Today, my paper, the Albuquerque Journal, put the conviction of corrupt Republican Senator Ted Stevens on the last page of the front section. Where did your paper put the story? Last night CBS and NBC featured the story.
This is important. This kind of corruption is not only history making, but our media need to feature public governmental corruption in order to keep public informed and the system honest.
For only the fifth time in history a sitting Senator of the United States became a convicted felon. In fact, Republican Senator Ted Stevens was convicted of seven felonies. He was the senior U.S. Senator, the longest serving senator, the ranking member and former chairperson of the most important Senate committee, the appropriations committee.
It is the committee that controls all spending bills and all earmarks. Earmarks are those spending appropriations which are never debated by the legislature. This Senator had more to say about money matters than any other Republican. People owed him! He had incredible power.
That he was beyond his time and out of touch was never in doubt. He most famously referred to the internet as a group of “tubes” in last year’s famous debate over net neutrality, coming down on the side of the big telecoms.
As chairman, he refused to allow Big Oil’s CEOs to be sworn in at a hearing (a singularly unique breach of custom). One now has to wonder why he would do such a favor for them. Did he get something in return?
He was one of the most arrogant of the famous club of one hundred millionaires.
More importantly, this man typified what is most wrong with our system of government. People fight, dig and scratch to become politicians, get elected, and, then, get rich. Common people like you and I sigh and scratch our heads, but the fact remains.
Whether mayors, county commissioners, city councilors, state or national legislators, these people almost always wind up living way beyond their meager salaries. With the Ted Stevens case, one source of their largesse is clearly revealed. Private corporations and/or business do them “favors.”
In this case $250,000 worth of improvements were done to Stevens’ home. He somehow was unaware that they had come for free.
Ladies and gentlemen, we need more investigation and reporting like this. Why? Simply put, to help keep our legislators honest.
If you think a friend might be interested in reading about the media's untold and underreported stories, forward this newsletter to them. I'll put them on my list.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, simply email mccannon@flash.net.
Have a great October 28th,
Bob
Winner: The Holroyd-Sherry Award for Excellence
in Media Education by the American Academy
of Pediatrics, Boston, October, 2008
Presenter, Media Educator, Consultant
www.bobmccannon.org
Co-President, Co-Founder
The Action Coalition for Media Education,
www.acmecoalition.org
2808 El Tesoro Escondido, Albuquerque NM 87120
mccannon@flash.net (505) 839-9702
Author, "Media Literacy/Media Education
Literature Review" in Children Adolescents
and Media, 2nd edition - college text, July, 2008
Executive Director, 1993 -2005
The New Mexico Media Literacy Project (founded 1993)
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Financial Crisis Review = Inadequate
The Sunday Journal, Money Section (on how we got into this financial mess) did NOT include most of the following information. I think readers deserve better.
In April I warned about the economic danger of hedge funds and associated financial instruments, most importantly called derivatives and credit-default swaps(CDS). Sadly, the warning was prophetic, and our economy is falling apart, and not because of problem mortgages. Bad mortgages we could have handled; hedge funds we are struggling with.
Interestingly enough, in our current financial catastrophe the mainstream news (MSN) still refuses to discuss the role of hedge funds, derivatives and CDS. More importantly, the Presidential candidates are not talking about them either.
There seems to be an unspoken agreement to blame mortgages and generalized "greed on Wall Street" as the cause of the current crisis which has caused the FED to throw almost two TRILLION dollars at the problem (and the end is not in sight).
The lack of information is ominous, closely resembling censorship. It is more than an untold story; it verges on information control. I follow the mainstream news, and I have only seen Obama mention hedge funds once and McCain not at all.
CBS nightly news has talked about hedge funds three times and NBC twice. Two weeks ago there was a Sixty Minutes story that was very detailed and informative about derivatives and CDS. That is not much news for a crisis that has run over a month. We should all be hearing repeatedly about hedge funds, derivatives and CDS.
Don't get me wrong. I am not absolving don't Fannie, Freddie and the other causes of our crisis, but I am saying that more important topics are not being discussed in the MSN.
Leverage should be a major topic around the proverbial water cooler. We should all be talking about mortgage instruments that were leveraged twenty to three hundred times in various kinds of derivatives and, then, INSURED by CDS. After all, leverage did cause the Great Depression.
I have been waiting for Sixty Minutes' information to be verified by a responsible MSN source, and yesterday none other than Alan Greenspan did so, and he pointed out how wrong he was to leave these investment banks unregulated.
What's the total exposure? Believe it or not; we are talking about 50-60 TRILLION DOLLARS worth of highly leveraged, possibly worthless paper. That is the reason the markets are in the crapper, and that is the reason banks are failing left and right. Hundreds of people sold these schemes, made fortunes and should be on their way to jail, but where is the news?
Again, it bears repeating that leveraging assets at the margin was the cause of the Great Depression and the reason for the creation of the SEC, the FDIC and the FED. This is worse that the savings and loan scandal of the 80's that saw over 747 banks close due to the same kind of greed.
In April I quoted the SEC chairman, William Donaldson, who was fired by George Bush for trying to regulate hedge funds and CDS. As he said, "They are totally unregulated." That is why, for example, CDS are called swaps. If they were called insurance, they'd be regulated. As I noted in April Warren Buffet, John Bogle and Robert Kutner all agree about hedge fund dangers.
Now, here is the 64 zillion dollar question: why are the politicians and their media lapdogs avoiding the hedge fund issue?
I really don't know. I can only speculate that the pigs do not want this trough regulated.
I might further speculate that they want our tax dollars to stabilize their feed lots, so they can continue to take huge leveraged risks (now with our money) and possibly make zillions more in the future (instead of going to jail). If you have a better idea, please email me.
Remember, according to the Wall Street Journal, last year the 30 top hedge fund CEOs made an AVERAGE of one BILLION dollars in just that one year.
This needs to be talked about. Congress is holding hearings on regulating hedge funds. Last night, again, neither CBS nor NBC went into significant detail about these complex financial instruments. Write/call your Congressperson.
In April I warned about the economic danger of hedge funds and associated financial instruments, most importantly called derivatives and credit-default swaps(CDS). Sadly, the warning was prophetic, and our economy is falling apart, and not because of problem mortgages. Bad mortgages we could have handled; hedge funds we are struggling with.
Interestingly enough, in our current financial catastrophe the mainstream news (MSN) still refuses to discuss the role of hedge funds, derivatives and CDS. More importantly, the Presidential candidates are not talking about them either.
There seems to be an unspoken agreement to blame mortgages and generalized "greed on Wall Street" as the cause of the current crisis which has caused the FED to throw almost two TRILLION dollars at the problem (and the end is not in sight).
The lack of information is ominous, closely resembling censorship. It is more than an untold story; it verges on information control. I follow the mainstream news, and I have only seen Obama mention hedge funds once and McCain not at all.
CBS nightly news has talked about hedge funds three times and NBC twice. Two weeks ago there was a Sixty Minutes story that was very detailed and informative about derivatives and CDS. That is not much news for a crisis that has run over a month. We should all be hearing repeatedly about hedge funds, derivatives and CDS.
Don't get me wrong. I am not absolving don't Fannie, Freddie and the other causes of our crisis, but I am saying that more important topics are not being discussed in the MSN.
