartlett wrote "the bible" for the Reagan Revolution, worked on domestic policy for the Reagan White House and served as a top treasury official under the first President Bush. Bartlett argues that right-wing tax policies -- pushed in part by Grover Norquist and Tea Party activists -- are destroying the country's economic foundation.
As reported previously below, Karen Handel, vice president for public affairs at Susan G. Komen for the Cure, had come under pressure to resign following public outcry over the announcement Komen would pull funding from Planned Parenthood. On Tuesday, she did just that.
Whether or not the Komen foundation will regain its reputation or be able to maintain the same level of donations after this public relations disaster remains to be seen. From where I am sitting, it will be an uphill climb. One other point of heated contention among the public is the salary paid to Komen head, Nancy Brinker, said to be approximately $500,000 a year.
A Susan G. Komen insider told HuffPost on Sunday that Karen Handel,
Komen's staunchly anti-abortion and newly hired vice president for public policy, was
the main force behind the breast cancer charity's decision to defund Planned Parenthood and the
attempt to make that decision look nonpolitical.
"Karen Handel was the prime instigator of this effort, and she herself
personally came up with investigation criteria," the source, who
requested anonymity for professional reasons, told HuffPost. "She said,
'If we just say it's about investigations, we can defund Planned
Parenthood and no one can blame us for being political.'"
Emails between Komen leadership on the day the Planned Parenthood
decision was announced, which were reviewed by HuffPost under the
condition they not be published, confirm the source's description of
Handel's sole "authority" in crafting and implementing the Planned
Parenthood policy...
...The source said Handel submitted a final version of the new grant
criteria to Komen leadership in November, and the board approved it in
December, at which point Komen's top public health official, Mollie
Williams, resigned "on the spot."
"It was apparent to everyone in the organization that Karen was doing
everything in her power to defund Planned Parenthood," the source said,
"and that's why Mollie Williams quit."
Williams has previously declined to comment on why she left, but she
told National Journal that she respects the work of Planned Parenthood...
...The backlash against Komen was intense...The charity struggled to deal
with the pressure, especially in a face-off against Planned Parenthood,
an organization whose fine-tuned political team has experience in these
high-pitched, high-stakes debates....
..."Komen's not equipped to spend its days fighting political battles,"
the source said. "Abortion is not our issue, and...this investigation criteria...blew up in their faces. They were just naive in the
face of [the] incredibly sophisticated Planned Parenthood operation."
Stunned by the fallout, Komen leadership decided within three days to
reverse the Planned Parenthood decision and apologize. But the Komen
insider said Handel was furious about the cave and fought against it up
until the point that it was announced Friday morning.
"It became clear Thursday night that something had to give," the source
said. "Nancy Brinker, Liz Thompson, the board, and leadership were
saying, 'We're really worried about Komen's mission if we don't figure
this out.' But Karen was still arguing against it as of Friday morning
-- she was horrified that we were caving. She's politically
tone-deaf."
In light of the political damage and the abrupt reversal of the Planned
Parenthood funding decision, pressure has mounted inside Komen for
Handel to resign.
"Everybody in the organization wishes she would do the right thing," the Komen insider said.
The chart below tracks job growth under President Obama. Use your cursor by hovering over the circles on the chart to see each action that President Obama undertook that led directly to job creation in the private sector Hover beneath the vertical bars to see exactly how many jobs were added when. Obviously, we still have a long way to go, but the fact remains that Obama's initiatives have created an environment that is conducive to successful job growth.
On Friday, the new monthly jobs numbers came out. We've officially had 23 consecutive months of private-sector job growth, and seen 3.7 million private-sector jobs created under this President.
After taking office, President Obama signed the Recovery Act to help get our economy back on track. As a result:
The U.S. has seen 23 consecutive months of private-sector job growth.
The private sector added nearly 3.7 million jobs over those 23 months.
The manufacturing sector has added 396,000 jobs since December 2009, with annual job growth in the last two years for the first time since 1997.
The President passed legislation to create jobs and support working Americans, including:
A payroll tax cut for all working families, providing the average working family with a $1,000 tax cut in 2011
Expansion of small business loan programs to help small businesses access credit and create jobs
Initiatives to help veterans transition to post-service careers
Tax incentives for businesses that hire unemployed veterans
The President made the decision to provide emergency loans to the auto industry:
Saving more than 1.4 million American jobs
Preventing personal income losses over two years of more than $96 billion
Helping make the big three (Chrysler, GM, and Ford) all profitable for the first time in years
It is clear that one of the GOP's favorite go-to attacks on Obama, bashing his jobs record, is pure fabrication. To the contrary, President Obama's initiatives have led directly to job growth in America.
If the video clip below doesn't illustrate just how out of touch Mitt Romney is with the anger and everyday struggles of middle class Americans and the working poor, I don't know what would. TheTwoHundredMillionDollarMan aka MrOnePercent just doesn't get it.
