Letter From NCEL Re: Fast Track Authority

Posted on May 23, 2015 by Dave Bradley

Even though the boat may have sailed in the US senate, there still may be time to help stop it in the House. The following press release and letter were sent by the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators including Iowa State Representatives Charles Isenhart, Marti Anderson, John Forbes, Bruce Hunter, Jerry Kearns, Dan Kelly, Charles McConkey, Art Staed and State Senator William Dotzler.

National Caucus of Environmental Legislators

National Caucus of Environmental Legislators 218 D Street SE, 1st Fl., ­ Washington, DC 20003

CONTACT:
Representative Charles Isenhart:​ (563) 599­8839, charles.isenhart@legis.iowa.gov
Senator Virginia Lyons:​ (802) 828­3616, vlyons@leg.state.vt.us
Representative Denise Provost:​ (617) 872­8805, Denise.Provost@mahouse.gov

STATE LEGISLATORS FROM ACROSS NATION SIGN LETTER URGING CONGRESS
REJECT FAST TRACK TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY
Bipartisan group of 110 state legislators from 41 states oppose Fast Track bill; raise concerns about secret trade negotiations, private investor remedies that threaten progressive state environmental and energy policies

State legislators from across the country have sent a​ ​letter​ to Congressional leadership and Senate and House members urging a “no” vote on the Trade Promotion Authority legislation as voted out of committee. The letter (below) was circulated by Iowa State Representative Charles Isenhart and Vermont State Senator Virginia Lyons, both of whom are members of the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators (NCEL) and environmental leaders in their states and nationally. The letter was signed by 110 legislators from 41 states.

“Congress has a unique opportunity to protect our democracy, environment, and workers by rejecting fast track authority. Free trade negotiations go beyond tariffs and include policies that can threaten state environmental regulations,” said Lyons, who serves on the Vermont
Legislature’s Joint Energy Committee and is Co­Chair of the state’s Commission on International Trade and State Sovereignty.

“Emerging local renewable energy and other businesses lose when large multinational organizations determine rules of trade and rules of regulation ­ all behind closed doors,” Lyons stated. “So­-called ‘fast track’ authority limits Congressional oversight over a process that lacks transparency and threatens the fabric of our democratic system of state sovereignty. ”

Rep. Charles Isenhart echoed these concerns. “Trade agreements are negotiated in secrecy and state legislators are not at the table,” he said. “While virtually every investor group is well represented among the USTR’s more than 600 ‘citizen’ advisors, almost no legislators are. Yet these agreements can put at risk important state initiatives including clean energy policies and advanced biofuel incentives.”

Isenhart is the Ranking Member of the Iowa House Environmental Protection Committee and also serves on the Economic Growth Committee and Ways and Means Committee. He added, “Changes in the current Trade Promotion Authority legislation fall far short of fixing fundamental flaws in both the negotiation process and the agreements themselves, including the system of private justice that sidesteps our courts and gives foreign investors greater authority over policy than elected officials. Whatever the promises of the current administration, there are no guarantees that future administrations will follow through on the commitments of this one. In other words – as state legislators, we have no say, we can’t see, and we reap what others sow.”

Among the signers of the letter was Massachusetts State Representative Denise Provost, who spoke to negotiators of the Trans­Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) during the 9th​​ round of negotiations in New York City in April.

“As an elected official, I am particularly concerned about provisions in these agreements that subordinate our domestic legal systems to Investor State Dispute Settlement tribunals, which betrays constitutional principles, and represents the worst kind of corporate domination,” Provost said.

The legislators’ letter raises concerns not only about the pending Trade Promotion Authority legislation but also about likely provisions in the TTIP, the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) with the potential not only to undermine existing state environmental laws and regulations but also to chill future state policies inconsistent with the terms of these agreements. All would be covered by the speeded­up review and approval process known as Fast Track.

Letter Re: Trade Promotion Authority (Fast Track)

Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Speaker Boehner, Senate Democratic Leader Reid, and House Democratic Leader Pelosi:

As elected members of our state legislatures from across the United States, we write to urge you to reject the “Fast Track” version of trade promotion authority legislation as currently drafted and instead support a new process that is transparent, democratic, and accountable.

In July, we wrote to the Senate Finance Committee with suggested changes to the Fast Track legislation as introduced. We stated then, and reiterate now, the need for a new trade authority to provide significant and substantive opportunities for Congress to hold executive branch negotiators accountable. We remain eager to work with you to develop a process that can achieve the level of review and oversight intended by the U.S. Constitution. We believe such oversight to be absolutely necessary for modern international agreements with the breadth and reach of a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) or Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Agreement (TTIP).