Leverage should be a major topic around the proverbial water cooler. We should all be talking about mortgage instruments that were leveraged twenty to three hundred times in various kinds of derivatives and, then, INSURED by CDS. After all, leverage did cause the Great Depression.
I have been waiting for Sixty Minutes' information to be verified by a responsible MSN source, and yesterday none other than Alan Greenspan did so, and he pointed out how wrong he was to leave these investment banks unregulated.
What's the total exposure? Believe it or not; we are talking about 50-60 TRILLION DOLLARS worth of highly leveraged, possibly worthless paper. That is the reason the markets are in the crapper, and that is the reason banks are failing left and right. Hundreds of people sold these schemes, made fortunes and should be on their way to jail, but where is the news?
Again, it bears repeating that leveraging assets at the margin was the cause of the Great Depression and the reason for the creation of the SEC, the FDIC and the FED. This is worse that the savings and loan scandal of the 80's that saw over 747 banks close due to the same kind of greed.
In April I quoted the SEC chairman, William Donaldson, who was fired by George Bush for trying to regulate hedge funds and CDS. As he said, "They are totally unregulated." That is why, for example, CDS are called swaps. If they were called insurance, they'd be regulated. As I noted in April Warren Buffet, John Bogle and Robert Kutner all agree about hedge fund dangers.
Now, here is the 64 zillion dollar question: why are the politicians and their media lapdogs avoiding the hedge fund issue?
I really don't know. I can only speculate that the pigs do not want this trough regulated.
I might further speculate that they want our tax dollars to stabilize their feed lots, so they can continue to take huge leveraged risks (now with our money) and possibly make zillions more in the future (instead of going to jail). If you have a better idea, please email me.
Remember, according to the Wall Street Journal, last year the 30 top hedge fund CEOs made an AVERAGE of one BILLION dollars in just that one year.
This needs to be talked about. Congress is holding hearings on regulating hedge funds. Last night, again, neither CBS nor NBC went into significant detail about these complex financial instruments. Write/call your Congressperson.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Journal Ignores Merrill Lynch
The financial crisis in this country is getting serious. My local paper, the Albuquerque Journal devoted half of its front page today to a 14 year-old who got in a fight (the lead story) and an epileptic baby--sad enough, but we had TWO MORE MAJOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FAIL over the weekend! The failure of Merrill Lynch is not worth the Journal's front page.
The Feds are still pouring many billions of $$ into saving Bear Stearns, Fannie May, Freddie Mac, and several other failed institutions while the FDIC has said it expects over a hundred more banks to fail. A hundred more! (And all so sleazy bankers could make big bonuses giving out millions of sleazy loans!)
The Federal deficit is now over a half TRILLION dollars/year, yet both Presidential candidates say they want to cut taxes AND reduce Federal spending. Hello?? Anyone who has taken Econ 101 would ask "how?" We have a ton of debt and two expensive wars, and Afghanistan is fixing to get a whole lot more expensive.
The only way would be to borrow more from our enemies or print more money, which, BTW, the FED is doing. They call it "expanding the money supply."
Inflation just hit the highest level in decades--over 12% annually adjusted for a few months. At 12% you have to make 12% on your investments to break even.
Now, I actually taught Econ 101, and I agree with what the Journal said in its Sept. 14th article about inflation. Inflation is "too much money chasing too few goods."
However, the Journal did not say, and no commercial media is telling you the key fact. "Inflation is a TAX." The government spends money it does not have--inflating the money supply (yes, running the printing presses) to pay its obligations (wars, programs or payments on its debt), and, presto, your money will not by as much. You have been taxed! Politicians love inflation; it allows them to promise more stuff to the voters without "raising taxes."
This is not a partisan statement. It is an economic axiom. As Colbert would say. It is "truthiness."
Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, ask your candidates about the economic facts of life. Here are two articles that should have been on today's Journal front page.
After Frantic Day, Wall Street Banks Falter
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/business/15lehman.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Andrew Ross Sorkin, The New York Times: "In one of the most dramatic days in Wall Street’s history, Merrill Lynch agreed to sell itself on Sunday to Bank of America for roughly $50 billion to avert a deepening financial crisis, while another prominent securities firm, Lehman Brothers, said it would seek bankruptcy protection and hurtled toward liquidation after it failed to find a buyer. The humbling moves, which reshape the landscape of American finance, mark the latest chapter in a tumultuous year in which once-proud financial institutions have been brought to their knees as a result of hundreds of billions of dollars in losses because of bad mortgage finance and real estate investments."
Greenspan: Can't Afford McCain Tax Cuts
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26689925/
The Associated Press: "Alan Greenspan says the country can't afford tax cuts of the magnitude proposed by Republican presidential contender John McCain - at least not without a corresponding reduction in government spending. 'Unless we cut spending, no,' the former Federal Reserve chairman said Friday when asked about McCain's proposed tax cuts, pegged in some estimates at $3.3 trillion. 'I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money,' Greenspan said during an interview with Bloomberg Television. 'I always have tied tax cuts to spending.'"
If you think a friend might be interested in reading the media's untold or underreported stories, forward this newsletter to them.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, simply email mccannon@flash.net.
Have a great day,
Bob
Presenter, Media Educator, Consultant
www.bobmccannon.org
Co-President, Co-Founder
The Action Coalition for Media Education,
www.acmecoalition.org
2808 El Tesoro Escondido, Albuquerque NM 87120
mccannon@flash.net (505) 839-9702
Author, "Media Literacy/Media Education
Literature Review" in Children Adolescents
and Media, 2nd edition - college text, July, 2008
Executive Director, 1993 -2005
The New Mexico Media Literacy Project (founded 1993)
The Feds are still pouring many billions of $$ into saving Bear Stearns, Fannie May, Freddie Mac, and several other failed institutions while the FDIC has said it expects over a hundred more banks to fail. A hundred more! (And all so sleazy bankers could make big bonuses giving out millions of sleazy loans!)
The Federal deficit is now over a half TRILLION dollars/year, yet both Presidential candidates say they want to cut taxes AND reduce Federal spending. Hello?? Anyone who has taken Econ 101 would ask "how?" We have a ton of debt and two expensive wars, and Afghanistan is fixing to get a whole lot more expensive.
The only way would be to borrow more from our enemies or print more money, which, BTW, the FED is doing. They call it "expanding the money supply."
Inflation just hit the highest level in decades--over 12% annually adjusted for a few months. At 12% you have to make 12% on your investments to break even.
Now, I actually taught Econ 101, and I agree with what the Journal said in its Sept. 14th article about inflation. Inflation is "too much money chasing too few goods."
However, the Journal did not say, and no commercial media is telling you the key fact. "Inflation is a TAX." The government spends money it does not have--inflating the money supply (yes, running the printing presses) to pay its obligations (wars, programs or payments on its debt), and, presto, your money will not by as much. You have been taxed! Politicians love inflation; it allows them to promise more stuff to the voters without "raising taxes."
This is not a partisan statement. It is an economic axiom. As Colbert would say. It is "truthiness."
Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, ask your candidates about the economic facts of life. Here are two articles that should have been on today's Journal front page.
After Frantic Day, Wall Street Banks Falter
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/business/15lehman.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Andrew Ross Sorkin, The New York Times: "In one of the most dramatic days in Wall Street’s history, Merrill Lynch agreed to sell itself on Sunday to Bank of America for roughly $50 billion to avert a deepening financial crisis, while another prominent securities firm, Lehman Brothers, said it would seek bankruptcy protection and hurtled toward liquidation after it failed to find a buyer. The humbling moves, which reshape the landscape of American finance, mark the latest chapter in a tumultuous year in which once-proud financial institutions have been brought to their knees as a result of hundreds of billions of dollars in losses because of bad mortgage finance and real estate investments."