The fact is, that the 1% profited off of the global financial collapse and recession brought on by their own irresponsibility-- with the help of the deregulation championed by the Republicans over the last thirty years-- handsomely. In fact, their personal wealth and banker's profits have increased by 40% (!!!) since 2008, thanks to the taxpayers who bailed them out. By the way, has anyone bailed YOU out? How about homeowners? How is your retirement portfolio doing? How happy are you that the obscenely wealthy and powerful corporations now own our elections, our politicians and our government... thanks to well-paid paid corporate lobbyists and Citizens United? If you want more of the same rigged system, vote Romney and vote GOP.
As ThinkProgress put it so well, "his pitch as the 'business' candidate who understands the 'real economy' is faltering under heavier scrutiny of his time at Bain Capital. As CEO of the private equity firm, Romney maximized returns by firing workers, seeking government
subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits while a significant number
of those companies went bankrupt and thousands of workers lost their
jobs. 'Make a profit. That’s the name of the game, right?' he said."
"Perhaps his answer shouldn’t be so surprising given how myopic the view is from his high perch. Romney is, after all, a millionaire who is still making money from the predatory equity firm while paying little in taxes and owes much of his political viability to Wall Street's pocketbook. Indeed, he suggested the public office should be the province of rich people" (!!!).
Finally, the terms "99% vs 1%" did not originate from Obama, despite what Romney wants you to believe. It was birthed from the Occupy Movement, and thus far, Obama, although acknowledging the discontent, has pretty much distanced himself from it. So much so, that Obama has come under plenty of criticism from the Occupy Movement himself.
SOPA would give governments and corporations the power to take down entire websites over infringing posts by users, endangering the internet as we know it. This legislation is internet censorship in its very worst form and if passed, it will effect every website you enjoy visiting, from this site, to your facebook page, twitter, youtube, even your personal email. You can help prevent it from passing by writing to your Congressperson, signing a petition and taking other action in a few short steps. It is as easy as a few clicks, but please don't wait. SOPA is being voted on THIS MONTH! To act now, go to the following site and scroll down the page: Stop American Censorship
An investigative report by ABC reveals that Republican Presidential Primary candidate Mitt Romney, who I have dubbed #TheTwoHundredMillionDollarMan on twitter, has avoided paying his fair share of taxes by hiding his money in off-shore accounts in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere. Is it any wonder that he continues to refuse to release his income tax records as is the tradition of those running for the Executive Office of this nation? Watch:
Furthermore, two weeks ago a Freedom of Information Act request for records regarding Bain Capital, which makes up the totality of Mitt Romney's business experience, was refused by the F.B.I. on the grounds that such information was currently part of an ongoing criminal investigation: "there is a pending or prospective law enforcement proceeding relevant to these responsive records; and that release of the information contained in these responsive records could reasonably be expected to interfere with the enforcement proceedings." In fact, the only time the Bureau is allowed to deny such a request is during an active investigation in which acknowledgment of responsive records would compromise it. Read the F.B.I. response for yourself:FBI Response to FOIA Re: Bain Capital
In late December, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the state's ban on corporate spending in state elections, a ruling that stands in direct opposition to Citizens United, via its decision regarding the case of Western Tradition Partnership v. Attorney General, 2011 MT 328.
Question Presented:Does the portion of Montana’s Corrupt Practices Act which prohibits a corporation from making “a contribution or an expenditure in connection with a candidate” survive the United States Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010)?
Answer:Yes. The Court upheld the State’s ban on corporate expenditures, reasoning that Montana had a compelling interest to have the law in force.
Chief Justice McGrath wrote the majority opinion which Justices Rice, Cotter, Wheat and Morris joined. Justices Nelson and Baker dissented.
Majority Opinion
The Court began with history and noted that Montana had a compelling interest in preventing corporate corruption in state politics when it passed the original act in 1912.Chief Justice Mike McGrath wrote about the famed Copper Kings, ”Those tumultuous years were marked by rough contests for political and economic domination primarily in the mining center of Butte between mining and industrial enterprises controlled by foreign trusts or corporation.” The Court decided that Montana would be particularly affected by the entrance of corporate dollars which would overpower donations made by individual Montanans.
With these compelling interests in mind, the Court framed the dispositive questions as “When in the last 99 years did Montana lose the power or interest sufficient to support the statute, if it ever did?” The Court concluded that the State of Montana still had a compelling interest to prohibit corporate expenditures.:
Issues of corporate influence, sparse population, dependence upon agriculture and extractive resource development, location as a transportation corridor, and low campaign costs make Montana especially vulnerable to continued efforts of corporate control to the detriment of democracy and the republican form of government.
Whether additional states will challenge Citizens United at the local level remains to be seen. But with Montana exhibiting the legal rationale for going over Citizen United's head (in claiming it only applies to federal elections), it's likely that other states, even those without existing local bans, will follow suit.
Let's hope that what has occurred in Montana leads to the ultimate reversal of Citizens United and the ending of Corporate Personhood which gave corporations the same rights to free speech as living, breathing, individual human beings. As has been said before, I will believe a corporation is a person when it can be imprisoned or subject to the death penalty-- just as can any living, breathing, individual who has committed a crime against humanity. With equal rights, should come equal responsibility and equal consequences, and that is simply not possible when it comes to treating corporations as persons.