The lack of transparency – indeed, extreme secrecy – of the trade negotiation process, coupled with the failure of negotiators to meaningfully consult on the far-reaching impact of these agreements on state and local laws, even when binding on our states, is of grave concern to us. As state legislators, we are not at the table. Of the more than 600 cleared advisors to the U.S. Trade Representative, two state legislators have been invited to participate. Thus, we depend on Congress to create a new mechanism that provides for Congress to conduct the in-depth review and oversight these powerful international agreements require. When Congress abdicates much of its authority, as it does in the Fast Track process, our democracy suffers.

Moreover, requirements for “regulatory coherence” and “minimum standard of treatment” provisions included in these trade agreements, and the investor-state system of private justice that can be invoked by investors to challenge federal, state and local laws and regulations, threatens the U.S. system of federalism enshrined in our Constitution. Our federalist system reserves significant authority to state legislators to regulate to ensure a level playing field for workers and businesses and to implement meaningful human rights, labor and environmental standards – authority that is threatened by these trade pact provisions.

The Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) procedures included in recent and pending trade agreements, including the recently leaked TPP investment chapter, are of particular concern. ISDS allows foreign investors the right to sue governments directly in offshore private investment tribunals, bypassing the courts or allowing a “second bite” if the investors do not like the results of domestic court decisions. Although the investor-state tribunal has no power to directly nullify U.S. federal, state, and local laws, in practice, when a country loses to an investor, it will change the offending law, or pay damages, or both. Moreover, a country need not even lose an ISDS case for the chilling effect of a case merely being threatened or filed to impact its future policy making deliberations.

Indeed, in our own experience as state legislators, we have directly experienced that chilling effect. It is not uncommon for investors and foreign governments alike to seek to chill non-discriminatory state legislative action on matters of public health, safety and welfare, with threats of legal challenges based on international trade agreements. State legislative examples we are aware of include electronic waste producer responsibility laws, regulation of water extraction, tax haven restrictions, GMO labeling, and regulation of toxics in consumer products. Current ISDS litigation includes many challenges to environmental regulation, including oversight of hydraulic fracturing and mining.

State legislators have a longstanding and clear position opposing investor-state dispute settlement clauses in trade agreements, memorialized in the policy of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), which represents all 50 states and the District of Columbia: “…NCSL will not support any BIT or FTA that provides for investor/state dispute resolution. NCSL firmly believes that when a state adopts a nondiscriminatory law or regulation intended to serve a public purpose, it shall not constitute a violation of an investment agreement or treaty, even if the change in the legal environment thwarts the foreign investors’ previous expectations.” [Readopted August 2013: http://www.ncsl.org/ncsl-in-dc/task-forces/policieslabor-and-economic-development.aspx#trade ]

The undersigned state legislators strongly endorse this position, and urge you in your oversight capacity to remove any investor-state dispute settlement clause from inclusion in the TPP, TTIP or other international trade or investment agreement that may be negotiated in the future.

Many of the undersigned legislators serve on the environment and natural resources committees of our legislatures and have leadership roles advancing environmental protections in our states. We are deeply concerned about public reports of potential provisions in both the TPP and TTIP agreements that would undermine these protections, including provisions on or related to investment and energy exports. With respect to TTIP, we are troubled by reports that the European Union is seeking binding provisions that would facilitate expanded exports of both liquefied natural gas and crude oil. With respect to the TPP, we are very concerned that the U.S. Department of Energy would lose its ability to even review whether exports of natural gas are in the interest of the public, should that agreement include national treatment for trade in gas.

The trade negotiation process is deeply flawed, and it appears to be resulting in deeply flawed trade agreements, namely the TPP and TTIP. Congress has the ultimate responsibility to oversee these agreements and put a stop to overreaching provisions that usurp the legitimate, non-discriminatory exercise of legislative authority to protect the public health and welfare. The pending Fast Track/Trade Promotion Authority legislation undermines this Congressional responsibility. We urge you to reject this approach and instead engage in robust, transparent and inclusive oversight of both the negotiation process and the agreements themselves.

(unable to reproduce signatures due to technical difficulties)

Posted in Corporate Greed, Environment, Environment Iowa, Iowa Legislature, Iowa legislature 2015, Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Letter From NCEL Re: Fast Track Authority

Monsanto Preps For TPP – By Moving Overseas?

Posted on May 23, 2015 by Dave Bradley

tpp threatens food safety

Considering the way that the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has set up the Investor-State Dispute Settlement or ISDS process the only logical step for corporations who claim to be frustrated by US laws is to move their corporate headquarters out of the United States. Then they can be in a position to sue the United States to overturn laws and regulations that they feel get in their way. The corporation also gets the benefit of tax laws for corporation headquartered overseas.