Greenspan: Can't Afford McCain Tax Cuts
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26689925/
The Associated Press: "Alan Greenspan says the country can't afford tax cuts of the magnitude proposed by Republican presidential contender John McCain - at least not without a corresponding reduction in government spending. 'Unless we cut spending, no,' the former Federal Reserve chairman said Friday when asked about McCain's proposed tax cuts, pegged in some estimates at $3.3 trillion. 'I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money,' Greenspan said during an interview with Bloomberg Television. 'I always have tied tax cuts to spending.'"
If you think a friend might be interested in reading the media's untold or underreported stories, forward this newsletter to them.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, simply email mccannon@flash.net.
Have a great day,
Bob
Presenter, Media Educator, Consultant
www.bobmccannon.org
Co-President, Co-Founder
The Action Coalition for Media Education,
www.acmecoalition.org
2808 El Tesoro Escondido, Albuquerque NM 87120
mccannon@flash.net (505) 839-9702
Author, "Media Literacy/Media Education
Literature Review" in Children Adolescents
and Media, 2nd edition - college text, July, 2008
Executive Director, 1993 -2005
The New Mexico Media Literacy Project (founded 1993)
Thursday, September 11, 2008
What Happened to 9-11?
How did your local paper treat today's anniversary of possibly the greatest catastrophe in U.S. history?
If you were living here in Albuquerque, depending on the Albuquerque Journal, you probably would not even know it was a special day.
Now, I must confess that I was jolted into action by an email from a friend who just wrote me and said, "I loved the Albuquerque Journal front page. 9/11 was not worthy of ANY mention on the front page??? But, luckily, we got to read about campaign signs and mountain lions. The Journal is so ****ed up." (I am sure she meant "messed" up.)
What does it say when the LEAD story in today's Journal was about some boys being sexually humiliated WEEKS ago? Yes, it was a sick tragedy, but, really, it was the Journal's third story about these poor kids, i.e., very old news. This sort of editing reminds one of the National Enquirer.
The Journal devoted almost a whole PAGE to Sarah Palin, but only a TINY mention on page seven about the anniversary of the date that has cost our country literally TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, THOUSANDS OF DEAD, a DEVASTATED ECONOMY and much more!
9/11 affects our lives in so many ways. Our bridges are ancient, falling down, and we don't have the money to fix them. Our electric transmission system is prehistoric; our schools are ineffective; we are sending $700 Billion to our enemies every year for oil. The list goes on. Economists call this opportunity cost--the cost of what we are giving up because of what we are spending on the war on terror.
If you were living here in Albuquerque, depending on the Albuquerque Journal, you probably would not even know it was a special day.
Now, I must confess that I was jolted into action by an email from a friend who just wrote me and said, "I loved the Albuquerque Journal front page. 9/11 was not worthy of ANY mention on the front page??? But, luckily, we got to read about campaign signs and mountain lions. The Journal is so ****ed up." (I am sure she meant "messed" up.)
What does it say when the LEAD story in today's Journal was about some boys being sexually humiliated WEEKS ago? Yes, it was a sick tragedy, but, really, it was the Journal's third story about these poor kids, i.e., very old news. This sort of editing reminds one of the National Enquirer.
The Journal devoted almost a whole PAGE to Sarah Palin, but only a TINY mention on page seven about the anniversary of the date that has cost our country literally TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, THOUSANDS OF DEAD, a DEVASTATED ECONOMY and much more!
9/11 affects our lives in so many ways. Our bridges are ancient, falling down, and we don't have the money to fix them. Our electric transmission system is prehistoric; our schools are ineffective; we are sending $700 Billion to our enemies every year for oil. The list goes on. Economists call this opportunity cost--the cost of what we are giving up because of what we are spending on the war on terror.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Journal Promotes Gambling
Gambling . . . Excuse me, I should use today's politically correct term, promoted by industry executives, lobbyists and legislators. "GAMING" is one of the largest industries in the U.S. It accounts for over $50 million in contributions politicians.
In fact, gambling is bigger than theme parks, the movie industry and outdoor sports. Actually, it is bigger than all of these COMBINED. It is so big and has such a huge media presence that we do not even question it any more--on the national or local scene.
Today's front page Albuquerque Journal story, "3 Groups Vying for State's Last Racetrack Liscense" filled a full page and a half of section A.
The writer, Charles Blount, touted the the economic BENEFITS of the proposed "racinos" again and again. Each "racino" would have 600 "state of the art" slot machines.
Unfortunately, Blount made NO attempt to point out the negative impact of injecting gambling into a small town NM community. He promoted the increase in jobs and the "annual economic impact" of the racinos ad nauseum, but REFUSED TO INFORM HIS READERS OF THE BALANCING NEGATIVE IMPACT OF GAMBLING.
Blount could have sought out some experts on gambling and included them in his story which painted such a positive face on gambling. I am not an expert, but the following have all been mentioned as negative and expensive impacts of introducing gambling to a community:
1) Less disposable income for community members who lose at the racino. The huge amounts generated by casinos has to come from individuals.
Most individuals in small town NM have precious little money they can afford to lose. For example, most New Mexicans cannot pay for their retirement.
2) Lost jobs at other businesses when community members have less disposable income to spend upon things like restaurants, home repair, health care, education, retirement, etc.
3) Increased crime and drug addiction associated with problem gamblers.
4) Increased tax burden upon community institutions that have to pick up the slack for the above (police, hospitals, agencies, etc.).
The Journal routinely neglects to honor the basic ethics of professional journalism, but this is a particularly egregious example of omission.
Sigh.
In fact, gambling is bigger than theme parks, the movie industry and outdoor sports. Actually, it is bigger than all of these COMBINED. It is so big and has such a huge media presence that we do not even question it any more--on the national or local scene.
Today's front page Albuquerque Journal story, "3 Groups Vying for State's Last Racetrack Liscense" filled a full page and a half of section A.
The writer, Charles Blount, touted the the economic BENEFITS of the proposed "racinos" again and again. Each "racino" would have 600 "state of the art" slot machines.
Unfortunately, Blount made NO attempt to point out the negative impact of injecting gambling into a small town NM community. He promoted the increase in jobs and the "annual economic impact" of the racinos ad nauseum, but REFUSED TO INFORM HIS READERS OF THE BALANCING NEGATIVE IMPACT OF GAMBLING.
Blount could have sought out some experts on gambling and included them in his story which painted such a positive face on gambling. I am not an expert, but the following have all been mentioned as negative and expensive impacts of introducing gambling to a community:
1) Less disposable income for community members who lose at the racino. The huge amounts generated by casinos has to come from individuals.
Most individuals in small town NM have precious little money they can afford to lose. For example, most New Mexicans cannot pay for their retirement.
2) Lost jobs at other businesses when community members have less disposable income to spend upon things like restaurants, home repair, health care, education, retirement, etc.
3) Increased crime and drug addiction associated with problem gamblers.
4) Increased tax burden upon community institutions that have to pick up the slack for the above (police, hospitals, agencies, etc.).
The Journal routinely neglects to honor the basic ethics of professional journalism, but this is a particularly egregious example of omission.