"The Obama Justice Department hasn't tried a single Wall Street executive in a criminal court. Against a handful, it decided to let the S.E.C. bring civil charges of fraud, which are easier to prove. So if defendants' wrists are merely being slapped by the S.E.C. instead of cuffed by the Justice Department, Obama has only his appointees to blame.
For three important reasons, the President needs to explain why the Justice Department has filed away its investigations of big banks and Wall Street firms without indicting anyone. First, American confidence in the system is deeply shaken. Second, it strains credulity for millions of Americans -- and has impelled thousands of them to occupy public places in protest -- that no banking or insurance executive deserves criminal prosecution for the actions that brought on the financial crisis. Third, by failing to prosecute a single high-profile Wall Street actor today, the Administration is failing to deter financial fraud tomorrow.
The jury is out (alas, only metaphorically) on whether Wall Street practices that accompanied the financial crisis amounted to criminal fraud. Some legal commentators have concluded that the causes of the crisis were systemic and not the result of malfeasance or conspiracy. The debate about whether practices were illegal or simply unethical will never be resolved because only a jury can render a verdict after weighing the evidence, presented by opposing counsel, for each element of an alleged crime." --Excerpted from the Huffington Post
It appears that the Obama administration has eased up on prosecutions of Wall Street as part of a conscious strategy to prevent a collapse of confidence in our financial system, with the expected 50-state foreclosure settlement intended mainly to quickly move on from a generation of fraud. Geithner seems to believe that if fraud were aggressively prosecuted, and the world made aware of the incredible extent of the illegality in our markets, that international confidence in the American financial sector would plummet and our economy would suffer. The logic seems to be to stick a band-aid on it now and let the real mess happen later on, on someone else's watch, or at least in a second term, when there’s no need to worry about re-election.
Of course, this is exactly the wrong way to go about things. If the present administration really wanted to convince the world that America’s markets weren’t broken, they would effectively police fraud, and by extension prove to everybody that at the very least, our regulatory system is not broken.
As put so well by Matt Taibbi in the RollingStone, "By continually lying about the extent of the country’s corruption problems, they’re adding fraud to fraud and raising such a great bonfire of lies that they probably won’t ever be able to fix the underlying mess. If they looked at the world like public servants, and not like corporate executives, they’d understand that the only way out is to come clean. That they don’t look at things that way should tell people quite a lot."
So what can we do? I suggest we begin with a top agenda item of the Occupy Movement: Get Money Out of Politics.
The fact is, we need to get money out of politics before we will ever see any real change in our country. This issue is even more important than stabilizing the economy because there is always going to be some lobbyist flooding money into the system to water down the law, weaken regulations, cut deals, or hide crimes.
This is a non-partisan issue. The more people learn about this, the more they will want to support it.
We need to promote and support legislation to get the money out of politics. Go to Get Money Out, for more information and to sign the petition. Pass it on and help educate the masses.
Little Suzie Newsykins is learning all about picking the Republican nominee for president. She'll take you through the process of choosing Newt Gingrich as the GOP star!
According to the non-partisan Pew Research Center, since the 2010 midterm elections, the Tea Party has not only lost support nationwide, but also lost support in the congressional districts represented by members of the House Tea Party Caucus. And this year, the image of the Republican Party has declined even more sharply in these GOP-controlled districts than across the country at large.
In the latest Pew Research Center survey, conducted Nov. 9-14, 2011, more Americans say they disagree (27%) than agree (20%) with the Tea Party movement. A year ago, in the wake of the sweeping GOP gains in the midterm elections, the balance of opinion was just the opposite: 27% agreed and 22% disagreed with the Tea Party. At both points, more than half offered no opinion.
Throughout the 2010 election cycle, agreement with the Tea Party far outweighed disagreement in the 60 House districts represented by members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus. But as is the case nationwide, support has decreased significantly over the past year; now about as many people living in Tea Party districts disagree (23%) as agree (25%) with the Tea Party.
The Republican Party’s image also has declined substantially among people who live in Tea Party districts. Currently, 41% say they have a favorable opinion of the GOP, while 48% say they have an unfavorable view. As recently as March of this year, GOP favorability was 14 points higher (55%) in these districts, with just 39% offering an unfavorable opinion
GOP Loses Favorability Advantage in Tea Party Districts
The steep decline in GOP favorability in Tea Party districts means that these constituencies now view the Republican Party about as negatively as the Democratic Party. As recently as March, GOP favorability exceeded Democratic Party favorability by 15 points (55% vs. 40%). Today, both parties receive about the same rating from people in Tea Party districts (41% favorable for the GOP, 39% for the Democratic Party).
These results are particularly fascinating when one considers that the current crop of GOP Presidential candidates is genuflecting before the Tea Party. It simply confirms how completely out of touch the Republican Presidential Primary candidates truly are.
Though oil demand is at its lowest since 1997, oil prices (and gas prices along with them) are once again on the rise and the GOP wants even more handouts to Big Oil. 
