TomLoveTexas

Meet Mr. Immigration Law: Kris Kobach

2012-01-28T11:20:00.000-08:00

Kris W. Kobach is the Secretary of State of Kansas.[1] He is also currently of counsel with the Immigration Law Reform Institute in Washington, D.C.[2]

He is a former chairman of Kansas Republican Party and city councilman in Overland Park, Kansas. He ran unsuccessfully for Kansas's 3rd congressional district in 2004. In May 2009, he announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for Secretary of State.[3] In August 2010, he won the Republican nomination for Secretary of State in a three-way race, carrying 50 percent of the vote, and was elected Secretary of State in the general election in a 59–37 percent vote

Kobach graduated from Washburn Rural High School in Topeka, Kansas in 1984. Four years later, he earned an A.B. (summa cum laude) in Government from Harvard College, graduating first in his class in the Government Department. Subsequently, the Court of St. James awarded him a Marshall Scholarship, which allowed him to earn M.A. and D.Phil. degrees in Politics from Oxford University (in 1990 and 1992, respectively). He then returned to the United States and attended the Yale Law School, where he earned his J.D. in 1995[1][4] and served as an editor on the Yale Law Journal. During this time, he published two books: The Referendum: Direct Democracy in Switzerland (Dartmouth, 1994), and Political Capital: The Motives, Tactics, and Goals of Politicized Businesses in South Africa (University Press of America, 1990).
From 1995 to 1996, Kobach clerked for Judge Deanell Reece Tacha of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Lawrence, Kansas. He began his professorship at UMKC shortly thereafter.

In 2001, President George W. Bush awarded him a White House Fellowship to work for Attorney General John Ashcroft. At the end of the fellowship, he stayed on as Counsel to the Attorney General. Shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, he led a team of attorneys and researchers who formulated and established the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System. In addition, he took part in work to reshape the Board of Immigration Appeals in 2002. After his government service ended, he returned to UMKC, where he holds a chaired professorship

While running for Congress, Kobach represented out-of-state students (on behalf of Federation for American Immigration Reform) in a lawsuit against the state of Kansas, challenging a state law which grants in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. The suit was dismissed for lack of legal standing for the plaintiffs.[6]

In 2005, Kobach filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, challenging a similar law in California. In September 2008, the California Court of Appeal held that California's law granting in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens was preempted by federal law. (Martinez v. Regents, 166 Cal. App. 4th 1121 (2008)). In November 2010, the California Supreme Court unanimously reversed, finding that the law was not preempted by federal law.[7]

In 2010, Kobach filed a third lawsuit, this time in Nebraska.[8][9] The case is still pending.

>Kobach has also litigated several lawsuits defending cities and states that adopt laws to discourage illegal immigration. He served as lead lawyer defending the city of Valley Park, Missouri in a federal case concerning an ordinance that sanctioned employers who hire unauthorized aliens. The ordinance was upheld by Missouri federal judge E. Richard Webber on January 31, 2008 (Gray v. Valley Park, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7238).[4][5] The ACLU, representing the plaintiff, appealed the case to the Eighth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Kobach prevailed in the appeal, and the Court allowed the Valley Park ordinance to stand (Gray v. Valley Park, 567 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2009)).

Kobach is also the lead attorney defending the city of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, whose anti-immigration ordinances had been struck down by a federal judge in Pennsylvania and again before the Third Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.[10]

He is currently involved with another lawsuit, involving a Farmers Branch, Texas ordinance that prevents landlords from renting to illegal immigrants.[4] That case is on appeal before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Kobach played a significant role in the drafting of Arizona SB1070, a state law that attracted national attention as the country's broadest and strictest—at the state level—anti-illegal immigration measure in a long time, and has assisted in defending the state during the ongoing legal battle over SB 1070's legality.[11][12][13] On February 7, 2008, Federal Judge Neil V. Wake ruled against a lawsuit filed by construction contractors and immigrant organizations who sought to halt a state law that imposes severe penalties on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.[4][5] The plaintiffs appealed the ruling, but Arizona prevailed (with Kobach's assistance) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Chicanos por law Causa v. Napolitano, 558 F.3d 856 (2009)). The case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Kobach was also credited as a primary author of Alabama HB 56, passed in 2010, which has been described as tougher than Arizona's controversial law. Alabama State Senator Scott Beason and Representative Micky Hammon met Kobach at an Eagle Forum of Alabama conference in Birmingham. They worked closely with Kobach to draft the bill so that it would survive judicial review.[14]