Sigh.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
The Missing Energy Solutions
For a week, I have been monitoring CBS and NBC's national news' coverage of the energy crisis. Each night they give us a "new record" in gas and oil prices, and "discuss" the controversy. Their debate is almost always framed as a choice between "drilling" and "conservation."
The networks go into "depth" (as much depth as sixty second TV news stories can) about the candidates positions on whether or not to drill in ANWR or offshore, or conserve. often mentioned is more "clean" coal (if such a thing exists) or more nuclear plants.
Shale oil, hydrogen cars, reporting on hybrid sales, and environmental stories are also covered along with the rare story on corn ethanol driving up the price of food. Along the way, we are subjected to interminable statements by industry "experts" who are usually lobbyists.
Now and then, one hears the words, "alternative energy sources," but they are seldom explored with any serious or persuasive intent, and of course, this whole charade is surrounded by oil company advertisements which tell us how Big Oil loves us and is looking out for our interests.
My local paper, the Albuquerque Journal, is no better. It ran a lead story on "NM's Energy Gurus (6-15-08)" and in a full page and a half of questioning our two Senators, who chair the Senate Energy Committee, the word "SOLAR" is only mentioned once (tangentially) and "WIND" not at all!
When the Senate refused to renew tax credits for solar and wind energy companies, the Journal put the story in Section C (6-18-08). Imagine that, with $4 gasoline the Senate will not renew solar and wind energy credits, and it is not a front page story!
Two week later (6-2-08) the Journal's front page story was "Public Says Drill." It highlighted only two solutions for our energy crisis, more drilling or conservation with nuclear and alternative energy mentioned only in passing. It mentioned drilling in ANWR three times.
Today's Journal article, "Time for Energy Debate?" gives readers the same old choices--drill more or conserve--not a word about renewable sources of energy.
What do you think?
Why do we see so little about alternative energy in our news?
Some say that if we had spent the $150 Billion economic "stimulus" package (that we borrowed) on wind and solar, instead of giving most of us a $600 check, we would be on our way to energy independence, building whole new industries with good jobs and employing legions of Americans for decades and lowering the price of oil.
Many scientists say there is enough solar power in NM to free the whole country from mideast oil. They say the same thing about wind in North Dakota.
Could Big Oil and Big Coal be tilting our news, both national and local? Are they afraid of energy sources that they cannot control?
Something to think about.
Have a great Fourth of July weekend.
The networks go into "depth" (as much depth as sixty second TV news stories can) about the candidates positions on whether or not to drill in ANWR or offshore, or conserve. often mentioned is more "clean" coal (if such a thing exists) or more nuclear plants.
Shale oil, hydrogen cars, reporting on hybrid sales, and environmental stories are also covered along with the rare story on corn ethanol driving up the price of food. Along the way, we are subjected to interminable statements by industry "experts" who are usually lobbyists.
Now and then, one hears the words, "alternative energy sources," but they are seldom explored with any serious or persuasive intent, and of course, this whole charade is surrounded by oil company advertisements which tell us how Big Oil loves us and is looking out for our interests.
My local paper, the Albuquerque Journal, is no better. It ran a lead story on "NM's Energy Gurus (6-15-08)" and in a full page and a half of questioning our two Senators, who chair the Senate Energy Committee, the word "SOLAR" is only mentioned once (tangentially) and "WIND" not at all!
When the Senate refused to renew tax credits for solar and wind energy companies, the Journal put the story in Section C (6-18-08). Imagine that, with $4 gasoline the Senate will not renew solar and wind energy credits, and it is not a front page story!
Two week later (6-2-08) the Journal's front page story was "Public Says Drill." It highlighted only two solutions for our energy crisis, more drilling or conservation with nuclear and alternative energy mentioned only in passing. It mentioned drilling in ANWR three times.
Today's Journal article, "Time for Energy Debate?" gives readers the same old choices--drill more or conserve--not a word about renewable sources of energy.
What do you think?
Why do we see so little about alternative energy in our news?
Some say that if we had spent the $150 Billion economic "stimulus" package (that we borrowed) on wind and solar, instead of giving most of us a $600 check, we would be on our way to energy independence, building whole new industries with good jobs and employing legions of Americans for decades and lowering the price of oil.
Many scientists say there is enough solar power in NM to free the whole country from mideast oil. They say the same thing about wind in North Dakota.
Could Big Oil and Big Coal be tilting our news, both national and local? Are they afraid of energy sources that they cannot control?
Something to think about.
Have a great Fourth of July weekend.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Journal needs to Take Econ 101
I teach history, economics and the media. Our media leave many issues "untold," so I have started this e-list, going to 500+ leaders, citizens and media. It is devoted to "untold stories"--information and viewpoints which are important, but covered inconsequentially in our media.
This week's example: For a year I asked the Albuquerque Journal to explore hedge funds. Friday, it finally gave front page attention to this topic with a woefully inadequate article.
Hedge funds are new and huge, probably the most powerful force on Wall Street, bigger than most global banks. Some days they comprise half of NYSE shares traded. They own about 40% of U.S. business.
They are profitable! The average salary of the top 25 hedge fund managers last year was $900 million; that's right -- almost a billion dollars for one year's work.
Warren Buffet, arguably the world's greatest investor, complains that most of these men are taxed at a lower rate than their secretaries.
Due to a legal loophole, hedge funds are completely unregulated (no hyperbole--completely!). According to George W. Bush's former SEC chairman, William Donaldson, this is a dangerous situation. Bush fired Donaldson for insisting that hedge funds, like banks, be regulated by the SEC.
Hedge funds take huge risks, sometimes with disastrous results. Much of our cascading subprime mortgage crisis involves hedge funds and speculators like Bear Stearns and the Carlysle group. It would be wise to remember the prime lesson of the Great Depression--unregulated speculation almost destroyed our economy.
How does this hurt you? Experts hired by CBS News have estimated that one third of today's oil price is the result of speculation, not supply and demand, causing inflation and higher prices for food, clothes and many other products.
Do you think gas will go to $5/gallon? If hedge fund managers and speculators can make money pushing the price that far, they will.
How could hedge funds hurt New Mexico? Corporations increasingly demand taxpayer subsidies as the price of doing business (Verde, Forest Covington, SunCal -- even local shopping center developers). The potential of a hedge fund takeover of these corporations could be a threat to New Mexico communities who give them tax money and bond guarantees.
To avoid responsibility, hedge funds often employ armies of lawyers to hide their ownership in interminable "layers" of fiscal instruments. Bill Moyers reported that hundreds of Florida nursing homes were taken over by hedge funds who reduced services to jack up profits, hurting many residents, killing some. The occupants' lawyers oftentimes cannot even find out who owns the nursing homes!
Note: none of the aforementioned information was in the Journal article!
Hedge funds are just one of many issues that the corporate media refuse to cover in any depth. The Journal did a series of detailed front page articles on beautifying the Big I interchange. Why not a series on TIDDS and SunCal? Why indeed?
One reason is that big corporations buy advertising and politicians. Ads pay the salaries of newspeople. Legislators' campaigns are financed by corporations. Politicians influence the content of the news.
This is nothing new. American history is replete with examples of business and politics buying media coverage.
Nonetheless, citizens need depth, context, and non-corporatized points of view, and now we have this new electronic tool that can provide such.