This is a new corporate process called inversion. Currently the incentive for a corporation to invert itself, that is to move their corporate headquarters out of the country they primarily do business in, the United States, to a country where they have much lesser interests is to take advantage of loopholes in the US tax laws. Burger King bought itself a whole lot of bad publicity and nasty headlines when they bought Canadian doughnut maker Tim Horton’s with the express purpose of moving their HQ to Canada to avoid US taxes.

Burger King felt they could weather the bad publicity because America has the attention span of a gnat. The move is in process and based on media coverage Burger King bet correctly. Their move is no longer covered and it is business as usual while avoiding US taxes.

Walgreen’s announced they were going to invert their structure but called off the move in the face of some blisteringly bad publicity.

Now Monsanto, like Burger King and Walgreen’s, is making an offer to buy the much smaller Swiss based agribusiness Syngenta. Should the takeover take place then Monsanto has made no bones about moving their HQ from St. Louis to Switzerland to save up to $500 million per year in taxes. They have no loyalty to the country that gave them the means to grow.

Now along with the tax savings, Monsanto will be able to take their complaints about US laws and regulations to an ISDS arbitration board. Since treaties can supersede US laws, this may put corporations in a great position to attack laws and regulations that they have claimed over the years to be detrimental. We saw a small example of that just last week when the WTO ruled that the US can no longer require country of origin labeling for meat. Plan for many more disputes like tis from TPP and its Atlantic twin, the TTIP.

By the way, this should remind folks that corporations are not people despite what 5 members of the Supreme Court ruled. There is no loyalty to the US. With TPP corporations may finally have the tool they have always wanted to control US laws to their liking.

commondreams.org discusses Monsanto’s maneuver, noting the corporate “win-win” that Monsanto will reap:

Earlier this month, Monsanto made an initial offer to purchase the Swiss-based Syngenta. The deal, if completed, would allow Monsanto to move its headquarters from outside St. Louis to Switzerland, thereby reducing U.S. corporate tax payments. According to financial analysts at the investment firm Piper Jaffray, Monsanto would gain – and U.S. taxpayers would lose – about $500 million per year in tax revenues.

Monsanto, in fact, can attribute much of its growth over the last decade to past trade deals. Most other countries around the world, including key markets in the European Union, have taken a more precautionary approach to genetically engineered crops than in the U.S. – both in approvals for agricultural production, and in requiring clear labeling for consumers. In collaboration with the U.S. Trade Representative, Monsanto and the agrichemical industry have aggressively used trade rules in bilateral agreements as well as at the World Trade Organization (successfully challenging Europe’s biotech regulatory regime) to try to strike down higher-standard public health and environmental requirements for GE foods in other countries.

There seems to be no limit to the lengths to which the Obama administration will go to support Monsanto and the biotech industry. Earlier this month, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack accused the European Union of undermining efforts to address global hunger, because of a new EU proposal to allow its member countries greater power in regulating GE crops. Vilsack threatened that the EU’s decision raises “serious issues” about the future of TTIP, and officials in Washington have threatened another WTO challenge. The EU’s regulatory approach is troubling to Vilsack and Monsanto because their collective goal is to eliminate what they call sub-federal regulations. In the case of Europe, it is country-level regulations. In the U.S., it is state-level mandatory GMO labeling laws.

Both TPP and TTIP include intellectual property rules that protect Monsanto’s patented GE crops. They also include special corporate rights provisions, known as investor-state rules. These provisions would grant corporations legal rights to potentially challenge new laws, like state-level labeling of genetically engineered foods, that inhibit investors’ expectations.

Don’t forget, Iowa’s senators, Grassley and Ernst, are 100% behind these trade deals.

Posted in Environment, Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Highway Robbery

Posted on May 22, 2015 by Trish Nelson

Alecby Tracy Leone

George W. Bush’s presidency is among the most destructive and corrupt of any American Presidency. Beginning with the stolen election, Dubya led the country into two, practically unilateral and illegal wars while pulling out of the multi-nation Kyoto Protocol. Bush and his Republican Congress (along with some Corporate Democrats) cut taxes and deregulated Wall Street, a policy transformation that upended record surplus into a record deficit and culminated in the worst economic crash since the Great Depression. And then there was Katrina, Gitmo, Blackwater, Abu Ghraib, and of course, Alito and Roberts.

Lost in so much scandal is the memory of Bush’s 2004 Repatriation Tax Holiday, awarded to Corporations that had squirreled away profits in overseas bank accounts to avoid paying US income tax. In order to entice companies to “re-patriate” those profits, Bush allowed them to pay a discounted 5.25% tax instead of the typical 35% corporate tax rate, promising Americans that the discount would benefit them by stimulating the American economy, creating thousands of jobs. As a result of that holiday, 843 companies brought back $312 billion, according to the Internal Revenue Service.

