Keystone XL Pipeline: A Very Bad Idea Getting Worse by the Day

                                                                Keystone XL Pipeline

Update (May 6, 2013): Major update here from Huffington Post, and a stark reminder just how really bad this pipeline is as proposed to go through the heart of America. Noteworthy from the article is:

Alberta's oil sands, generally known as tar sands to opponents of Keystone, contain a crude that is thicker, heavier and harder to refine than the conventional variety. But as the world's stocks of accessible, lighter crude dwindle, the oil industry is expanding development of this "bottom-of-the-barrel material" -- a process that poses its own health concerns. More in the article and in the below links. It is worthwhile to keep repeating the dangers of this pipeline extension and once in place with the hazards just waiting to happen, it would be too late. That should concern us all.

Update (April 27, 2013): The source for this update is this story from NBC News.

My notes and concerns from this story in part are noted in RED below:

Oil there is not the liquid black gold you think of in Texas or Oklahoma or the Gulf of Mexico. It is a tar-like substance called bitumen. It is excavated by mining or steam assisted drilling, where it is literally melted a quarter mile beneath the earth.

1. This oil is so heavy it must be upgraded or diluted before it can transported.

At Shell's Jackpine Mine in the oil sands, the company digs 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Twenty-eight trucks burning 45 gallons of diesel fuel an hour transport the goods once lifted from the ground.

2. The whole operation is a carbon intensive process sending more global warming gases into the atmosphere. 

How much depends on your point of view. 

3. The oil industry downplays the impact.

Opponents claim it is up to 37 percent more carbon intensive to produce a barrel of crude from oil sands.

The State Department, in its review of Keystone, says:

4. The oil from this area produces 17 percent more greenhouse gasses than conventional crude. 

Those emissions are the heart of the environmental debate in Alberta, and a big reason why opponents call this "dirty oil."

My concern is that our government will "cave" to business (gas/oil/energy) interests over the health and welfare of those the dangers would impact, and indeed have already impacted (see the posts below that underscore this point).

I ask again, why can't they build it in Canada and ship it to their West coast for refinement and transport to China and India and elsewhere (for those huge profits) and not through the heartland of America? Simple: those Canadians do not want it -- I wonder why not?

Update (April 2, 2013) from NBC (Chris Hayes show All In): For anyone concerned about our health and safety, this segment ought to get and keep your attention.

Update (March 31, 2012):  The hits just keep on comin' from ThinkProgress.org:

More irony.  One week after the Senate (see below) held that symbolic vote in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline, the U.S. had two different oil spills involving that Canadian tar sands crude oil.

(1) An ExxonMobil pipeline ruptured leaking approximately 10,000 barrels of tar sands crude in an Arkansas town. As a result, 22 homes have been evacuated as officials clean up of the world’s dirtiest oil.

(2) Exxon also had to shut the Pegasus pipeline, which can carry more than 90,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Pakota, Illinois to Nederland, Texas, after the leak was discovered.

NOTE: The Keystone XL pipeline would carry almost nine times the barrels of oil as the Pegasus pipeline.

Yet, we still hard heads who want this pipeline and I seriously wonder why?

Update (March 23, 2013) - from the U.S. Senate here from Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate easily passed on Friday a symbolic measure approving the Canada to Texas Keystone XL oil pipeline, a move backers said showed strong support for a bill that would give Congress power to green light the project later in the year.  The amendment to the budget plan, sponsored by Senator John Hoeven, a Republican from North Dakota, passed 62 to 37. 

It was symbolic because the budget is a blueprint that will not become law. But the measure was selected out of hundreds of others for a vote and was approved by a strong majority in the 100-seat chamber led by Democrats.

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters earlier this month that the approval process for pipelines crossing international borders belongs with the State Department. Symbolic vote???  Just what we need in this stalemated, gridlocked, do-nothing Congress, more "symbolism." Yepper, that's the ticket. What a pathetic bunch we have in office that dares call them on the job for, as the GOP loves to say: "For the American people." Give me a break. This is sickening. More this issue follows this update. Enjoy while you can.

Original post follows this and other updates (March 21, 2013): This critical update comes from Mother Jones here, in part follows:

My question: What is really behind the movement to build this pipeline? So, consider my answer: Big oil money and political bullshitting of the public.

From the article:

Late on a Friday afternoon in early March, the State Department released a 2,000-page draft report downplaying the environmental risks of the northern portion of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would ferry oil from Canada's tar sands to refineries in Texas, passing through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma.  However (and now the punch line) when it released the report, State hid an important fact from the public: Experts who helped draft the report had previously worked for TransCanada, the company looking to build the Keystone pipeline, and other energy companies poised to benefit from Keystone's construction. 

State released documents in conjunction with the Keystone report in which these experts' work histories were redacted so that anyone reading the documents wouldn't know who'd previously hired them. Yet unredacted versions of these documents obtained by Mother Jones confirm that three experts working for an outside contractor had done consulting work for TransCanada and other oil companies with a stake in the Keystone's approval.

When the Keystone report — officially known as a "draft supplemental environmental impact statement" — was released, environmental activists ripped it as shoddy and misleading. Russ Girling, TransCanada's CEO, cheered the report as "an important step" toward receiving President Barack Obama's final stamp of approval for the pipeline.