In the 2004 election cycle, Kobach was the Republican nominee for Congress in the 3rd District, besting primary opponents Adam Taff and Patricia Lightner (Taff had previously lost the 2002 election for the same office to Dennis Moore,[15] and Lightner was a six-year veteran state legislator).[15]

He lost to incumbent Dennis Moore, 55%–43%. The victory was the largest of Moore's congressional campaigns.

The campaign thrust Kobach onto the national stage, mostly due to his stances illegal immigration issues and campaign contributions he received from groups reportedly tied to white supremacists.[5][16][17][18][19] He was given a speaking role on the opening day of the 2004 Republican National Convention and used his slot to call for the U.S. military to be sent to the Mexican border to block illegal immigration.[20]

On May 26, 2009, Kobach announced his candidacy for Kansas Secretary of State. His opponents in the Republican primary were Shawnee County Election Commissioner Elizabeth Ensley and J.R. Claeys, former president of the National Association of Government Contractors. Kobach won the Republican nomination with 50.6% of the vote. Ensley and Claeys finished with 27.0% and 22.4%, respectively.[24]

On November 2, 2010, Kobach defeated incumbent Democrat Chris Biggs, 59%–37%. Kobach was endorsed by former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson, as well as former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft (his former boss at the Dept. of Justice). Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio campaigned for Kobach as well.[25]

Kobach's treasury secretary, Tom Aprke, was accused of hiding campaign contributions and expenditures