But instead of going on a hiring binge, or investing in research and development, or perhaps paying their workers more, the companies used most of the repatriated profits to buy back stock shares and issue dividend payments that larded already bloated CEO salaries. In fact, according to economists Chuck Marr and Brian Highsmith, “many firms actually laid off large numbers of U.S. workers even as they reaped multi-billion dollar benefits from the tax holiday and passed them on to shareholders.” The Wall Street Journal reported that this tax holiday cost the government $3 billion in lost revenues in the ten years since it was implemented.

But at least this tax holiday stopped the flow of corporate profits overseas, because legislators had the foresight to close the loopholes that caused offshoring of profits to avoid taxes. Sorry, not true. There were no claw backs in the tax holiday to prevent this from occurring once again. Since then, companies have once again stowed away almost $2 trillion in profits overseas by some estimates New York Times.

So what do Libertarian Rand Paul and Liberal Lion Barbara Boxer propose we do on the ten year anniversary of The Bush Tax Holiday? Why, give corporations like GE, Apple, Google and others another Tax Holiday!

I’m referring here to Invest in Transportation Act of 2015. The Boxer/Paul plan is different from Bush’s in that it proposes to use the taxes raised from the repatriated money to fund the nearly bankrupt highway trust fund – which makes it appealing to both Democrats and Republicans alike (no new taxes, money for infrastructure and jobs). Barbara Boxer is not up for re-election, so this is no political stunt. This is all her. And Google, Apple, Qualcomm, and other corporations in her district who have lobbied hard for several years for another tax holiday (and have heavily donated to her campaigns)

The irony here is that corporations aren’t even making the argument that they need this in order to create jobs. US companies are so flush with capitol, they do not need these profits to re-invest, expand research or otherwise stimulate the economy. Quite simply, their only interest is lower taxes and greater profits.

The injustice here is folks like you and I do not get to negotiate a lowered tax rate for income we hide in a Swiss Bank account. Boxer, Paul, as well as Bill Clinton who has been lobbying for such a holiday repeat since 2011, are now capitalizing on the urgency of our nation’s crumbling infrastructure to justify another tax giveaway to the 1%.

Obama is on the record of supporting similar proposals in the past, and Congresswoman Cheri Bustos (IL-17) is touting this as a solution to the lack of funds for infrastructure – which will certainly be appealing in her heavily union district as infrastructure investments means jobs. But this formula is penny-wise and dollar-foolish. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the holiday would boost tax revenue by an estimated $20b to $30b in the first two years it’s implemented. But after that, it would lose as much as $118 billion over the next decade.

But as with Bush’s holiday, there is no provision in the current bill that would prevent corporations from off shoring their profits yet again. Nor is there any companion bill to increase the federal gas tax (which hasn’t been raised in over 23 years) to prevent the Highway Trust Fund from future insolvency.

With Federal highway program set to expire May 31, both neoliberal Democrats and deficit hawk Republicans will continue to suggest the tax holiday as a solution. But to continue to reward unpatriotic companies with another tax holiday will do nothing to stop them from once again off-shoring their profits as they anticipate another, future Congress to repeat this same sad cynical cycle. It’s highway robbery this time. Perhaps next time, they can tie it to Veteran’s healthcare funding, education funding or another essential underfunded program.

Fool me once…

iowa afl-cioTracy Leone
Organizer – Iowa Federation of Labor

www.iowaaflcio.org
www.iowalabornews.com
https://www.facebook.com/IowaAFLCIO
http://www.youtube.com/AFLCIOIowa

Posted in Corporate Greed | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Highway Robbery

Donald Kaul: No Difference Between Jeb And Dubya

Posted on May 21, 2015 by Trish Nelson

donald kaulhttp://otherwords.org/

Of Course Jeb Bush Would Have Invaded Iraq

The former Florida governor gets too much credit for being smarter than his brother.

By Donald Kaul

Jeb Bush must have set some kind of record for political flip-flopping this month.

“Knowing what we know now,” he was asked — that Saddam Hussein didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction, for example — “would you have authorized the invasion” of Iraq?

“I would’ve,” he said.

Almost immediately, the oatmeal hit the fan. Supporters and critics alike jumped up out of the weeds protesting his embrace of what many consider the greatest foreign policy blunder since Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.

Before nightfall that day, he was backing crab-like away from that position. He had “misinterpreted” the question, he said. In any case, it was futile to take up “hypotheticals” like that.

But back he tracked until it seemed as though the former Florida governor would’ve been marching in front of the White House, occupied at the time by his own brother, with a “Hell No! I won’t go” placard.