Outside contractors (managed by the State Department) wrote the Keystone report, which neither endorsed nor rejected the Keystone pipeline. The contractor that produced the bulk of the report was Environmental Resources Management (ERM), an international consulting firm. On the day the State Department published the Keystone impact report, the agency also released a cache of documents that ERM submitted in 2012 to win the contract to produce the Keystone environmental report. That cache included a 55-page filing in which ERM stated it had no conflicts of interests writing the Keystone report.

But there was something strange about ERM's conflict-of-interest filing: The bios for the ERM's experts were redacted.

Apparently there are elements in the system who want this pipeline no matter the outcome. The public must resist with every fiber ... stay informed and up to date. I will do my best in that regard.

Update (January 23, 2013) from The Nation here: Addressing climate change was — quite remarkably — the most prominent policy vow President Obama made during his second inauguration (January 21, 2013). 

In part, the President said: "We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. "The Obama administration’s resolve on this issue will be tested quickly when the Keystone XL pipeline comes up for review once again. Mr. Obama denied approval for the project in January 2012 over concerns it would damage Nebraska’s Ogalalla Aquifer (see next entry below), but he also allowed TransCanada to reapply for a permit with a different route, which it has since done. A re-review of the project from the State Department may now be coming within the next few weeks.

The story from here: Residents of the Great Plains (see states listed below and that could be impacted) over the last year or so have experienced storms reminiscent of the 1930s Dust Bowl. Experts say the new storms have been brought on by a combination of historic drought, a dwindling Ogallala Aquifer underground water supply (refer to (3) below in original posting), climate change and government farm programs.  Nearly 62 percent of the United States was gripped by drought, as of December 25, and "exceptional" drought enveloped parts of Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.

Update: For the "we have to have the Keystone XL pipeline now" crowd. 

•  That oil is the so-called "tar sands" type - the kind piped from Canada.

•  Very corrosive oil.

•  Heavy crude that mostly sinks to the bottom rather than float on the surface (thus cleanup is nearly impossible).

•  Current cost over $800 million. Has taken two years (oil company had promised it would take a couple of months).

•  To date, 843,000 gallons spilled from those 20,000 plus barrels.

From the final investigation:  The NTSB said Enbridge (Calgary-based Enbridge pipeline company) had noticed cracks as early as 2005 but had failed to repair them.

"This accident is a wake-up call to the industry, the regulator, and the public," NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman said in her statement. "Enbridge knew for years that this section of the pipeline was vulnerable yet they didn’t act on that information.” She added that “for the regulator to delegate too much authority to the regulated to assess their own system risks and correct them is tantamount to the fox guarding the hen house."

The GOP now led by the Koch brothers (big energy hogs) and Mitt Romney want more of this "energy independence."

Original Post from Here: I have been posting about this subject for awhile ... this piece reinforces five reasons why this pipeline is a very bad deal for us, in part here from the article: "The top five [commonsense] reasons to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline" (again, the emphases are mine). 

(1)  Tar sands are “game over” for the climate. Canada’s tar sands, which Keystone XL would carry, could contain double the carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in history — and green lighting the pipeline that would carry them to the global market would be disastrous for climate change.

(2)  The supposed benefits of the tar sands pipeline have been over hyped. While supporters once said that the pipeline would bring gas prices down, experts agree that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline could even increase domestic gas prices — and have little chance of lowering them. Jobs numbers, too, have been wildly inflated; TransCanada gave U.S. officials a job number that was 67 times higher than the number they used in Canada. While every U.S. job is important, the estimates on this project have ranged from 50 permanent jobs, to 2,500 temporary jobs, to TransCanada’s claim of 20,000 jobs. Even unions agree that clean energy jobs outweigh this potential for temporary dirty oil jobs. 

(3)  The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline puts our country’s natural resources at risk. The pipeline route passes through Nebraska’s Ogallala Aquifer, which is the country’s largest source of freshwater. The Aquifer provides drinking water and irrigation for millions of Americans throughout the country. Even a single spill could have disastrous consequences for generations to come — and a University of Nebraska at Lincoln analysis of the pipeline finds that it could have 91 major spills in 50 years. 

(4)  On Tuesday, Nov. 6, Americans voted against dirty energy and against Big Oil. Big Oil bet big on the election — and lost big. Big Oil-backed groups spent over $270 million on television ads in the last two months of the cycle alone, and have little to show for it. A recent Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research poll found that 64 percent of voters say they have a favorable impression of renewable energy. In a Zogby poll released today, only 12 percent of respondents said that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline was a “priority.” Meanwhile, 48 percent identified renewable energy as a priority. 

(5)  The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline compromises our energy security. The tar sands oil that will pass through the pipeline is intended for the international market, making Keystone XL a pipeline that goes through the U.S. — not to the U.S. Furthermore, the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline continues to feed our dangerous addiction to oil that compromises national security and places American troops in harm’s way. 

A very key point:  Canada’s pro-industry energy regulator — the National Energy Board — just announced a sweeping audit of TransCanada’s Canadian operations. This is the latest in a long series of accidents, shutdowns and pipeline safety infractions that have hounded the Canadian pipeline operator TransCanada.  