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kris_Kobach

References

1.^ a b c d "Kris W. Kobach". University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law. Retrieved July 20, 2009.[dead link]
2.^ "Immigration Law Reform Institute Attorney's Page". Immigration Law Reform Institute. Retrieved July 20, 2009.[dead link]
3.^ Carpenter, Tim (May 26, 2009). "GOP primary assured". Topeka Capital-Journal. Retrieved May 28, 2009.
4.^ a b c d e Lawyer Leads an Immigration Fight ,Monday, July 20, 2009, Online edition http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/21lawyer.html?_r=1&hp
5.^ a b c d "The Nativists: Kris Kobach, 41 – Kansas City, MO". Southern Poverty Law Center. Spring, 2008. Retrieved July 25, 2009.
6.^ Maines, Sophia; Rothschild, Scott (September 28, 2006). "Immigrant tuition law on trial". Lawrence Journal and World News. Retrieved July 25, 2009.
7.^ California Supreme Court Upholds § 68130.5’s Resident Tuition Payment for Illegal Aliens; Deems Federal Immigration Statutes Non-Preemptive, November 15, 2010, accessed January 11, 2012
8.^ Don Walton, "Immigration lawyer says lawsuit isn't politics" Lincoln Journal Star, January 10, 2010, accessed February 23, 2010
9.^ Mary Sanchez, "Kobach is still at it on tuition crusade" The Kansas City Star, January 27, 2010, accessed February 23, 2010
10.^ New York Times, Sunday, February 10, 2008, p.(A)22
11.^ O'Leary, Kevin (April 16, 2010). "Arizona's Tough New Law Against Illegal Immigrants". Time.
12.^ Schwartz, John; Archibold, Randal C. (April 28, 2010). "A Law Facing a Tough Road Through the Courts". The New York Times: p. A17.
13.^ "Why Arizona Drew a Line" OpEd by Kobach, The New York Times, April 28, 2010 (April 29, 2010 p. A31 NY ed.). Retrieved April 29, 2010.
14.^ Talbot, George (16 October 2011). "Kris Kobach, the Kansas lawyer behind Alabama's immigration law". Mobile Press-Register.
15.^ a b Humphreys, Zachary; Kropf, Martha (May 2, 2005). "The Road to Congress 2004 – Ch 3: Hustle, Attention, And a Little Bit of Luck: Moore Defeats Kobach in Kansas Third Congressional District". Nova Science Publishers. Retrieved July 25, 2009.
16.^ Election 2004 Coverage, The Washington Post (November 4, 2004). "Election 2004 State Roundup – The Plains". Washington Post. Retrieved July 25, 2009.
17.^ Moon, Chris (October 24, 2004). "Iraq war, taxes and health care drive 3rd District race". Topeka Capital-Journal. Retrieved May 28, 2009.
18.^ Zeskind, Leonard (September 23, 2004). "Kris Kobach loads up with anti-immigration ammo". Kansas City Pitch. Retrieved July 24, 2009.
19.^ Bulkeley, Deborah (February 25, 2006). "Foe of immigrant tuition denies supremacist links". Deseret News: pp. B.01. ISSN 07454724.
20.^ Blumenthal, Max (October 18, 2004). "Backlash on the border". Salon.com. Retrieved July 25, 2009.
21.^ http://cjonline.com/stories/073107/sta_188000024.shtml
22.^ http://cjonline.com/opinion/2010-06-16/letter_kobach_responds
23.^ http://www.hutchnews.com/Todaystop/C-1276048745-05
24.^ "2010 Kansas Republican Primary election results for Kansas Secretary of State", KMBC-TV Channel 9, Kansas City, August 4, 2010.
25.^ "Arizona sheriff Arpaio stumps for Kobach", Wichita Eagle and Kansas.com, July 14, 2010.
26.^ [kansas.watchdog.org/7620/kobachs-campaign-committee-to-face-ethics-civil-fine-hearing/ "Kobach's campaign committee to face ethics civil fines hearing"], KansasWatchdog.Org, September 29, 2011.
27.^ "Don MacRobert knows how to get ahead of the game", by Ronnie Apteker and John Vlismas, Business Report, May 25, 2007. Retrieved April 29, 2010.
28.^ "President Bush Appoints His First Class Of White House Fellows", White House Press Release, June 19, 2001. Retrieved April 29, 2010.
29.^ Campaign bio, Campaign Web site. Retrieved April 29, 2010.

[edit] External links
Secretary of State's website
UMKC Faculty Biography
Washburn Rural H.S. Alumni Hall of Fame
New York Times profile, 2009

Perry claimed retirement to collect extra state benefits on top of salary

2011-12-18T13:22:00.000-08:00

By CHRISTY HOPPE and TERRENCE STUTZ
Austin Bureau of Dallas Morning News: 16 December 2011

AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry claimed his retirement benefit from the state last January and has padded his salary with an additional $92,000 in taxpayer funds, financial disclosures filed in the presidential race show.

Under state law, Perry, 61, is eligible for retirement through his 25 years in public office coupled with his five years of military service. The supplemental pay boosted his state-paid gross income to $242,000 annually.

He was able to retire and continue in office through a quirk in state law provided for statewide elected officials. And while the double-dip benefit is available for other state employees, Perry has signed laws as governor that make it more difficult for others, especially teachers, to take advantage.

The revelation Friday immediately provoked rebukes from Democrats and teacher groups.

Texas Democratic Party spokesman Anthony Gutierrez pointed out that Perry claimed the benefit as the Legislature was slashing state spending to resolve a $23 billion shortfall. The brunt of the cuts was to public education, and school districts have laid off thousands of teachers.

“Somehow this Republican budget doesn’t have room to pay teachers, but they can give Rick Perry a $100,000 pay raise,” Gutierrez said. “If Perry wants retirement benefits, he should do us all a favor and actually retire.”

Perry was asked about the retirement benefits while campaigning in Iowa, where he has made cutting congressional pay part of his presidential agenda. He defended the “double-dipping,” of drawing full retirement and a full state salary as a common-sense decision that lies within state rules that have “been in place for decades.”

