Back Again

Political Cartoon is by Pat Bagley in the Salt Lake Tribune.

It's Time For Texas To Stop The Pollution

Texas has a long and not-so-distinguished history of putting tons of pollution into the atsmosphere -- much more than any other state (and all but six countries). This has been going on for many years, especially since the Republicans took over the state government. Much of this pollution comes from coal-fired energy plants, and these plants (along with chemical plants and refineries) have been getting a free-pass form the state government in the form of "flexible permits" (which allow them to violate pollution standards).

During the Bush administration the White House made sure the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did nothing about the Texas pollution. But that is no longer the case. The EPA has taken over the issuance of permits for plants to stop the abuse of the so-called flexible permits. Now the EPA has gone further and demanded that Texas polluters (and those in 27 other states) clean up their act, because their pollution is crossing state borders and affecting the health and safety of people in other states.

This has upset Governor Perry and the Republican state leadership, who have been protecting the polluters for many years (and receiving campaign donations from those same polluters). They have not only objected to the new EPA rules and actions, but they have gone to court to stop them. These Republican leaders long ago sided with the corporate polluters, regardless of the environmental and health consequences of that pollution to the people of this country.

Now it has gotten so bad that even a conservative-oriented newspaper like the Dallas Morning News feels compelled to speak out. The paper has recently written an editorial (7/22/11) on the Texas pollution problem (and the lack of action by state leaders), and I find that I agree with the sentiments they express. Here is a part of that excellent editorial:

Texas should stop pretending EPA isn't serious

Texas' electricity grid operator issued a daunting warning when it said a tough Environmental Protection Agency rule on coal-plant emissions could spark power shortages and blackouts across the state.

Indeed, after a hard day at work, no one wants to return to a dark, sweltering house, or pay outrageously high electricity bills because power is in short supply. But it doesn't have to be that way. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas' warning creates a false choice that misses an important point, that Texas has plenty of alternatives - which it should get busy pursuing instead of pretending the EPA isn't serious about clean-air standards.

The false choice pits clean air against reliable power. Texas must have both, and can achieve both through a continued push to develop alternative energy, embrace forward-looking conservation policies, and reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants. The result would be fewer health problems from bad air, including premature deaths, and a stronger economic development tool. Plus, Texans would have the electricity needed to keep pace with a burgeoning population and economic growth.

The sad fact is that North Texas remains in violation of federal ozone standards, and after years of denial, Texas is among the least prepared to comply with the new rules. Fault for this rests squarely with state officials and coal-fired power plant operators who have tried repeatedly to delay the inevitable.

ERCOT, which is responsible for making sure the lights stay on statewide, says the Jan. 1 deadline for compliance with the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule to reduce sulfur-dioxide emissions is "unreasonable." To avoid emission violations after the deadline, coal-fired power plant operators would limit or shut down generation to levels that might cause serious power outages statewide, ERCOT says.

That's short-sighted. Owners of coal-fired power plants and ERCOT have had plenty of advance warning about the new federal rules. Complaining about the timetable gives operators another excuse to put off what they must do. Moreover, Texas isn't being singled out. The EPA's rule applies to coal plants in 27 states, which, like Texas, also will have to make major emissions cuts. In Texas, for example, the rule would require an annual reduction of sulfur-dioxide emissions to 244,000 tons, or by 47 percent from 2010 levels.

In reality, the problem resides with a just a few plants, whose compliance would make a difference in air quality. In a recent Viewpoints column in this newspaper, Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, noted that about 42 percent of emissions of soot-forming sulfur dioxide covered by the rule in Texas are produced at just three plants, which collectively account for only 13 percent of the state's electricity generation. McCarthy says that most operators will not face a heavy burden under this rule but that those not in compliance simply must step up and install the scrubbers and other technology to 

sharply reduce emissions as others have done.

We agree. It's time for Texas to stop complaining and start complying.

The Tea(bagger) Party

Political Cartoon is by Jeff Parker in Florida Today.

More Hypocrisy From Michele Bachmann

We're already well aware that Michele Bachmann doesn't think the rules she wants to institute for everyone else should apply to her (or her family). She doesn't believe in government payments to private citizens -- calls it socialism. But somehow it's not socialism when it applies to her, such as the thousands of dollars in government payments to the family farm (which she is a part-owner of).

And she doesn't seem to mind the government Payments for patients going to her husband's counseling clinic. She's opposed to Medicaid and Medicare for everyone else, but somehow it's OK for those thousands of dollars in payments to go into her husband's pockets. But those government payments for her family farm and her husband's clinic pale in comparison to this new revelation of government largesse she has received.