Earlier this month, TransCanada was forced to shut its leak prone Keystone I tar sands pipeline down for four days after finding an “anomaly” — a technical term for cracks, corrosion or other defects in a pipeline which may lead to a rupture. These incidents are not unique; TransCanada has a sordid history as a pipeline operator.  Just ask the folks in Upper Michigan along the Kalamazoo River regarding a record spill there. 

As I've said all along from my research and actual events, this is still a very bad idea. Stay tuned - this issue is by no means a "done deal." It gets worse with each passing date and post as all these posts reflect.

Results of Slick Lobbying, Special Access, Insider Deals, PAC Money

Photo Credit Grabbed from Shutterstock.com/durantelallera

A topic I like to track and have posted at various sites and varying times. The bottom line as they say (from this story) is that the rich have recovered nicely and got richer while the rest of us have lost plenty. Whoda thunk it, right? A few highlights:

1.  Do the math and you'll discover that the top 7% gained a whopping $5.6 trillion in net worth (assets minus liabilities) while the rest of lost $669 billion.

2.  Their wealth went up by 28% while ours went down by 4 percent.

3.  It's as if the entire economic recovery is going into the pockets of the rich.

That's no accident, either. Here's why: A laundry list of reasons why follow in the story ... good stuff.

Enjoy. I sure did. 

Rightwing Media (National Review) Badly Slants the News

Norquist "Backing" Rubio (before slick editing)

"Where in the World is Grover Norquist???" (after slick editing)

Headlines from the National Review: "Critical National Review Rubio Cover Edits Out Grover Norquist"

Why is that do you suppose that is? How about this: The event featured a smiling Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) flanked by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and John McCain (R-AZ) from an April 18 event where they officially rolled out the "Gang of Eight" proposal that would comprehensively reform the nation's immigration laws and, yes, include a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants.

My hunch is that old Grover supports that idea since it would give millions citizenship, right to work and pay taxes and add to the national kitty, as it were and thus help the GOP with their Latino problem and help head off any "new tax proposals" which Norquist hates with a passion, and thus give the GOPers a platform: jobs, helping our family of immigrants, and not raise taxes (except through their payrolls and annual legal filing).

That's my hunch - what's yours?

A Woman's Right vs. the Right's Urge for Pathological Control

The One Constant Issue that Drives the Rightwing

A Fact the GOP Cannot Come to Grips About

A short segment on this movement (again on the move across mostly RED states) seen here and from this article here (intro): "When Virginia approved restrictions that could force abortion clinics to close, it joined a rapidly growing list of states that are energizing social conservatives by making it more difficult for women to terminate pregnancies."

This constant push by the GOP far right in most cases to control a woman and her health care concerns and decisions is back on the front burner and need not be so intense at the state level. We must ask why, and why now (again)?

Paul Ryan says in that NBC clip (above): "We don't want a country where abortion is simply outlawed; we want a country were it isn't even considered." That implies all the time. So, I wonder what Ob-Gyns have to say about that? Um ... remember this example from 2012:

Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) falsely claimed that there wasn’t “one instance” where an abortion would be necessary to save the mother’s life during a debate for his reelection. Walsh made his controversial comments after an October 18 debate with Democratic challenger Tammy Duckworth. Walsh said that with “modern technology and science, there wasn’t “one instance” where an abortion would be necessary to save the mother’s life."

When a reporter asked him to clarify that he was saying it was never medically necessary to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother, Walsh replied, “Absolutely.”

However, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) said that more than 600 women die each year due to complications from pregnancy and childbirth, and more would die if they didn’t have access to abortion. Walsh quickly backed down.

The ACOG issued a statement the next day: "Contrary to the inaccurate statements made yesterday by Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event, particularly for many women with chronic medical conditions. Despite all of our medical advances, more than 600 women die each year from pregnancy and childbirth-related reasons right here in the US. In fact, many more women would die each year if they did not have access to abortion to protect their health or to save their lives."

This GOP as the background and facts show don't care about a woman's right to choose, a citizen's right to vote, or a Vets' right to health care, or most other so-called "social issues." They are locked in stone and thus, stone headed on most social issues as if they don't matter, only control over a woman and her health care matter to them.

One has to ask: How in the world can any woman ever be a Republican or vote Republican?

Really.

The Element the GOP Hopes Will Hold their Rebranding Campaign in Place

The Glue that Holds the GOP in One Place — A Dark Place, BTW

The document that the GOP is talking about, but can't seem to get people to buy into can be read here in full - pour a lot of coffee and have a huge trash can handy -- things you will need before you puke. The story comes from Politico.com here.

Introduction:  The GOP’s prescription to cure the ills that helped bring on yet another disastrous presidential cycle would revamp its presidential nominating rules in ways to benefit well-funded candidates and hamper insurgents - a move that quickly heated up the already smoldering feud between the Republican establishment and the tea party-inspired base.

Tucked in near the end of the 97-page report, formally known as The Growth and Opportunity Project, are less than four pages that amount to a political bombshell: "The five-member panel urges halving the number of presidential primary debates in 2016 from 2012, creating a regional primary cluster after the traditional early states and holding primaries rather than caucuses or conventions." Bottom line: if we can't win the old-fashioned way with votes, we'll rig the system and cheat.