“As you reach that age you become eligible for it, so I don’t find that to be, you know, out of the ordinary,” Perry told ABC News. “It’d be rather foolish to not access what you’ve earned.”

Communications director Ray Sullivan said that the decision, first reported Friday by the Texas Tribune, was part of “his standard financial planning,” and that “the annuity is consistent with Texas state law and Employee Retirement System rules.”

Sullivan pointed out that the governor still has 6.5 percent of his $150,000 salary withheld to pay into the retirement system.

A recent study by Bloomberg News of states that allow employees to draw full retirement benefits while earning a full salary showed that at least 6,100 Texas employees are double-dipping at a cost of about $400 million in combined payments.

The costs have prompted new laws to make it harder for regular state employees and teachers to draw both a salary and a pension, all of which were signed by Perry.

In 2005, Perry signed a Teacher Retirement System bill that financially penalizes school districts that hire retired teachers receiving pension benefits. Basically, the law requires school districts — instead of the state — to pay pension and health care contributions for each retired teacher who is hired. That’s estimated to be about $5,100 a year.

School districts are also free to reduce the salaries of those teachers by that amount.

“The goal was to make it less attractive for school districts to hire retired teachers — and it has certainly worked,” said Ted Molina Raab of the Texas American Federation of Teachers, noting that school districts are hiring fewer retirees and many teachers are waiting longer to retire.

Clay Robison of the Texas State Teachers Association said the 2005 law and another law passed this year make it far more difficult for teachers to double-dip.

“We have a governor who is using government to stuff his pockets while demanding that everyone else make sacrifices,” Robison said.

This year, Perry signed another bill that will require teachers who retire to sit out for a year before they can return full time to the classroom, or else surrender their retirement checks. The restriction applies only to teachers who retire this year or in future years.

In addition, two years ago the governor signed another law that requires any retired state employee — not just teachers — to leave state work for 90 days before becoming eligible for rehire.

The law also requires the state agency hiring a retired employee to pay a monthly financial surcharge to the state’s Employee Retirement System. The restrictions apply only if the retiree returns in the same employee class.

The governor meets that exception because he is receiving his pension as a retired state employee. State elected officials are a different class of employee in the retirement system, and he continues to pay into the system as an elected official.

Before his decade as governor, Perry served six years in the state House, eight more as agriculture commissioner, and two as lieutenant governor.

“It certainly looks like he’s taking advantage of a legal loophole that allows him to truly double-dip, collecting a retirement check and paycheck from the state, while other state and school employees don’t have the same opportunity,” Raab said.

choppe@dallasnews.com;

tstutz@dallasnews.com

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/perry-watch/headlines/20111216-perry-claimed-retirement-to-collect-extra-state-benefits-on-top-of-salary.ece

JOBS JOBS JOBS

2011-09-02T07:31:00.000-07:00

How great would it be if we had a united Congress dedicated to creating jobs for America, instead of quarling congressmen beholden to their campaign donors with deep pockets?

While You Were Sleeping II*

2011-08-14T18:57:00.000-07:00

While you were sleeping, Texas Governor James Richard Perry declared for the Presidency in Charleston, SC in the shadow of Fort Sumter. No one told him he was 150 years too late to be President of the Confederacy and that a man who thinks he’s Abraham Lincoln is already in the White House. Perry’s alma mater, Texas A & M is also planning to secede from the Big XII Conference.

The Pentagon released the names of 36 soldiers killed in Afghanistan and most were Navy Elite Seals killed in a helicopter crash on a rescue mission.

The new movie about angry primates attacking the system and gaining control of government heads up the Box Office, subtitled, “The Tea Party Wins in The House”.

Republicans also have a plan to save Social Security. We are going to save Social Security by destroying it. We are going to prepare for our old age by allowing fund investors to churn Social Security funds into big paychecks for someone’s future.

* I just thought you might like to know what happened while you were sleeping. Now you can go back to sleep.