The kindest interpretation friendly critics offered was that Jeb Bush was reluctant to take issue with George W., who, after all, ordered the Iraq invasion. It was filial affection, not foreign policy naiveté, that informed his first response.

Are you kidding me?

Of course Jeb Bush would have done the same thing as George W. Bush. There’s hardly the thickness of a sheet of paper between them on Middle East policy.

Don’t believe me? The man who would like to lead the third Bush administration in three decades named Paul Wolfowitz, the Iraq invasion’s architect, to his team of advisers. That’s like taking navigation lessons from the captain of the Titanic.

Wolfowitz, you’ll remember, is the guy who promised a speedy end to the Iraq War and predicted it would pay for itself with rising oil revenue. That was a trillion dollars — and many thousands of lives — ago. And we’re still waiting for our first payment.

I’ve always thought Jeb got too much credit for being smarter than his brother. That was largely a function of the fact that even though he smoked a lot of pot in high school, he didn’t spend his youthful years drunk, unlike George W.

In reality, neither of them has shown much in the way of smarts. They’ve gone a long way on family money and friends in high places.

The best of the Bush bunch, to my thinking, is the old man, George H. W. Bush. Not a brilliant intellectual, perhaps, but he was smart enough to know that Iraq’s not a place where you want to hang out very long. As bad a guy as Saddam Hussein was, the elder Bush had the sense not to dabble in regime change when he went to war with Iraq.

Perhaps the most astonishing piece of information to come out of this latest Bush flap was a Quinnipiac University poll that showed George W. Bush’s favorability rating with likely voters in the Iowa caucus stands at 81 percent.

Eighty-one percent! Chocolate ice cream doesn’t have an 81 percent favorability rating among Iowa Republicans.

What can they be thinking of? Certainly they can’t be thinking very seriously about the Iraq invasion. Did I mention that it’s cost us a trillion dollars and counting?

Perhaps I failed to inform you that our conduct of that war and the other conflicts that seem to have unstoppably flowed from it, with our waterboarding and our drone attacks, have squandered any moral advantage that we claimed over our enemies.

Jeb Bush was the great hope of rational Republicans in the upcoming race. He was the sensible one.

Now we find he hopes to ride his brother’s tattered coat tails to victory.

Who’s his model for economic policy, Herbert Hoover?

Posted in 2016 Election Campaign, GOP | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Help DFA Counteract Republican Takeover Of State Legislatures

Posted on May 20, 2015 by Trish Nelson
Howard Dean 2004 Campaign

Howard Dean 2004 Campaign

democracyforamerica.com

Deaniacs, here is a an important message from Howard Dean.

If you’re as heavily invested in politics as I am (and I have a feeling you are), you also tend to spend a lot of time fixating on what’s happening in Washington. But in recent years, perpetual gridlock has kept Congress from even functioning properly, let alone taking innovative steps to rebuild our middle class.

In the meantime, the true battleground for the heart and soul of our country has shifted to the states, where we now face an uphill battle. Republicans — with the help of a massive, well-funded network of corporate-backed, radical right-wing organizations — have staged an unprecedented coup of state legislatures.

Right now, the GOP controls 68 of the 98 partisan state legislative chambers, more than they have in the history of their party. And they’re using that power to pass unpopular legislation that actively undermines the ability of middle-class families to make ends meet.

Democrats need to make a concerted effort to win in 2016 — and that’s where Democracy for America comes in. Since 2004, DFA has been focused on making the 50 State Strategy a reality, supporting Democratic candidates in every state running for every level of office. We have successfully helped elect 831 DFA-endorsed candidates running for everything from the local school board to the U.S. Senate — and we are setting ambitious goals again for the 2016 electoral cycle.

DFA wants to train and empower 25,000 volunteers by 2016 — the kind of grassroots army that could tip the balance for Democrats in hundreds of close elections nationwide. Will you help us make that goal a reality by chipping in $3 or more a month from now until Election Day?

It could get much worse if we don’t fight back now.

In 2020, voters will elect state lawmakers who will be responsible for redrawing districts all over the country — a fundamental driver of who will control Congress and state legislatures for the next decade.

That’s why we cannot let Republicans continue to out-organize us on the state level. Not only are we losing important policy battles that are moving these states backwards, but we are also missing out on the opportunity to build the bench of future leaders necessary if we are going to grow our power in Washington in the years to come.

Through the Purple to Blue Project, DFA is intentionally working to counteract the Republican takeover of state legislatures by identifying winnable states and pro-actively recruiting and endorsing candidates in those states who can help to tip the balance. In 2015, we’re working with candidates on the ground in places like New York, New Hampshire and Virginia to run winning campaigns and build progressive power — and we will expand the program again to include more states in 2016.