A ton of glue, whether "super glue" or not will not solve the GOP's basic problem: the same old line is the same old line.

Obama-care is Working and the GOP Political Stunts Thrive

GOP Rightwing-TEA "party" Rally Against Guns and Health Care: F E A R sells

GOP Favorite Approach to Decent Health Care for All ...

My introduction that I drew from the story that is if you want a truckload of ironic, asinine, stupid, downright crazy GOP crap that has been going on for three long years and still (e.g., the Paul Ryan and Michele Bachmann, et al advocates who want (again) repeal health care) ... you surely will enjoy this.

"It was three years ago this week that President Obama signed the greatest piece of social-justice legislation this country has seen in decades. Since its enactment on March 23, 2010, the Affordable Care Act has curbed the health insurance industry’s worst abuses, placed basic coverage within reach for a generation of young adults, and made birth control more accessible to reproductive-age women."

•  Within months, the act will extend health coverage to millions of uninsured Americans by expanding Medicaid and spawning a new market for individual plans.

So, how are Americans (mostly GOP-driven/led) marking the occasion - what it their attitude and goals?

•  They (almost entirely the GOP side) are at near-record levels of hostility, mass suicide, total nervous breakdown, apoplexy to the point of GOP-Rightwing-TEA extinction, and course, sustained hatred for Mr. Obama. 

In short they are totally beside themselves running in the same huge endless circle looking for something to jerk. But, even to do that, would make them seem like a pervert (at least when we hear them spout their biologically unsound reasoning). 

And, of course, we all know that more, not less, guns will make us all much healthier, too.

GOP and NRA Idea Wet Dream: Arming Americans to the Teeth

Guns in Bars, on Campus, in Church - Hell Everywhere ... Helps Keep Us Safe ...

Great piece from Mother Jones here ... in part:

In the wake of the Newtown massacre in December, lawmakers in nearly every state in the nation have introduced gun legislation, either to strengthen gun controls or push back against them. There has also been a flurry of activity in local jurisdictions. Some of the proposals fall into the category of reasonable policy ideas, while others just seem to fire wildly, in both political directions. Here are 10 of them - the first two are my favs:

Glocks and gimlets (and I add: God):

Allowing guns in bars has become something of a trend lately. A bill introduced in South Carolina would legalize concealed carry in bars and void the current law punishing the same with a fine of up to $2,000 or three years in jail. Gun owners would be required to remain sober, but the prospect of patrons packing heat in places where alcohol and attitudes mix remains worrisome, especially as self-defense laws grow increasingly lax.

Another bill awaiting approval from the state Senate in Georgia would allow guns in bars and churches.

K-12 teachers packing heat: Never mind that recently armed guards in schools have forgotten their guns in restrooms and fired them by mistake: Lawmakers in at least six states have pushed bills since Newtown to allow K-12 teachers to carry guns. A few school districts around the country already allow teachers to carry them; in early March, South Dakota became the first state to sign into law a bill explicitly giving all its teachers the right to do so.

In a word: i n s a n e by any other name is still insane.

Repository for Most GOP Ideas, Plans, and Opinions

              A Little Humor Goes a Long Way Even for Republicans in Congress

Prior to the 2012 election and continuing until today, the GOP has laid out their road map for the future, saying as they always do:

"That more taxation, regulation, and litigation will not create more jobs. Government takeovers of the economy have failed while the size and the scope of the federal government has exploded. Washington has tied the hands of small business owners and job creators with onerous regulations and backward fiscal policies that have stalled the economy, slowed innovation and destroyed jobs. We need common sense, pro-growth policies to give small businesses and entrepreneurs renewed confidence in our economy and to remove Washington as the roadblock to job creation."

That claim and others can be reviewed here;

However, having followed them closely during that election cycle and ever since it's easy to reach the conclusion that most of their ideas, plans, proposals, recommendations, hunches, etc., are drawn from the location depicted above, hence the humor angle. 

Sadly, no one is laughing at their tactics that they have used ever since, since cooperation and compromise are two words that do not exist in their lexicon.

Added to the mix is the fact that they elect people to Congress who are as harsh as or more harsh than most we are accustomed to (e.g., Sen. Rand Paul (KY) and Ted Cruz (TX) and a few other extremists bent on a platform of non-cooperation).

Health Care Still May Not Work and Here's Partly Why Not

The Bottom Line is Stated Right Here: Medical Costs — The Bills

Introduction to the article here that journalist, author/and health care researcher Steven Brill states in part this way:

Taken as a whole, these powerful institutions (hospitals) and the bills they churn out dominate the nation’s economy and put demands on taxpayers to a degree unequaled anywhere else on earth. In the U.S., people spend almost 20% of the gross domestic product on health care, compared with about half that in most developed countries. Yet in every measurable way, the results our health care system produces are no better and often worse than the outcomes in those countries.

Further, from Brill's study is seen here and it reveals  "... the plight of patients in this system: "They are powerless buyers in a seller's market where the only sure thing is the profit of the sellers."

Brill astutely cites specific examples of out-of-whack prices charged to real patients that illustrate his observations.