Thomas P. Love

How We Got Here in the Financial Crisis

2011-08-13T13:30:00.000-07:00

The problem is this, the country had a surplus under Clinton. Bush gave tax cuts to the wealthy in a disportunate way. Bush initiated two wars in response to 911, without paying for either of them with taxes. The debt ballooned, and we had a financial crisis because of greed and lax regulation. Obama ended no wars and piled on additional spending in an inadequite stimulus and the crap hit the fan. There is enough blame for everybody, we need to fix the problem.

The Sad Case of Sexting Addiction

2011-06-09T07:44:00.000-07:00

I don't know Representative Anthony Weiner, but he seems to be at least, the second New York congressman addicted to Sexting. While I personally do not do Sexting, I can recognize this as addictive behavior to those so inclined and urge Rep. Wiener to admit himself to a clinic and get treatment. This would become an awareness call to help others with this embarrassing problem.

Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, AP

2011-04-17T11:05:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON – As millions of procrastinators scramble to meet Monday's tax filing deadline, ponder this: The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all.

The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.

Over the same period, the average federal income tax rate for all taxpayers declined to 9.3 percent from 9.9 percent.

The top income tax rate is 35 percent, so how can people who make so much pay so little in taxes? The nation's tax laws are packed with breaks for people at every income level. There are breaks for having children, paying a mortgage, going to college, and even for paying other taxes. Plus, the top rate on capital gains is only 15 percent.

There are so many breaks that 45 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

"It's the fact that we are using the tax code both to collect revenue, which is its primary purpose, and to deliver these spending benefits that we run into the situation where so many people are paying no taxes," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center, which generated the estimate of people who pay no income taxes.

The sheer volume of credits, deductions and exemptions has both Democrats and Republicans calling for tax laws to be overhauled. House Republicans want to eliminate breaks to pay for lower overall rates, reducing the top tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Republicans oppose raising taxes, but they argue that a more efficient tax code would increase economic activity, generating additional tax revenue.

President Barack Obama said last week he wants to do away with tax breaks to lower the rates and to reduce government borrowing. Obama's proposal would result in $1 trillion in tax increases over the next 12 years. Neither proposal included many details, putting off hard choices about which tax breaks to eliminate.

In all, the tax code is filled with a total of $1.1 trillion in credits, deductions and exemptions, an average of about $8,000 per taxpayer, according to an analysis by the National Taxpayer Advocate, an independent watchdog within the IRS.

More than half of the nation's tax revenue came from the top 10 percent of earners in 2007. More than 44 percent came from the top 5 percent. Still, the wealthy have access to much more lucrative tax breaks than people with lower incomes.

Obama wants the wealthy to pay so "the amount of taxes you pay isn't determined by what kind of accountant you can afford."

Eric Schoenberg says to sign him up for paying higher taxes. Schoenberg, who inherited money and has a healthy portfolio from his days as an investment banker, has joined a group of other wealthy Americans called United for a Fair Economy. Their goal: Raise taxes on rich people like themselves.

Shoenberg, who now teaches a business class at Columbia University, said his income is usually "north of half a million a year." But 2009 was a bad year for investments, so his income dropped to a little over $200,000. His federal income tax bill was a little more than $2,000.

"I simply point out to people, `Do you think this is reasonable, that somebody in my circumstances should only be paying 1 percent of their income in tax?'" Schoenberg said.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said he has a solution for rich people who want to pay more in taxes: Write a check to the IRS. There's nothing stopping you.

"There's still time before the filing deadline for them to give Uncle Sam some more money," Hatch said.

Schoenberg said Hatch's suggestion misses the point.

"This voluntary idea clearly represents a mindset that basically pretends there's no such things as collective goods that we produce," Schoenberg said. "Are you going to let people volunteer to build the road system? Are you going to let them volunteer to pay for education?"

The law is packed with tax breaks that help narrow special interests. But many of the biggest tax breaks benefit millions of American families at just about every income level, making them difficult for politicians to touch.

The vast majority of those who escape federal income taxes have low and medium incomes, and most of them pay other taxes, including Social Security and Medicare taxes, property taxes and retail sales taxes.