This week's example: For a year I asked the Albuquerque Journal to explore hedge funds. Friday, it finally gave front page attention to this topic with a woefully inadequate article.
Hedge funds are new and huge, probably the most powerful force on Wall Street, bigger than most global banks. Some days they comprise half of NYSE shares traded. They own about 40% of U.S. business.
They are profitable! The average salary of the top 25 hedge fund managers last year was $900 million; that's right -- almost a billion dollars for one year's work.
Warren Buffet, arguably the world's greatest investor, complains that most of these men are taxed at a lower rate than their secretaries.
Due to a legal loophole, hedge funds are completely unregulated (no hyperbole--completely!). According to George W. Bush's former SEC chairman, William Donaldson, this is a dangerous situation. Bush fired Donaldson for insisting that hedge funds, like banks, be regulated by the SEC.
Hedge funds take huge risks, sometimes with disastrous results. Much of our cascading subprime mortgage crisis involves hedge funds and speculators like Bear Stearns and the Carlysle group. It would be wise to remember the prime lesson of the Great Depression--unregulated speculation almost destroyed our economy.
How does this hurt you? Experts hired by CBS News have estimated that one third of today's oil price is the result of speculation, not supply and demand, causing inflation and higher prices for food, clothes and many other products.
Do you think gas will go to $5/gallon? If hedge fund managers and speculators can make money pushing the price that far, they will.
How could hedge funds hurt New Mexico? Corporations increasingly demand taxpayer subsidies as the price of doing business (Verde, Forest Covington, SunCal -- even local shopping center developers). The potential of a hedge fund takeover of these corporations could be a threat to New Mexico communities who give them tax money and bond guarantees.
To avoid responsibility, hedge funds often employ armies of lawyers to hide their ownership in interminable "layers" of fiscal instruments. Bill Moyers reported that hundreds of Florida nursing homes were taken over by hedge funds who reduced services to jack up profits, hurting many residents, killing some. The occupants' lawyers oftentimes cannot even find out who owns the nursing homes!
Note: none of the aforementioned information was in the Journal article!
Hedge funds are just one of many issues that the corporate media refuse to cover in any depth. The Journal did a series of detailed front page articles on beautifying the Big I interchange. Why not a series on TIDDS and SunCal? Why indeed?
One reason is that big corporations buy advertising and politicians. Ads pay the salaries of newspeople. Legislators' campaigns are financed by corporations. Politicians influence the content of the news.
This is nothing new. American history is replete with examples of business and politics buying media coverage.
Nonetheless, citizens need depth, context, and non-corporatized points of view, and now we have this new electronic tool that can provide such.
More Tabloidism Re: Richardson
Today the front page has an article about Tuesday's CNN appearance of Governor Richardson and political personality, James Carville.
This story uses terms tabloid terms like "duke it out," "face off," "showdown," and "political boxing match." The front page part of this article, continued on page 5, listed only negatives about Richardson. Oh well, so much for a Pulitzer.
But wait, it gets worse. In the "Metro and NM" section. The Journal place a current story (real news) about Richardson's upcoming trip to Venezuela to try and free 3 U.S. hostages from Columbian guerrillas. IS THIS A METRO STORY?
Which story should have been on the front page? A U.S. State Department coordinated humanitarian mission by an experienced diplomat who happens to be our governor or biased, gossip from a talk show?
This story uses terms tabloid terms like "duke it out," "face off," "showdown," and "political boxing match." The front page part of this article, continued on page 5, listed only negatives about Richardson. Oh well, so much for a Pulitzer.
But wait, it gets worse. In the "Metro and NM" section. The Journal place a current story (real news) about Richardson's upcoming trip to Venezuela to try and free 3 U.S. hostages from Columbian guerrillas. IS THIS A METRO STORY?
Which story should have been on the front page? A U.S. State Department coordinated humanitarian mission by an experienced diplomat who happens to be our governor or biased, gossip from a talk show?
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Shock Jocks Spotlight Journal SlimeFest
The J showed less integrity than a Hollywood tabloid and less honor than when it used maniacal shock jock Don Imus to criticize Bill Richardson (really, former lead story, front page).
Dragging out its designated slanderer, Leslie Linthicum (infamous for her unflattering two-part “biography” of the Governor), the rag’s front page bashed Bill Richardson for the THIRD day in ONE week—not with fact, not with real news--but with innuendo from another shock jock--that paragon of hysterical hyperbole, James Carville.
Surely, the front page could be used for something more newsworthy than the ravings of a man whose only job seems to be bald faced (or “headed” in his case) ad hominem in pursuit of ever more lucrative TV “commentary” jobs.
It might be lost on an unknowing reader that Carville has less credibility than Imus.
It might be lost on the uncritical J regular, that Bill Richardson is not only a good guy, but a good governor.
Dragging out its designated slanderer, Leslie Linthicum (infamous for her unflattering two-part “biography” of the Governor), the rag’s front page bashed Bill Richardson for the THIRD day in ONE week—not with fact, not with real news--but with innuendo from another shock jock--that paragon of hysterical hyperbole, James Carville.
Surely, the front page could be used for something more newsworthy than the ravings of a man whose only job seems to be bald faced (or “headed” in his case) ad hominem in pursuit of ever more lucrative TV “commentary” jobs.
It might be lost on an unknowing reader that Carville has less credibility than Imus.
It might be lost on the uncritical J regular, that Bill Richardson is not only a good guy, but a good governor.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Disrespecting our fallen soldiers
The front page lead stories for yesterday’s Journal (J):
-- the lead - UNM “close” to extending basketball coach’s contract (that should win a Pulitzer.)
-- two mayhem stories about murderers
-- yet another Richardson bashing – this one featuring “Judas” comments about his lack of loyalty for backing Obama and more crap from the Mayor
ON PAGE A-6 (no kidding), was the story commemorating the 4,000th death in Iraq. Heaven forbid that the J might have run a SERIES about the incredible cost in MEN (including 30,000 seriously wounded and unknown hundreds of thousands of Iraqis), not to mention TREASURE ($3 Trillion and counting – bankrupting this country)
On Monday, the J ran a small front page story about the 4,000th death, but larger and higher were stories about:
-- no increase in tuition at CNM (really - no increase is a front page story)
-- more bashing Bill Richardson - quoting the Mayor, etc., and the
-- LEAD STORY on Monday was (ready for this?) DNA testing your DOG - to find out his breeding makeup (I AM NOT KIDDING! - the lead story)
SOOO, that's how the J recognized the milestone of 4,000 brave men who have died in an absolutely useless war.
Whatta tabloid!
Now, compare that to the PBS Frontline commemoration of this momentous event.
This Frontline may have been the most impressive documentary I have ever seen. The number of sources and the careful construction of this four hour epic is incredible.
Even more amazing is the conclusion left with the viewer that basically three people conspired to create the rationale and atmosphere that led us to war and, then, the same triad completely screwed up the occupation.
History will hammer Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld who lied, circumvented the normal chains of command and, of course, manipulated poor, sad, ill-equipped George W.
What was amazing to me is the number of people in the administration and military willing to go on camera about this disaster.
I talked a normal "regular guy" type of neighbor into watching it -- his first Frontline -- he just sent me this reaction:
"If there were any justice in this World, they would try Cheney,
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz as war criminals. If I had a son or daughter
that got killed or injured in that %$#@ *&%$, I am not so sure that I could keep myself from hunting down one of those &%$#@."