•  $1.50 for 325 mg of acetaminophen (generic Tylenol). For one penny less, you can buy 100 of those pills on Amazon.com, Brill found

•  $283 for a chest X-ray compared to the $20.44 Medicare pays

•  $199.50 for a blood test on which Medicare would spend just $13.94

•  $7 for an alcohol prep pap when a 200-count box retails for $1.91

There are many, many more examples in the article drawn for the medical bills of seven individual patients Brill studied and, in some instances, interviewed.

Steven Brill appeared on the Charlie Rose Show (PBS, February 21, 2013) -- can be accessed here from Rose's page.

I agree with Brill's solution as many others have a long time:  We need "Medicare for All" (my term) -- a one payer, one billing agency, priced decently, and it works great.

GOP: Message, Image, Policy, or Hardnose Stance Problem

Pretty Graphic Graphic: Who is Paying Attention in the Grand Old Party????

This is very timely subject for discussion of a "make-over" for the GOP - a set of problems not made any better since 2012; perhaps even worse.

Some in the GOP say "We have to get our message out better," or "We need to clarify our message," or "We need better messengers," yada yada, yap, yap, etc., etc.

Actually, the GOP has a host of problems, which go much deeper than just their message, packaging, or delivery as the chart above clearly illustrates, and further explained in this segment.

As long as they stick to the same harsh message, no matter how it is packaged or delivered (even by new faces or their so-called "rising stars"), nothing is apt to change. In essence, clothes don't make the man as it were, and that aphorism is most fitting at this point in GOP history. 

Their shift so far right is ruining their party and that is a shame since that causes an unbalance to the whole idea of that most people have about us having two (at least two) strong viable and effective political parties, which today does not seem to be the case at all. We need two or more strong parties.

The GOP Response to the Economy and Minimum Wage Hike

The GOP Direction for the Economy and Fiscal Policy

GOP Response to Raising the Minimum Wage

First, GOP plans for the economy and a lot of other stuff... seen here in part - CAUTION: A bit scary - you are forewarned:

The new “red-state model” seeks to turn your state into Mississippi. The GOP has plans for a comeback. But it may cost you a lot. The idea is to capitalize on recent Republican state takeovers to conduct an austerity experiment known as the new “red-state model” and prove that faulty policies can be turned into gold.  There will be smoke. There will be mirrors. And there will be a lot of ordinary people suffering needlessly in the wake of this ideological train wreck.

We already have a red-state model, and it’s called Mississippi. Or Texas. Or any number of states characterized by low public investment, worker abuse, environmental degradation, educational backwardness, high rates of unwanted pregnancy, poor health, and so on.

And, I'd add: suppress the vote, or change the rules to ensure GOP (Red State) wins at any cost and believe me, it will cost plenty...

Second, the backdrop: During the State of the Union address (February 12, 2013), President Obama called for raising the minimum wage to $9 an hour, up from its current $7.25 (which has been stuck for years), and indexing it to inflation so that it rises as the economy grows.

If this increase were to happen, it would give the minimum wage its highest purchasing power since 1981, lifting millions of families above the poverty line. But (guess what), top Republicans are already coming out against it. More from here.

Further reading up on this subject can be found here and links therein.

The GOP - still stuck on stupid while trying to be the "new" party with "new" ideas and a "new" messages ... oops ...

GOP Election Strategy: Block the Vote, or Change the Rules

Rig the Vote - Only Way to Win. /s/ the GOP

If the GOP Gets Their Way for 2016

Even Bart knows Cheating is Wrong - He must not be a GOPer???

Original post follows these updates. This topic is finally starting to get much needed national attention as well it should.

Update (February 9, 2013) from National Journal here:

Update from Old Virginny via this news link. It takes us back to in time to the original 3/5 Compromise Era and this modern day one is just as ugly.

The original scheme - the Three-Fifths Compromise of 1787 - was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia convention that year. That scheme outlined a plan that said three-fifths of the enumerated population of slaves would be counted for representation purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the newly established House of Representatives.

Blacks then (most were still slaves) would only be counted as 3/5 of a person. Ironically,  now today the modern GOP wants all voters who are unlike them (normally vote Republican) to be also be counted as 3/5 of a valid voter (see chart above from the story). It is very graphic.

This update comes from TPM -- It sure seems like "momentum for an RNC-backed plan to rig blue state electoral votes in favor of GOP presidential candidates (as outlined below) appears to be stalling as more Republicans come out against the idea. Interesting turn of events for the party, what was it Gov. Jindal (R-LA) called them during his speech at the Winter Gathering? Oh, yeah, the "stupid party." What insight on his part.  

Two more updates to the story (which is below). The first is from nbcnews.com (the Rachel Maddow Show). It is quite good and timely (about 5 minutes), and can be seen here click here.

The second update also is from nbcnews.com here: I love the title: "The GOP’s new strategy: Rig the game."

The highlight of GOP plan, if we can call it a plan, is this:  A recent report by the Republican State Legislative Committee made the strategy explicit. “The rationale was straightforward. Controlling the redistricting process in these states would have the greatest impact on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn.”
The result?  Republicans so successfully drew the lines to their advantage that in order to win a House majority, Democrats would have needed to win the national popular vote by 7 percentage points, according to a report by the Center for American Progress just released.