It’s no longer enough for Democrats to sit back and complain about Republican dominance in the states. It is time for us to take action — and I am proud to say that DFA is and will continue to be a trailblazer when it comes to implementing the 50 State Strategy.

We have ambitious plans to build progressive power in 2016 and beyond — but we need your support to do it. To help us, I hope will you consider making a monthly donation to DFA of $3 or more today.

Thank you for all that you do,

– Howard

Gov. Howard Dean, Founder
Democracy for America

Posted in 2016 Election Campaign, Democracy for America | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Governing Under the Influence Symposium

Posted on May 19, 2015 by Trish Nelson

Alec  symposium.dawnjonesiowa.com/

Free and open to the public

Saturday May 23, Iowa City Public Library, Room A
Sign In : 9:30 a.m.
Program Starts : 10:00 a.m.

Democracy is being silenced. We shout; but we are not being heard over the massive contributions of corporations and the 1%.

During our nation’s history, movements have achieved amendments to the U.S. Constitution to gain recognition of groups of people as citizens and voters. Abolition of slavery was the 13th Amendment; then the equal treatment amendments for newly freed black men (14th & 15th), and the 19th amendment that grants women the right to vote. During the time of rapid industrial growth, progressive and populist groups worked to achieve legislation limiting child labor and prohibiting waste products being incorporated in food.

On the dark side of our history are the actions taken to turn corporations from servants chartered by states for a limited purpose — which had to benefit the residents of the state — into the powerful behemoths that they are today. They have achieved this massive increase in power through rulings of the Supreme Court which first declared the corporation a partner in a business contract, which states had no right to regulate. Then corporations were allowed to claim the rights of natural, human beings as acknowledged in the Bill of Rights. Because corporations now have more rights than we humans, it is very difficult for us to protect ourselves from them.

One situation not widely recognized in the progressive community is the loss of the U.S. Government’s right to create money which Congress bestowed on the Federal Reserve. The difference in the two situations is that with the Federal Reserve, interest is owned on the money the Federal Reserve creates.

It is more widely recognized that when corporations use the water, land, and air as a dump for their toxic waste products, they are removing the possibility of a healthy life for us and our children’s children. When governments sell off highways, parking ramps, public buildings and lands (like the Post Offices throughout the country), they are appropriating the value of those assets. When governments privatize social services (public schools, the military, Medicaid, Social Security, prisons) they are hollowing out the nation’s resources. Possibly the most direct examples of hijacking are our government’s permitting gambling on derivatives and legislating that the gamblers will be able to shift their losses to bank patrons and taxpayers.

Today we are exploring some of these cases and sharing ways some groups are working toward justice.

Click here for more information including schedule and speakers.

Posted in Corporate Greed, Local Events | Tagged | Comments Off on Governing Under the Influence Symposium

This Week On The Fallon Forum: More On Bakken Pipeline Cartel, Eminent Domain Bill SF 506

Posted on May 18, 2015 by Trish Nelson
Listen live Mondays at 11 am

Click here to listen live Mondays at 11 am

 fallonforum.com

This bunch from the pipeline cartel — what I call ’em — is just a bucket of snakes and you can’t tell which head belongs to which tail.”

Dear Friends,

There’s nothing like courage to inspire principled acts of conscience. Perhaps the gutsy actions last week of two landowners fighting to stop the pipeline has inspired you to step forward, speak out, take action. I can assure you that Hughie Tweedy and Vern Johnson have further deepened my own commitment to stopping the Bakken Oil Pipeline. (Stay tuned for news about that later today.)

Hughie Tweedy, land owner

Hughie Tweedy, land owner

It took a lot of guts for Hughie Tweedy to go public about the conversations he recorded with a representative of the pipeline company. In interviews that have been published in media across the country and beyond, Hughie recounts how in exchange for his land, the rep “offered me women . . . not once, not twice, but three times.”

Hughie’s life has been taken over with an endless string of media inquiries. He’s even had to learn to use Facebook and a cell phone! Hughie poked the giant — and a poked giant is likely to poke back. News that Dakota Access offered prostitutes for access to land is really, really bad public relations for the company. Add this to all the other stories circulating about pipeline representatives lying and bullying, and more and more Iowans are realizing that Dakota Access is a company that can’t be trusted.

Or in the more blunt words of Hughie, “This bunch from the pipeline cartel — what I call ’em — is just a bucket of snakes and you can’t tell which head belongs to which tail. Their damage control will be all deniability. They’ll say, well, that’s not our contractor . . . that’s not our this, not our that.”

Another courageous landowner is Vern Johnson, a quiet guy and polite to a fault. Vern also is persistent to the point of having said “no” forty times to pipeline representatives wanting access to his land.