Bachmann has been a fierce critic of the government housing loan programs called Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac (which guarantee about 90% of the housing loans in this country). She has spoken against both programs, and along with her fellow Republicans has even tried to abolish the programs. But her opposition to these "socialist" housing programs didn't stop her from taking full advantage of the program to purchase a fancy golf-course home with her husband. Here's how the Washington Post puts it:

Just a few weeks before Bachmann called for dismantling the programs during a House Financial Services Committee hearing, she and her husband signed for a $417,000 home loan to help finance their move to a 5,200-square-foot golf course home, public records show. Experts who examined the loan documents for The Washington Post say they are confident that the loan was backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. [...]

The experts said the Bachmanns bought a more expensive home using typical strategies during a time of easier credit. With their existing home still on the market, they assumed liability on the same day for the $417,000 mortgage and a $249,999 secured line of credit backed by the residence, records show.

The $417,000 mortgage was the cap of what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would loan at the time in her region.

So she can hit up the government for a $417,000 loan, but she doesn't want any other Americans to have the same opportunity to get much smaller loans to become home owners (which is supposedly part of the American Dream). It's the same old Republican double standard, which says what's OK for a Republican to do is not OK for anyone else to do ( like it's OK for Vitter to be a pervert but not Weiner, and it's OK to raise the debt ceiling for Reagan or Bush repeatedly but not for Obama).

Hypocrisy must be one of those "values" that Bachmann and other Republicans proudly proclaim they believe.

Religious Extremism

Political Cartoon is by Mike Keefe in The Denver Post.

Subsidies Not Needed

The managers and investors in BP Corp. are very disappointed. The disappointment springs from the fact that their profit (and yes, I said profit -- not gross sales) for the second quarter of 2011 is a paltry $5.6 billion ($11 billion in profit for the first half of 2011). I guess this is why they have spent $2 million lobbying Congress this year and made $40,000 in political donations (93% of which went to Republicans). Obviously they can't be expected to pay taxes on such a tiny profit.

The five biggest oil companies (BP, Exxon, Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips) have made over $900 billion in PROFIT the last decade -- almost a trillion dollars! And these are the corporations that the Republicans think need to keep their tax subsidies and even get further tax cuts. Frankly, I think even the idea of giving them further cuts and protecting their subsidies is obscene. How much money are they going to have to make before we expect them to pay taxes?

Lower Taxes Don't Create Jobs

One of the tenets of the Republicans' failed "trickle-down" economic policy is that lowering the taxes for the richest Americans will create jobs for everyone else. Of course, as the above chart shows, this is an outrageous lie. All lowering taxes for the rich does is fatten the bank accounts of the rich. And I'm sure it's just a coincidence (NOT!) that most members of Congress, especially Republicans, just happen to be rich. This chart was found at the blog What Would Jack Do?.

Institutional Racism Is Alive And Well

I thought it was a tradition in American schools to honor a student's hard work. And one of the ways schools do that is to make the senior student with the highest grade average the valedictorian and the student with the second highest average the salutatorian for the graduating class. At least that's the way it's done at most schools. But there's a high school in Arkansas that does things a little differently.

Kymberly Wimberly, 18, got only one "B" in during her high school years -- all her other grades were an "A". That gave her the best grade average of any graduating senior at McGehee High School this year. It should have meant that she would be named the class valedictorian. Instead, she was named a "co-valedictorian" and had to share the honor with a student who's average was lower than hers.

You might wonder why Miss Wimberly was denied her rightful spot as the only valedictorian since no other student could equal her grade average. Well, it turns out that Wimberly is an African-American student and McGehee High School is a majority-white school. The school superintendent and "other school personnel" decided giving the honor to Wimberly alone (even though there's no doubt she earned it) might cause a "big mess". So they elevated the second-place student, who was white, to co-valedictorian and gave the salutatorian honor to another white student (even though that student, also white, had only the third-highest grade average).

Making matters even worse, when Wimberly's mother tried to speak to the school board about this obvious injustice she was denied the opportunity. The superintendent said she had filled out the wrong paperwork and therefore was not allowed to address the board.This whole affair just stinks of racism.

The superintendent and "other school personnel" are racists for making the girl share an honor that she won outright. And the school board members were racists for allowing the injustice to happen, and then compounding it by refusing to her her mother's complaint. And I have to wonder about the citizens of McGehee (located in the southeast part of the state). Would it really have caused a "big mess"?

This whole rancid mess should put to rest any idea that since the election of an African-American president this country has entered a "post-racial" period. It has not. Racism is alive and well in the United States (and actually seems to be getting worse since the last presidential election).

The girl's mother has filed suit in federal court. She is justifiably asking for punitive damages and demanding the school declare her daughter the only valedictorian. As far as I'm concerned the school district may as well just get out their checkbook. There's no way they can justify their racist actions.

Just Plain Dumb

Political Cartoon is by David Fitzsimmons in the Arizona Daily Star.