Consider Pennsylvania, where the GOP won 18 House seats, despite losing the presidential vote by 5 percentage points. As Slate’s Dave Weigel put it after the election: “The state’s suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas have been rigged to be just outside the range where Democrats might win them.” It was a similar story in Ohio, where they won 12 of 16 seats, despite losing the presidential vote by 2 points, and in Michigan and North Carolina.

Original story here: Win anyway possible - just win, right, Mr. and Mrs. Gee Old Poops? Even "rig" an election - wow - that sends a real nice message to the world: the GOP plans to rig an election to win and admits it in public. This story underscores the problem(s) facing the Grand Old Party ... background here in part:

The Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus endorsed a Republican Party plan to rig future presidential elections by changing the way electoral votes are assigned. Under the Republican plan, GOP lawmakers in several states that supported the Democratic candidate for president in recent elections would stop awarding all of their electoral votes to the winner of the state as a whole, and instead award most of them one-by-one to the winners of individual congressional districts. In part because of widespread Republican gerrymandering, if Republicans had implemented this election rigging plan in six key states where they currently control the state government — Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin — Mitt Romney would have won the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote by nearly four points.

Efforts are already underway in several of these six key states to enact this election rigging plan and all but ensure that the next President of the United States is a Republican — regardless of how the American people cast their votes in 2016.

Seven Pennsylvania state house members introduced a bill implementing the GOP election rigging plan this week, and the plan already enjoys the support of Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) and state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R). A bill backed by Virginia State Senator Charles “Bill” Carrico Sr. (R) would implement the election rigging plan in Virginia. And Wisconsin Republican state Rep. Dan LeMahieu is behind an election rigging bill in his state. Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted (R) expressed support for the Republican election rigging plan, but he later backed off that support following significant criticism.

Now, the election-rigging plan is being considered in another one of the six key states, Michigan:  Continue here ...

The law of the land "one-man/one-vote" rule appears to be under consideration as "One-Party/One-Rule" at least for the GOP.  So, where is the outrage??? Funny, now some GOPers are turning against it - I wonder why?

A Woman's Constitutional Right Guaranteed — Nope — Says the GOP

What the People Want vs. What GOP Office Holders Want = The Exact Opposite

The GOP at mostly the RED state level is working hard to totally ban abortion and a woman's guaranteed constitutional right to have one even if she and her team of Ob-Gyn doctors say it's needed for medical reasons ... Mississippi is leading the GOP pack in the words of their Gov who said publicly, "Our goal is to ban abortions." Other states are following and it seems likely more RED-run states will follow suit.

Here is a updated rundown on the subject (about 11 minutes) ... it is one that every woman for whatever reason or whatever her political views are should pay close attention. Millions of women voiced the same poll view in the last election, but apparently the GOP is now totally deaf. 

The GOP's "war on women" is real and it is still alive, believe it. Keep in mind that if this guaranteed constitutional right that exists under Roe v. Wade is lost, then it's apt to be lost forever. That applies to any right -- once it is taken away or lost, it likely will never come back.

That is the message.

Off to Afghanistan (again) — Local Troops Back to Combat

Troops Coming and Going to Afghanistan

Story from the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration says it might leave no troops in Afghanistan after December 2014, an option that defies the Pentagon's view that thousands of troops may be needed to contain al-Qaeda and to strengthen Afghan forces.

The number of troops assigned to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan changes over time.  Numbers shown here are from current ISAF statistics as of the end of 2012.  This is a list of all ISAF forces. 

On a local note: 1st and 2nd Brigade Combat Team soldiers ready to leave Fort Drum for deployment.

Genuine concern or unnecessary hand-wringing plays a part in this troop redeployment decision dealing with the future of that country once we leave. For example, many think and hype the idea that what is at stake is the risk of Afghanistan's collapse and a return to the chaos of the 1990s that enabled the Taliban to seize power and provide a haven for Osama bin-Laden and his al-Qaeda network. By all accounts, fewer than 100 al-Qaeda fighters are believed to remain in Afghanistan, although a larger number are just across the border in Pakistani sanctuaries. So, are they waiting for us to leave before they come back in strength and regain a country for their base of operations, or not?

Time will tell, but what the future holds is up to the Afghan people - they have to step forward and take control and not allow that to happen. We have been there long enough. We have done what we can and we have spent billions and lost thousands in American blood. It should not be a waste.

Over the cliff, drown the drain, or new status quo (same old crap)

Over the Proverbial Cliff

At the Wheel (guess who)

Major Updates Follow the Senate Action and Vote (December 31, 2012): Basic, raw message to America from the GOP: "HAPPY (just kidding) NEW YEAR ..."

Here is what is pending if the House passes the Senate portion now at hand: lawmakers will face three more budget deadlines over the next three months. Get ready for the debt ceiling, the sequester part II and the continuing resolution. Read about the three more cliff-like deadlines over the next three months here from CNN Money.

The biggies:

1. Debt Ceiling: Congress has to raise the debt ceiling soon.

2. Sequester: The so-called sequester is a series of automatic cuts in federal spending that will reduce the budgets of most agencies and programs by 8% to 10%. (Those cuts are in place since Congress failed in their sworn duties last year as they passed the buck to the "super" committee - remember that).

3. Continuing Budget Resolution: The federal government works on a fiscal year that starts every Oct. 1. Problem is it has been years since it actually enacted a real budget on time.