“I saw that most of them were from Louisiana,” said Vern, who caught surveyors placing stakes on his property. Without a hint of anger or malice, Vern “offered to go down to Louisiana and drive a steel post into their land. Well, after they thought about that a bit, they came back and said they’d just pull out all the stakes they’d put on my land.”

One of the surveyors told Vern they were going to follow an existing pipeline easement on his property. “The only problem with that,” says Vern, “is I don’t have an easement for another pipeline on my property.” He even went to the county courthouse to verify that such was the case — another example of Dakota Access not being trustworthy.

Unfortunately, the pipeline company got its way. Vern was slapped with an injunction that allowed the surveyors to force themselves onto his land. Despite his gutsy persistence, Vern lost that battle.

And we may lose other battles. But we can and will win the war. Nebraskans have stopped the Keystone Pipeline. And it was just a couple years ago that a coalition of Iowa seniors, landowners and environmentalists stopped a nuclear power plant that would have been built with millions of dollars of rate-payer money. A few years earlier, we stopped two ill-conceived coal-fired power plants. A decade ago, I worked with landowners in several counties who banded together to stop their land from being taken for recreational lakes and essentially private airports.

Over and over again, when we stand strong and stand together, people can prevail against corporate and government power. I believe that will be the case with this pipeline – but it will take commitment, sacrifice and courage. I am willing to continue to push my own comfort zone in that regard (again, stay tuned for news on that later today), and I ask each of you to ponder what more you can do as well.

And please take a moment to call or write your state senator and ask him or her to support SF 506, the eminent domain bill now eligible for debate by the full Senate. Please call or write your state representative as well. And if you are not certain who represents you at the statehouse, go to find your legislator.

Catch the Fallon Forum live on Monday from 11:00 am – 12:00 noon on KDLF 1260 AM (Des Moines)   Or you can listen online.  Join the conversation by calling in at (515) 528-8122.  Podcasts available after the show. And you can hear the Fallon Forum on KHOI 89.1 FM (Ames) at 4:00 pm on Wednesday and on KPVL 89.1 FM (Postville) at 7:00 pm on Wednesday.

Thanks!

Ed Fallon

Posted in Ed Fallon, Environment, Fallon Forum, Iowa legislature 2015 | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Elizabeth Warren: “We Need Democrats”

Posted on May 18, 2015 by Trish Nelson

 

Posted in 2016 Election Campaign, economic inequality, Elizabeth Warren | Tagged | Comments Off on Elizabeth Warren: “We Need Democrats”

Sunday Funday – Work In The Yard Edition

Posted on May 17, 2015 by Dave Bradley
Republican candidates for president

Republican candidates for president

This is that small window in Iowa when it is not snowing nor is it 90+ degrees. The humidity hasn’t quite reached steam room level yet and the bugs haven’t yet reached their adulthood appetite for fresh blood. In short that space of time when you can mow, preen, prune, dig, plant and remove a winter’s worth of crap without being bundled to the hilt or eaten alive. Enjoy this brief period. It shall not last. There won’t be another such period until raking time in the fall.

The news just keeps coming fast ’n’ furious.

1) “Sure I would have invaded Iraq” (paraphrased) said what candidate for president when asked “If you knew then what you know now..?”

2) Aftershocks, some as high as 7.3, continue to rock what earthquake ravaged nation?

3) Seems like Pope Francis makes someone mad every week. Whose wrath did he incur this week when he announced a treaty with “the state of Palestine?”

4) Which country was declared Ebola free last week after 42 days without a new case of ebola?

5) Meanwhile the Pope seems to have picked up what famous fan who said he may return to Catholicism after meeting the Pope?

6) May 17, 1792 is a significant day in financial news. That day, merchants and brokers meeting on Wall Street established what?

7) May 17, 1954, the SCOTUS hands down a unanimous decision in Brown v. Board declaring ‘separate but equal’ unconstitutional. Who argued the case for the winning side?

8) What small town in Iowa was hit by a tornado last Sunday?

9) In a surprising survey on religious affiliation in America released by the Pew Research Center, Christianity lost nearly 8% while what group gained nearly 7%?

10) Long a target of GOP cuts, what transportation sector did House Republicans vote to cut just days after a fatal accident?

11) In a surprise to almost everyone, the Obama Administration gave consent to allow what company to begin exploratory oil drilling in the Arctic?

12) Memorial Day weekend will see the grand opening of a museum that will honor what late movie star from Winterset, Iowa?

13) Which Republican presidential candidate ruffled some Iowa political feathers when he announced he would skip what event this summer?

14) North Korea’s defense minister was executed by firing squad last week. What was his fatal offense?

15) The group looking to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with a woman has chosen the proposed replacement. Who is she?