If you did not see it, you might owe it to yourself as a citizen/media educator to find it and watch.
-- the lead - UNM “close” to extending basketball coach’s contract (that should win a Pulitzer.)
-- two mayhem stories about murderers
-- yet another Richardson bashing – this one featuring “Judas” comments about his lack of loyalty for backing Obama and more crap from the Mayor
ON PAGE A-6 (no kidding), was the story commemorating the 4,000th death in Iraq. Heaven forbid that the J might have run a SERIES about the incredible cost in MEN (including 30,000 seriously wounded and unknown hundreds of thousands of Iraqis), not to mention TREASURE ($3 Trillion and counting – bankrupting this country)
On Monday, the J ran a small front page story about the 4,000th death, but larger and higher were stories about:
-- no increase in tuition at CNM (really - no increase is a front page story)
-- more bashing Bill Richardson - quoting the Mayor, etc., and the
-- LEAD STORY on Monday was (ready for this?) DNA testing your DOG - to find out his breeding makeup (I AM NOT KIDDING! - the lead story)
SOOO, that's how the J recognized the milestone of 4,000 brave men who have died in an absolutely useless war.
Whatta tabloid!
Now, compare that to the PBS Frontline commemoration of this momentous event.
This Frontline may have been the most impressive documentary I have ever seen. The number of sources and the careful construction of this four hour epic is incredible.
Even more amazing is the conclusion left with the viewer that basically three people conspired to create the rationale and atmosphere that led us to war and, then, the same triad completely screwed up the occupation.
History will hammer Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld who lied, circumvented the normal chains of command and, of course, manipulated poor, sad, ill-equipped George W.
What was amazing to me is the number of people in the administration and military willing to go on camera about this disaster.
I talked a normal "regular guy" type of neighbor into watching it -- his first Frontline -- he just sent me this reaction:
"If there were any justice in this World, they would try Cheney,
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz as war criminals. If I had a son or daughter
that got killed or injured in that %$#@ *&%$, I am not so sure that I could keep myself from hunting down one of those &%$#@."
If you did not see it, you might owe it to yourself as a citizen/media educator to find it and watch.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Journal gives porn, not news
"That is why our press was protected by the First Ammendment, the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution, not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, NOT TO SIMPLY GIVE THE PUBLIC WHAT IT WANTS, but to INFORM, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion."
John F. Kennedy
The page one lead story on today's Journal is about a professor who sent porn to another, beneath the screaming headline, "NMSU Porn Investigation." The second lead is a fluff story about a 95 year-old basketball coach.
I am sure Kennedy is sighing, as are we.
John F. Kennedy
The page one lead story on today's Journal is about a professor who sent porn to another, beneath the screaming headline, "NMSU Porn Investigation." The second lead is a fluff story about a 95 year-old basketball coach.
I am sure Kennedy is sighing, as are we.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
What War?
Yesterday's Journal achieved a new record in its campaign to play down the war in Iraq so that we can avoid distractions and get to the important business of electing a Republican President.
Section A did not mention the war in Iraq. At all.
After all, there is nothing important about a war that has cost 4,000 U.S. lives and three trillion dollars so far. Is there?
Section A did not mention the war in Iraq. At all.
After all, there is nothing important about a war that has cost 4,000 U.S. lives and three trillion dollars so far. Is there?
Exxon vs Alaska: Before the Supreme Court, But Not in the Journal
Continuing Series: Stories not covered in any meaningful way by the Journal (J)
"I thought the most telling moment of the last seven years occurred last week when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was, literally, almost weeping that Exxon was being treated unfairly by a jury in Alaska."
James Carville, Meet the Press, 03-02-08
Interested? The Journal is not.
"I thought the most telling moment of the last seven years occurred last week when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was, literally, almost weeping that Exxon was being treated unfairly by a jury in Alaska."
James Carville, Meet the Press, 03-02-08
Interested? The Journal is not.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Silly Season: Journal Fluff Hits New High
The Journal must really be going broke because it is silly season on their front page.
Front page of the Journal (J) today:
- woman finds wallet (top article-above the fold)
- deaf basketball player
- man shoots himself twice?
- an Arizona law
Really, one must calmly assess the situation and ask, "IS THERE NO OTHER FREAKING NEWS OUT THERE?
Because of the J's headlong race to irrelevance, I am starting a new seriew: "UNTOLD STORIES." It will suggest stories that our ONLY "newspaper" might have put on its front page.
Today's suggestion: "The Human Toll Approaches 4,000: the 3,973 guys who have died in this senseless, unbelievably expensive war?"
Front page of the Journal (J) today:
- woman finds wallet (top article-above the fold)
- deaf basketball player
- man shoots himself twice?
- an Arizona law
Really, one must calmly assess the situation and ask, "IS THERE NO OTHER FREAKING NEWS OUT THERE?
Because of the J's headlong race to irrelevance, I am starting a new seriew: "UNTOLD STORIES." It will suggest stories that our ONLY "newspaper" might have put on its front page.
Today's suggestion: "The Human Toll Approaches 4,000: the 3,973 guys who have died in this senseless, unbelievably expensive war?"
Award! I made Kent Walz's Trash Can
Breaking news: I am in Kent Walz's trash can . . . yup, banished! How, you ask?
It took the Albuquerque Journal more than a week to write an article about the defeat of SunCal's TIDD bonding bill which would have funneled over $700 Million to the CA development company. So, I wrote this (the whole message):
"I note that it took the Journal a week to get out this news. (It takes such a long time for horses to make the trip from Santa Fe.) Or, if your into conspiracy theories, maybe they had to check with their SunCal masters."
Kent Walz, an editor wrote me the following (quoted exactly):
sun cal masters? really bob......you know better....your intellectual dishonesty is shocking. Don't bother to respond. You had your say. This is mine. In a time pressured world, i've added your emails to the auto delete category.
The satirical tone of my message and freedom of speech notwithstanding, I hit a major Walz nerve. His anger makes me wonder why. Hmmm . . . let's see.
As of Wednesday (with the death of the Tribune), the Journal now has a monopoly. Maybe the responsibility of being ABQ's only newspaper is stressing Kent out.
It took the Albuquerque Journal more than a week to write an article about the defeat of SunCal's TIDD bonding bill which would have funneled over $700 Million to the CA development company. So, I wrote this (the whole message):
"I note that it took the Journal a week to get out this news. (It takes such a long time for horses to make the trip from Santa Fe.) Or, if your into conspiracy theories, maybe they had to check with their SunCal masters."
Kent Walz, an editor wrote me the following (quoted exactly):
sun cal masters? really bob......you know better....your intellectual dishonesty is shocking. Don't bother to respond. You had your say. This is mine. In a time pressured world, i've added your emails to the auto delete category.
The satirical tone of my message and freedom of speech notwithstanding, I hit a major Walz nerve. His anger makes me wonder why. Hmmm . . . let's see.
As of Wednesday (with the death of the Tribune), the Journal now has a monopoly. Maybe the responsibility of being ABQ's only newspaper is stressing Kent out.
Time to Put an End to Corporate Welfare
This is a LTE from the Albuquerque Tribune, which, unfortunately, just died, leaving the Journal with a monopoly. It shows the kind of article that the Journal would never publish.
And the following in the light of announcements that Wachovia received $120 Million REFUND on $3.2 BILLION in profits and that there is a building in the Caymans that houses 12,000 corporate headquarters (Enron had 650 there), and more that HALF of US corporations paid NO income tax.