The Senate bill, now pending in the House, contains these things listed here also from CNN Money.

The part I love, which Mr. Obama caved on, is the new definition of "rich" - kind of weakly explained here again also from CNN Money.

Reading this may make you sick, even as we start a new year ... pathetic, isn't it? So, what is rich in America from now on?

Couples making more than $450,000 - the new rich: That's a lot higher than the $250,000 threshold that policy makers had long marked as the dividing line between the middle class and the rich. Just under 2% of filers, or 2.85 million, have adjusted gross incomes above $250,000. By contrast, only 0.6% of joint filers, or 965,000 households, have incomes above $500,000, according to the closest estimate the Tax Policy Center has done to the fiscal cliff deal. Raising the bar cuts out about 28% of the income that would have been subject to higher tax rates, bringing in less revenue overall.

This is the part the GOP, drinking a ton of Kool Aid behind the wheel (let's hope it's not spiked with gin), will fight hard for: cutting "free stuff" and those darn entitlement programs that millions of us enjoy and have earned - a point the GOP seems to have forgotten. Stay tuned.

Previous Update Starts Here (December 20, 2012): Speaker Boehner cancels Plan B vote - calls for House to recess for Christmas. Boehner's Christmas dinner back in Ohio? COOKED GOOSE.

The GOP-mobile is in deep trouble, yet they won't admit it as the blame continues while they make this offer - no real offer at all:

Last week, Speaker Boehner (R-OH) in a letter to President Obama laid out the basic parameters of what his GOP caucus would be willing to accept — (1) pushing up the retirement age for Medicare, (2) reducing the growth of Social Security benefits, and (3) closing tax loopholes to raise a modest amount of revenue.

He might as well  saved his letter and the paper and used  it in the washroom ... that's about all it's worth (asswipe). Why? It sill allows the top to run the country or in so many cases, continue to ruin the country as they sit high on the proverbial hog.

What do we face - my read on this is:

The federal budget will shrink dramatically between 2012 and 2013 if the laws governing revenues and spending remain largely unchanged. With no action, that sharp reduction in the deficit would slow the economy dramatically, likely creating a mild recession in 2013. Even under that scenario the economy will not go over a cliff and immediately plunge into another Great Recession in the first week of January 2013.

What will likely happen?

1.  Most households will begin to receive somewhat smaller paychecks due to higher income tax rates and the expiration of the payroll tax cut, but the impact on their cash flow would play out over the year rather than being concentrated in January.

2.  A serious need for bipartisan support for extending most of the middle-income tax cuts through 2013.

3.  A temporary expiration of the tax cuts on consumer spending is likely to be modest.

4.  The likelihood that lawmakers will end up extending them retroactively to January 1, 2013 if they have not acted by New Year’s Day is slim.

The greater danger is that misguided fears about the economy going over a “fiscal cliff” into another Great Recession will lead policymakers to believe they have to take some action. No matter how ill conceived and damaging to long-term deficit reduction that action could be balanced that promotes fiscal stabilization is the solution and that includes tax hikes on the rich.

Along the way, Lest, We Forget 2008, Redux, Maybe???

1.  Implosion of investment bank Lehman Brothers followed by massive borrowing from the Fed (and the public) followed by Goldman Sachs getting $600 billion; then Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, and Merrill Lynch: $2.6 trillion. Then it got worse.

2.  Loose regulations coupled with little or no oversight of current regulations brought on the battle over how much CEOs would keep in bonuses, even as they got bailout money from the taxpayers. Then things went even further south.

3.  Hedge funds(multi-millionaires) along with mutual fund managers, all lined up to get their cut of the handouts.

4.  Investors borrowed $71 billion like from the California Public Employees Retirement System (largest in the country), and even the Major League Baseball Players Pension Plan took a hit.

5.  On top of all that, the FED ended up giving some $7.7 trillion under the table more or less to the banks.

President Obama was reelected and his fiscal stance was clear. Many, if not most, of the GOP still has not gotten the memo, or if they got it, they can't figure it out. Thus, I offer this addendum: The country is watching and if there is any blame to go around once this mess is settled, I suggest you avoid any mirrors in the room.

Legalized Criminal Undermining of Our Political System

Where Are the Courts on this Issue

This story is posted here as reported on by Lee Fang (The Nation) November 29, 2012:

The "American" in American Petroleum Institute, the country’s largest oil lobby group, is a misnomer. As I reported for The Nation in August (see link below at end of this post) the group has changed over the years, and is now led by men like Tofiq Al-Gabsani, a Saudi Arabian national who heads a Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Aramco) subsidiary, the state-run oil company that also helps finance the American Petroleum Institute. Al-Gabsani is also a registered foreign agent for the Saudi government.

New disclosures retrieved today, showing some of API’s spending over the course of last year, reveal that API used its membership dues (from the world’s largest oil companies like Chevron and Aramco) to finance several dark money groups airing attack ads in the most recent election cycle.

Last year, API gave nearly half a million to the following dark money groups running political ads against Democrats and in support of Republicans:

•  $50,000 to Americans for Prosperity’s 501(c)(4) group, which ran ads against President Obama and congressional Democrats.

•  $412,969 to Coalition for American Jobs’ 501(c)(6) group, a front set up by API lobbyists to air ads for industry-friendly politicians, including soon to be former Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA).