The share of people paying no federal income tax has dropped slightly the past two years. It was 47 percent for 2009. The main difference for 2010 was the expiration of a tax break that exempted the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits from taxation, Williams said.

In 2009, nearly 35 million taxpayers got a tax break for paying interest on their home mortgages, and nearly 36 million taxpayers took the $1,000-per-child tax credit. About 41 million households reduced their federal income taxes by deducting state and local income and sales taxes from their taxable income.

About 36 million families cut their taxes by nearly $35 billion by deducting charitable donations, and 28 million taxpayers saved a total of $24 billion because their income from Social Security and railroad pensions was untaxed.

"As a matter of policy, there would be a lot of ways to save money and actually make these things work better," said Leonard Burman, a public affairs professor at Syracuse University. "As a matter of politics, it's really, really difficult."
___

Online:

Tax Policy Center: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org

National Taxpayer Advocate: http://www.irs.gov/advocate

United for a Fair Economy: http://www.faireconomy.org

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110417/ap_on_bi_ge/us_no_taxes

The President Is Missing by PAUL KRUGMAN

2011-04-12T14:57:00.000-07:00

What have they done with President Obama? What happened to the inspirational figure his supporters thought they elected? Who is this bland, timid guy who doesn't seem to stand for anything in particular?

I realize that with hostile Republicans controlling the House, there's not much Mr. Obama can get done in the way of concrete policy. Arguably, all he has left is the bully pulpit. But he isn't even using that - or, rather, he's using it to reinforce his enemies' narrative.

His remarks after last week's budget deal were a case in point.

Maybe that terrible deal, in which Republicans ended up getting more than their opening bid, was the best he could achieve — although it looks from here as if the president’s idea of how to bargain is to start by negotiating with himself, making pre-emptive concessions, then pursue a second round of negotiation with the G.O.P., leading to further concessions.

And bear in mind that this was just the first of several chances for Republicans to hold the budget hostage and threaten a government shutdown; by caving in so completely on the first round, Mr. Obama set a baseline for even bigger concessions over the next few months.

But let’s give the president the benefit of the doubt, and suppose that $38 billion in spending cuts — and a much larger cut relative to his own budget proposals — was the best deal available. Even so, did Mr. Obama have to celebrate his defeat? Did he have to praise Congress for enacting “the largest annual spending cut in our history,” as if shortsighted budget cuts in the face of high unemployment — cuts that will slow growth and increase unemployment — are actually a good idea?

Among other things, the latest budget deal more than wipes out any positive economic effects of the big prize Mr. Obama supposedly won from last December’s deal, a temporary extension of his 2009 tax cuts for working Americans. And the price of that deal, let’s remember, was a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts, at an immediate cost of $363 billion, and a potential cost that’s much larger — because it’s now looking increasingly likely that those irresponsible tax cuts will be made permanent.

More broadly, Mr. Obama is conspicuously failing to mount any kind of challenge to the philosophy now dominating Washington discussion — a philosophy that says the poor must accept big cuts in Medicaid and food stamps; the middle class must accept big cuts in Medicare (actually a dismantling of the whole program); and corporations and the rich must accept big cuts in the taxes they have to pay. Shared sacrifice!

I’m not exaggerating. The House budget proposal that was unveiled last week — and was praised as “bold” and “serious” by all of Washington’s Very Serious People — includes savage cuts in Medicaid and other programs that help the neediest, which would among other things deprive 34 million Americans of health insurance. It includes a plan to privatize and defund Medicare that would leave many if not most seniors unable to afford health care. And it includes a plan to sharply cut taxes on corporations and to bring the tax rate on high earners down to its lowest level since 1931.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center puts the revenue loss from these tax cuts at $2.9 trillion over the next decade. House Republicans claim that the tax cuts can be made “revenue neutral” by “broadening the tax base” — that is, by closing loopholes and ending exemptions. But you’d need to close a lot of loopholes to close a $3 trillion gap; for example, even completely eliminating one of the biggest exemptions, the mortgage interest deduction, wouldn’t come close. And G.O.P. leaders have not, of course, called for anything that drastic. I haven’t seen them name any significant exemptions they would end.