Tribune: It's time to put an end to corporate welfare
Sharon Kayne
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Albuquerque Tribune
In his recent column, Harold Morgan completely mischaracterized the purpose of state House Bill 51, which would require combined reporting for corporate income tax purposes.
In "Tax Hit Dodged," from Jan. 31, Morgan implies that Rep. Peter Wirth's bill would have had the effect of double-taxing multi-state corporations that do business in New Mexico through subsidiaries.
The truth is, mandatory combined reporting, or MCR, would allow the state to collect corporate income tax from companies that do business here but are currently not paying corporate income tax on their profits.
How do they get away with such a thing? We let them. We allow them to shield their New Mexico profits by shifting them to a "passive investment company," which is most likely nothing more than an office in Delaware.
Didn't make any profits in New Mexico? Then you don't owe us any corporate income tax payments. Sounds like a very good deal for the Wal-Marts and Sonics of the state. It costs the rest of us some $90 million a year in revenue lost through what is really just corporate welfare.
The state's Taxation and Revenue Department understands these things perfectly. That's why they took Wal-Mart and K-Mart to court a few years back and won multi-million dollar settlements.
The discount giants can't avoid paying income tax here by sending their profits out of state anymore, but other mega-corporations still can. Tax and Revenue is now looking at computer retailer Dell. Taking the big boys all to court is a slow and expensive way to make them pay up, but that's the only option the state has until the Legislature steps up.
Here is how MCR really works: it requires that a corporation doing business in more than one state "combine" its income from all states. A formula is then used to determine how much the corporation owes to each state. Every state west of the Mississippi that collects corporate income tax — except New Mexico and Oklahoma — requires combined reporting.
So while Sonic is allowed to pretend it doesn't make any money here, it's paying on the profits it makes in our neighboring states. So much for Morgan's assertion that MCR would kill New Mexico's chances of luring more big corporations to New Mexico, thereby stalling our economic development. It has hardly hurt California's economic development. Or Washington's. Or Oregon's.
As compelling a reason as that is, HB 51 is about more than collecting money that's due the state. It's also about equity. Corporations that do business solely in New Mexico can't take advantage of this tax setup.
That puts them at a competitive disadvantage. It also means that the bill for the public services these multi-state corporations use gets paid by the rest of us. Big corporations would hardly do business in New Mexico without services like police and fire protection, paved roads, access to utilities, even public education (an uneducated consumer is not likely a well-paid consumer).
As one local business owner put it, "You mean I have to pay to pave the road in front of my business and the road in front of Wal-Mart?" In essence, yes. In fact, we all do. The rest of us also have to either make up the $90 million the state fails to collect or we make do with fewer services.
Wirth has carried MCR legislation before, and we've always supported him. That legislation has also sought to lower the corporate income tax rate for everyone while still bringing in more revenue.
Morgan did get one thing right in his column: "HB 51 might rise again in this session."
We hope so. And when it does, we'll be in the room to support it. Because, really, a state with the second-highest poverty rate in the nation can't afford to dole out $90 million in corporate welfare.
Wayne is communications director for advocacy group New Mexico Voices for Children.
And the following in the light of announcements that Wachovia received $120 Million REFUND on $3.2 BILLION in profits and that there is a building in the Caymans that houses 12,000 corporate headquarters (Enron had 650 there), and more that HALF of US corporations paid NO income tax.
Tribune: It's time to put an end to corporate welfare
Sharon Kayne
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Albuquerque Tribune
In his recent column, Harold Morgan completely mischaracterized the purpose of state House Bill 51, which would require combined reporting for corporate income tax purposes.
In "Tax Hit Dodged," from Jan. 31, Morgan implies that Rep. Peter Wirth's bill would have had the effect of double-taxing multi-state corporations that do business in New Mexico through subsidiaries.
The truth is, mandatory combined reporting, or MCR, would allow the state to collect corporate income tax from companies that do business here but are currently not paying corporate income tax on their profits.
How do they get away with such a thing? We let them. We allow them to shield their New Mexico profits by shifting them to a "passive investment company," which is most likely nothing more than an office in Delaware.
Didn't make any profits in New Mexico? Then you don't owe us any corporate income tax payments. Sounds like a very good deal for the Wal-Marts and Sonics of the state. It costs the rest of us some $90 million a year in revenue lost through what is really just corporate welfare.
The state's Taxation and Revenue Department understands these things perfectly. That's why they took Wal-Mart and K-Mart to court a few years back and won multi-million dollar settlements.
The discount giants can't avoid paying income tax here by sending their profits out of state anymore, but other mega-corporations still can. Tax and Revenue is now looking at computer retailer Dell. Taking the big boys all to court is a slow and expensive way to make them pay up, but that's the only option the state has until the Legislature steps up.
Here is how MCR really works: it requires that a corporation doing business in more than one state "combine" its income from all states. A formula is then used to determine how much the corporation owes to each state. Every state west of the Mississippi that collects corporate income tax — except New Mexico and Oklahoma — requires combined reporting.
So while Sonic is allowed to pretend it doesn't make any money here, it's paying on the profits it makes in our neighboring states. So much for Morgan's assertion that MCR would kill New Mexico's chances of luring more big corporations to New Mexico, thereby stalling our economic development. It has hardly hurt California's economic development. Or Washington's. Or Oregon's.
As compelling a reason as that is, HB 51 is about more than collecting money that's due the state. It's also about equity. Corporations that do business solely in New Mexico can't take advantage of this tax setup.
That puts them at a competitive disadvantage. It also means that the bill for the public services these multi-state corporations use gets paid by the rest of us. Big corporations would hardly do business in New Mexico without services like police and fire protection, paved roads, access to utilities, even public education (an uneducated consumer is not likely a well-paid consumer).
As one local business owner put it, "You mean I have to pay to pave the road in front of my business and the road in front of Wal-Mart?" In essence, yes. In fact, we all do. The rest of us also have to either make up the $90 million the state fails to collect or we make do with fewer services.
Wirth has carried MCR legislation before, and we've always supported him. That legislation has also sought to lower the corporate income tax rate for everyone while still bringing in more revenue.
Morgan did get one thing right in his column: "HB 51 might rise again in this session."
We hope so. And when it does, we'll be in the room to support it. Because, really, a state with the second-highest poverty rate in the nation can't afford to dole out $90 million in corporate welfare.
Wayne is communications director for advocacy group New Mexico Voices for Children.
Making Progress Against Corporate Welfare
Kiss Senator Cisco
Full-on body hugs and kisses to State Senator Cisco McSorley.
The SunCal tax increment development district (TIDD) bill is dead after
his 45 minute fillabuster and vote appeal in the final moments of the
session. Sources say the bill was tabled after his talk and then
raised again by Senator Michael Sanchez in the final minutes before
noon. Cisco appealed the voice vote and the clock took care of the
rest. Sine Die.
I wanna know who voted for that bill too, though that wasn't the point.
At stake was the approval of $629 million in tax-paid bonds for one
corporation - for one developer, about 13 lobbyists and a bunch of real
and wanna-be land profiteers. Mental daggers to Cisco from them.
Some of these old school powers-that-be tried to get got Mike Murphy to
run against Cisco awhile back. He would have worked out better for
them. You remember Murphy - he has since been indicted for his role in
cash-skimming schemes on government construction projects. Ethics
schmethics.