•  $25,000 to the Sixty Plus Association’s 501(c)(4), which ran ads against congressional Democrats.

Jack Gerard, the president of API, was a close ally to the Mitt Romney campaign. Like the US Chamber of Commerce, API is one of several large trade associations that has spent heavily in support of Republican candidates.

The disclosures also show that in 2011, API spent over $68 million for public relations/and advertising with the firm Edelman, $5.4 million on “coalition building” with the firm Advocates Inc, and $4 million with DDC Advocacy for “advocacy.” DDC is the firm led by Sara Fagen, the former Bush White House aide ensnared in the DOJ purges scandal. DDC now works with corporations to help them communicate with workers on how to vote.

API’s Saudi leadership is perhaps one of the most salient examples of how the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has opened the door to foreign influence.

For many years, trade associations like API courted foreign businesses to forge industry-wide lobbying coalitions. But because of a court decision in 1990 (Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce), trade associations could participate in elections only by spinning off regulated political action committees, subject to strict disclosure and contribution limits. The foreign leadership of trade associations had a clear firewall against interfering in American elections.

Chief Justice John Roberts and the conservative court changed that. The court’s decisions in 2007 (Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC) and 2010 (Citizens United v. FEC) to deregulate soft money allowed trade associations to behave akin to campaign committees, funneling corporate cash to attack ad and electioneering efforts — except without the disclosure requirements. That cleared the way for a substantial loophole.

A foreign national cannot administer a Super PAC or candidate committee, but they can run a trade association like API that can now run candidate ads or finance third party campaign efforts.

The foreign corporate money given to a trade association, from a Saudi oil firm or a French chemical company, for example, can now find its way into an attack ad. The lobbyists and companies, and perhaps many of the politicians, know where the money for the ads is coming from — but the American people have no clue.

For more on API's cash game, check out Lee Fang's August report.

My F/N on API: It is also a major political spender, and has created numerous front groups to advance its political agenda. It also funds groups like Americans for Prosperity and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

If there were ever a time for public outcry, now would be that time. Oddly enough, the public in general is not moved by these stories and potential impact on our entire electoral process -- why is that?

Social Security Does Not Add to the Deficit, Not One Dime

October 7, 1984: Presidential Debate, Louisville, KY

Don't take my word for it that Social Security does not add one thin dime to the budget deficit, or help balance any budget.

Just listen to the Old Gipper in his own words seen and heard at the 1-minute mark in this 7-minute segment from Politics Nation (NBC News).

Mr. Reagan probably could not run as a GOP today holding that same view. That is how much the GOP has changed since and drifted off the path of reality since his days in office. Pathetic, isn't it?

It is not just on this issue, but on a host of other issues and problems the country faces. The GOP attitude is simple: "Things have to be our way, or no way, or the highway."

Oh Lord it's hard to be humble when you're perfect in every way

  The GOP still wonders what happened in 2012.   This kinda helps explain it. But, who in the GOP is listening, really. Not the hardliners; not the deeply-entrenched DC insiders; not the GOP consultants (who earn big bucks); and surely not the old timers stuck in the Twlight Zone. 

The GOP is living in the 21st Century with 19th Century survival tools. Their house is a 1950's bomb shelter with cobwebs and canned food already spoiled.

Lead from the Top: Whoops. Where is the Top

Try and Keep Up ... (chart from Hardball)

Chris Matthews (Hardball) does a pretty good job of setting up this story, and his guests explain is pretty well, too.

B/L: Nothing criminal it looks like at this point. A lot of embarrassment and food for the sex scandal crowd, but that's about it (thus far). Petraeus was right to step down -- he is the head of CIA and thus via that affair with Mrs. Broadwell, would have been subject to blackmail ... he did the right thing ... this story is still not fully told or understood.

Next the Pols will wade in (and some are already via FOX) to show Obama the blame, etc. etc. But, there are no zebras in that forest. A sex scandal - that's about it.

Stay tuned.

Social Security 77 Today: Hope you make it to 78

FDR Signs Social Security Law, 1935

Romney-Ryan Solution for Tomorrow

We can see how effective Social Security has been from all sorts of data, like from here:

Today marks the 77th anniversary of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signing the Social Security Act into law, creating arguably America’s most successful social program.

“We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age,” FDR said on that day.

Then we can compare that with the untested plan Romney-Ryan wants, like this:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Paul Ryan has long wanted to let Americans invest part of their Social Security taxes in private investment accounts. After legislation he co-sponsored in 2005 went nowhere, Ryan included a detailed plan to privatize Social Security in his budget proposal in 2010. Under that plan, he would allow workers to funnel an average of roughly 40% of their payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts.
Mitt Romney, who chose Ryan as his running mate, has also voiced his support for private accounts. He said he likes the idea of allowing people to put some of their funds in accounts with higher returns than Social Security, adding: "Personal accounts will be a big plus." (A town hall meeting in 2007).

Lately, however, neither Ryan nor Romney have said much about private Social Security accounts lately. In fact, Ryan dropped it from his more recent budget proposals, while Romney doesn't mention it on his campaign Web site.

Why is that do you suppose? A wait and see game that will allow it to become a stealth issue for after they win? I don't think so.