16) Justice, finally. A work of art by what master, looted from a Jewish owner by the Nazis,was returned to the family of the original owner Friday?

17) Many progressives in Wisconsin welcomed the news that what former senator would run once more for his former seat?

18) The Pentagon (your tax dollars) paid teams from what sport up to $5.4 million for pre-game salutes to ‘local heroes’?

19) What notorious ambassador said Friday he would not seek the Republican nomination for President?

20) Which Republican presidential candidate called for ending the ACA and replacing it with care managed by an Apple watch app?

Some folks see shade trees. I see leaves to rake in the fall.

Answers:

1) Jeb Bush. Remember last week he said he’d seek out W for advice on the Middle East

2) Nepal

3) Israel

4) Liberia

5) Raul Castro, president of Cuba

6) The New York Stock Exchange

7) future SC Justice Thurgood Marsall

8) Lake City

9) the unaffiliated

10) Amtrak

11) Shell

12) John Wayne (born in Winterset as Marion Morrison)

13) Jeb Bush

14) dozing off during meetings. A sure cure for sleep apnea

15) Harriet Tubman

16) Matisse

17) Russ Feingold

18) NFL football

19) John Bolton

20) Jeb Bush – Jeb should be looking for an advisor after this week.

Posted in Humor | Comments Off on Sunday Funday – Work In The Yard Edition

Verizon Buys AOL; Net Neutrality Loses

Posted on May 16, 2015 by Dave Bradley

al franken on net neutrality

Remember how you felt 30 or so years ago when you could finally afford cable TV and you felt like you were getting out from under the grip of corporate media? Now you could see news without the corporate filter! Now you could get entertainment with little censorship!

Remember how you felt 15 or so years ago when you got that internet connection and you felt like this time you could get news and entertainment not filtered by corporations. Giant media had long since taken over most of the cable outlets and once more controlled the news and entertainment. This time you felt like there was no way corporations could choke the internet. There was a concept called net neutrality that gave equal access to all providers. No one would screw that up.

Sadly the forces of money and control have their sights set on net neutrality. They want to do for the internet what they have done for cable television – make it a place safe for corporate policies.

While those favoring net neutrality won a battle in the war to end net neutrality last winter, this was only a battle. The ruling issued by the FCC was surprising to many and a victory. However, for those who want to control the internet just as they control newspapers, radio, TV and magazines in this country, this merely signaled a time to change strategies.

One strategy includes buying politicians who will introduce laws to stop the FCC. Another strategy is using the court system. Yet another little talked about strategy is to buy up the opposition.

Last week anti-net neutrality leader Verizon bought out AOL. In the mix, Verizon gets to take control of net neutrality crusader Huffington Post which is owned by AOL. Neat huh?

Over at the Nation magazine, Leslie Savan gives us a heads up on what such a takeover may mean for the future of news on the internet and net neutrality:

But there hasn’t been nearly as much talk about what this means for the content—you know, the journalism. When a telecom giant at the center of every poli-techno controversy, from net neutrality to NSA spying, owns and is expected to invest millions in one of the world’s most-read news sites, what happens to editorial independence?

Verizon, after all, has its own dedicated page at HuffPost, much of which covers the telecom’s ongoing effort to strangle net neutrality. (Both HuffPost and AOL have been outspoken champions for keeping the web’s playing field level.) And even though the FCC has ruled in favor of the regulations for now, corporate lobbying continues. “Verizon and other major telecom companies have plans to challenge the regs,” Clark Mindock writes at Open Secrets, “But whether or not AOL changes its stance on net neutrality, the fact is that the biggest opponent of net neutrality rules is about to acquire one of the biggest proponents.… And AOL’s D.C. money presence is a drop in the bucket compared to Verizon’s.”

And how free would HuffPost be in the future to report on Verizon’s and other telecom’s involvement in government surveillance of Americans’ phone records? Or on Verizon’s support of the rightwing, Koch-backed policy-maker, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)? Just days before the Verizon/AOL deal was announced, HuffPost ran a post headlined: “Telecom Sleaze: ALEC and Its Communication’s Funders—AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink, Comcast and Time Warner Cable.” I’m just guessing, but that could be the last time we see HuffPost casually refer to Verizon as “sleaze.”

Since the days of Reagan we have seen media consolidated to the point where it is nearly useless for getting information. While something like 7 or 8 giant media corporations have taken control of what Americans get for information, the internet has been the one voice that stands alone as a place to seek alternative voices. Taking over the internet is huge for corporations, both in terms of money and control of information. So while we celebrated a victory, corporations just hunkered down for the long haul of the war.

Posted in Internet Issues, Media Reform | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Verizon Buys AOL; Net Neutrality Loses