How To Balance The Budget

The Republicans have been trying to convince Americans that our country is in trouble because the deficit and the debt are out of control. They want us to believe that the only way to fix this "serious" problem is to slash social programs for poor and out-of-work Americans, severely cut or abolish Medicare and Social Security for the elderly, and cut (or eliminate) public education -- while cutting taxes for the corporations and the rich people (both of which are currently making record profits).

It is an understatement to say the GOP program is insane. It would just throw our economy into a deeper and longer-lasting recession, and would be the final step toward turning our ailing democracy into a full-fledged plutocracy (government by and for the wealthy class).

My fellow blogger over at What Would Jack Do? has a much better solution to balancing the national budget (which I agree with 100%). It's a rational solution that would save this country and its economy instead of destroying it (as the GOP seems bent on doing). Here is his solution (you can click on it to get a larger version):

A Lot Of BS

Political Cartoon is by Bruce Plante in Tulsa World.

Obama Is Top Fund-Raiser In Texas

President Obama may not be able to get much done in Washington politically, but he is still the king of fund-raising politicians. Through June 30th, the president had already raised more than $45.4 million nationwide for his 2012 campaign. No one else is even close, and in fact, that is more money raised than all of the Republican candidates put together. And since he won't have to spend much in a primary because he is unopposed, it is unlikely that the eventual Republican nominee will be able to match him in funds (although unlimited corporate spending for the GOP will probably make up for it).

None of that is a real surprise at this point. What is surprising is that President Obama is out-raising all other candidates in the state of Texas. That's right. In this reddest of states, that went Republican in 2008 and is very likely to do so again in 2012, the president has raised more campaign dollars than any one of his possible Republican opponents. Here's how the campaign dollars stack up, both nationally and in Texas:

PRESIDENT OBAMA
Nation...............$45.4 million
Texas................$1.4 million

MITT ROMNEY
Nation...............$18.3 million
Texas...............$1.38 million

TIM PAWLENTY
Nation...............$4.5 million
Texas...............$422,620

RON PAUL
Nation...............$4.5 million
Texas...............$286,960

MICHELE BACHMANN
Nation...............$4.3 million
Texas...............$70,775

HERMAN CAIN
Nation...............$2.6 million
Texas...............$139,740

NEWT GINGRICH
Nation...............$2.1 million
Texas...............$96,900

RICK SANTORUM
Nation...............$582,098
Texas...............$40,925

GARY JOHNSON
Nation...............$180,237
Texas...............$15,250

And Then . . .

Found at the blog Mario Piperni dot Com.

Who Holds The American National Debt ?

With the debate over the debt ceiling that has been going on lately, it brings up a very good question -- just who is it that has lent all that money to our government? Who is going to be hurt if the United States doesn't raise the debt ceiling and has to default on paying back those loans?

One answer is clear -- all Americans are going to be hurt because the debt rating of the country will be lowered, and this will make it much harder for the nation to borrow (no matter how critical that need to borrow is). It will be harder to get the money and it will cost a lot more to pay it back.

Most Americans seem to think that most of our debt is owned by foreigners -- especially the Chinese and Japanese. This idea has become so pervasive in our society that people even jokes about the country being repossessed by our Asian "overlords". The problem is that this is not even remotely true.

China only owns about 8% of the American debt, and Japan owns about another 6.4%. In fact the total part of the American debt owned by foreigners (including the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Brazil Taiwan, Caribbean bankers, and the oil-exporting countries) is about 31.47% (or $4.5 trillion). This is enough to cause some worldwide economic problems if we default on that debt, but it is nowhere near the majority of the debt owed by America.

The truth is that the huge majority of the debt-holders are the American people themselves (both by individuals and by government entities). The people that would be hurt the most by a government default on the debt are the Americans themselves, because that is who holds most of the debt -- about 68.53% (or $9.8 trillion).

According to Business Insider, here are the holders of United States government debt:

• Hong Kong: $121.9 billion (0.9 percent)
• Caribbean banking centers: $148.3 (1 percent)
• Taiwan: $153.4 billion (1.1 percent)
• Brazil: $211.4 billion (1.5 percent)
• Oil exporting countries: $229.8 billion (1.6 percent)
• Mutual funds: $300.5 billion (2 percent)
• Commercial banks: $301.8 billion (2.1 percent)
• State, local and federal retirement funds: $320.9 billion (2.2 percent)
• Money market mutual funds: $337.7 billion (2.4 percent)
• United Kingdom: $346.5 billion (2.4 percent)
• Private pension funds: $504.7 billion (3.5 percent)
• State and local governments: $506.1 billion (3.5 percent)
• Japan: $912.4 billion (6.4 percent)
• U.S. households: $959.4 billion (6.6 percent)
• China: $1.16 trillion (8 percent)
• The U.S. Treasury: $1.63 trillion (11.3 percent)
• Social Security trust fund: $2.67 trillion (19 percent)