Posted by Coco la Boca on Friday, February 15, 2008 in Politicos |
Full-on body hugs and kisses to State Senator Cisco McSorley.
The SunCal tax increment development district (TIDD) bill is dead after
his 45 minute fillabuster and vote appeal in the final moments of the
session. Sources say the bill was tabled after his talk and then
raised again by Senator Michael Sanchez in the final minutes before
noon. Cisco appealed the voice vote and the clock took care of the
rest. Sine Die.
I wanna know who voted for that bill too, though that wasn't the point.
At stake was the approval of $629 million in tax-paid bonds for one
corporation - for one developer, about 13 lobbyists and a bunch of real
and wanna-be land profiteers. Mental daggers to Cisco from them.
Some of these old school powers-that-be tried to get got Mike Murphy to
run against Cisco awhile back. He would have worked out better for
them. You remember Murphy - he has since been indicted for his role in
cash-skimming schemes on government construction projects. Ethics
schmethics.
Posted by Coco la Boca on Friday, February 15, 2008 in Politicos |
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
More Journal Pro-development Half Truths
OK, gang, It is official. For the next 40 years SunCal will get 30% of the county's sales taxes, 10% of the property taxes and 50% of the state sales taxes from the first phase (4,000 acres) of their 57,000 acre development on the West side (bigger than Las Cruces and Santa Fe combined).
Think about it, we are subsidizing the development of a CITY!
It is such a shame that the Journal has not taken seriously its responsibility to inform the public about the TIDDs subsidies in a timely and detailed manner. Instead of researching why many other cities are turning against TIDDS, including Las Cruces, they have blindly followed Journal owner Lang's develop-at-any-cost agenda by printing SunCal's talking points and half truths like the following in today's paper.
On Jan 23, 2008, the ABQ Journal said, "County economic development coordinator Daniel Gutierrez said no taxes would be taken from other entities, such as Albuquerque Public Schools or University of New Mexico Hospital."
This is, of course, a sad half truth. When you reduce the amount of money going to the state, which provides APS' funds, you reduce the money available to go to APS.
Sigh.
Think about it, we are subsidizing the development of a CITY!
It is such a shame that the Journal has not taken seriously its responsibility to inform the public about the TIDDs subsidies in a timely and detailed manner. Instead of researching why many other cities are turning against TIDDS, including Las Cruces, they have blindly followed Journal owner Lang's develop-at-any-cost agenda by printing SunCal's talking points and half truths like the following in today's paper.
On Jan 23, 2008, the ABQ Journal said, "County economic development coordinator Daniel Gutierrez said no taxes would be taken from other entities, such as Albuquerque Public Schools or University of New Mexico Hospital."
This is, of course, a sad half truth. When you reduce the amount of money going to the state, which provides APS' funds, you reduce the money available to go to APS.
Sigh.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Journal Backs Taxpayer Subsidized Developments in Spite of Water Shortage
Today the Journal(J) ran two articles about how great our water supply is. Last month (Dec. 3), the J ran a front page article that said ABQ’s water supply, “appears set for the next forty years.”
This, of course was no where near the size of, say, the recent huge front page article about Roger Clemen’s steroid problems, but, then, tabloids will be tabloids.
The water triad seems to be part of the J’s continuing propaganda effort to support massive, taxpayer subsidized developments in the ABQ area, the latest of which is the Sun Cal 55,000 acre TIDD giveaway (bigger than Santa Fe and Las Cruces combined).
Facts about our ABQ’s water supply:
1. We use 32 billion gallons/year from our aquifer which is dropping at 8 feet per year.
2. It has dropped so much that we could soon see major subsidence (sinkholes).
3. Our San Juan-Chama-Rio Grande water project, which cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, will supply 30 billion gallons/year.
4. A period of extended drought would create chaos, as farmers, other cities and Texas fought over the diminishing Rio Grande water.
If that happened, where would we get our 30 billion gallons/year? And, don't say this cannot happen. I has happened many times in the geologic past! Just look at Atlanta's desperate drought for a developer-created disaster.
In any case, we are STILL looking at continuing to draw down the aquifer by 2 billion gallons/year, even when SJ-C-RG water comes on line.
BUT, developers argue, “We will conserve more water.”
Drastic conservation measures have already cut our water consumption from 42 billion g/yr in the 90’s to 32 now. Obviously, there is a limit to how much we can conserve, and conservation happens in the face of challenges from new growth--homes and industry.
BUT, developers argue, “The aquifer will recharge itself.” According to the U.S. Geologic Survey, “Recharge happens very slowly.” According to the head of ABQ’s water conservation program, “I could not tell you how fast recharge will happen.”
Soooo, developers want to double the size of ABQ in 40 years, AND use our tax money to make growth happen faster, even though we live in a desert.
The gamble on conservation and drought notwithstanding, one has to ask, “What the hell will our kids do in forty years?”
This, like the national debt and government spending in general, seems to be just another example of greedy politicians supporting their corporate bedmates at the expense of our kids’ future.
Asking a city councilor or a county commissioner about this draws angry responses, but corporate welfare is still welfare.
Paranthetical question: why did Exxon get subsidies from the U.S. last year when it was the most profitable corporation in the world?
Sigh
This, of course was no where near the size of, say, the recent huge front page article about Roger Clemen’s steroid problems, but, then, tabloids will be tabloids.
The water triad seems to be part of the J’s continuing propaganda effort to support massive, taxpayer subsidized developments in the ABQ area, the latest of which is the Sun Cal 55,000 acre TIDD giveaway (bigger than Santa Fe and Las Cruces combined).
Facts about our ABQ’s water supply:
1. We use 32 billion gallons/year from our aquifer which is dropping at 8 feet per year.
2. It has dropped so much that we could soon see major subsidence (sinkholes).
3. Our San Juan-Chama-Rio Grande water project, which cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, will supply 30 billion gallons/year.
4. A period of extended drought would create chaos, as farmers, other cities and Texas fought over the diminishing Rio Grande water.
If that happened, where would we get our 30 billion gallons/year? And, don't say this cannot happen. I has happened many times in the geologic past! Just look at Atlanta's desperate drought for a developer-created disaster.
In any case, we are STILL looking at continuing to draw down the aquifer by 2 billion gallons/year, even when SJ-C-RG water comes on line.
BUT, developers argue, “We will conserve more water.”
Drastic conservation measures have already cut our water consumption from 42 billion g/yr in the 90’s to 32 now. Obviously, there is a limit to how much we can conserve, and conservation happens in the face of challenges from new growth--homes and industry.
BUT, developers argue, “The aquifer will recharge itself.” According to the U.S. Geologic Survey, “Recharge happens very slowly.” According to the head of ABQ’s water conservation program, “I could not tell you how fast recharge will happen.”
Soooo, developers want to double the size of ABQ in 40 years, AND use our tax money to make growth happen faster, even though we live in a desert.
The gamble on conservation and drought notwithstanding, one has to ask, “What the hell will our kids do in forty years?”
This, like the national debt and government spending in general, seems to be just another example of greedy politicians supporting their corporate bedmates at the expense of our kids’ future.
Asking a city councilor or a county commissioner about this draws angry responses, but corporate welfare is still welfare.
Paranthetical question: why did Exxon get subsidies from the U.S. last year when it was the most profitable corporation in the world?
Sigh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)