You might have expected the president’s team not just to reject this proposal, but to see it as a big fat political target. But while the G.O.P. proposal has drawn fire from a number of Democrats — including a harsh condemnation from Senator Max Baucus, a centrist who has often worked with Republicans — the White House response was a statement from the press secretary expressing mild disapproval.

What’s going on here? Despite the ferocious opposition he has faced since the day he took office, Mr. Obama is clearly still clinging to his vision of himself as a figure who can transcend America’s partisan differences. And his political strategists seem to believe that he can win re-election by positioning himself as being conciliatory and reasonable, by always being willing to compromise.

But if you ask me, I’d say that the nation wants — and more important, the nation needs — a president who believes in something, and is willing to take a stand. And that’s not what we’re seeing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/opinion/11krugman.html

To be or not to be that is Libya

2011-04-03T13:50:00.000-07:00

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
the heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to.

Over five hundred years ago, Shakespeare’s Hamlet remarked, "To be or not to be that is the question." Where there may be certainty of war when we are attacked, there should be much debate when the prospect is arbitrary and uncertain. Hopefully, the United Nations will resolve the predicament, but that is uncertain at best. Every army needs weapons and leadership and that may be lacking. Too many American Presidents from Harry Truman, LBJ, and George W Bush have discovered the awful truth, that it is far easier to get into war than extract us from it.

The problem with Libyan criticism is one need to be certain of their facts. On one hand, to not intervene in Libya could mean certain death for a democratic movement and many Libyans, and that would be wrong. On the other hand, to intervene, we could become mired in another war with no real hope of success. Time will determine whether, as LBJ once said before invention in Vietnam," It was like being in a thunderstorm walking on a Texas highway with no where to go and no where to hide."

Perhaps Johnson, himself, best summed up his involvement in the Vietnam War as President: “I knew from the start that I was bound to be crucified either way I moved. If I left the woman I really loved — the Great Society - in order to get involved in that bitch of a war on the other side of the world, then I would lose everything at home. All my programs.... But if I left that war and let the Communists take over South Vietnam, then I would be seen as a coward and my nation would be seen as an appeaser and we would both find it impossible to accomplish anything for anybody anywhere on the entire globe.

LBJ Goes to War 1964—1968
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson

China says Middle East should solve problems itself. However painful this may sound, ultimately this is the correct approach for a lasting peace in the Middle East. Too often, we ignore a massive tradition of historical advancement and think WE ALONE CAN SOLVE THE PROBLEM. Where is the Arab League? There is at least 7000 years of civilization in the Middle East. It is time for this region to solve its own problems.

2006 Letter From Carole Keeton Strayhorning on the Perry Tax Plan

2011-03-13T12:49:00.000-07:00

Letter From Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn to Governor Rick Perry regarding the Perry Tax Plan
May 15, 2006

The Honorable Rick Perry
Governor, State of Texas
Capitol Building, Room 2S.1
Austin, Texas 78701

Dear Governor Perry:

The Legislature is concluding its work on your tax plan. Your plan is fiscally irresponsible -- it includes an unconstitutional income tax on partnerships and unincorporated associations, the largest tax increase in Texas history and leaves the largest hot check in Texas history. What you should do is show true leadership and veto this legislation.

As the state's chief fiscal officer, it is my responsibility to spell out exactly what the Perry Tax Plan means to our state's fiscal integrity. As you have known since it was made public, your plan simply does not pay for itself. As of this moment, this legislation is a staggering $23 billion short of the funds needed to pay for the promised property tax cuts over the next five years.

In 2007, your plan is $3.4 billion short; in 2008 it is $4.3 billion short; in 2009 it is $5.4 billion short; in 2010 it is $4.9 billion short; and in 2011 it is $5 billion short. These are conservative estimates.

At best, your plan is a prelude to another huge tax bill in the next regular session, one that will not only be heaped on Texas businesses but will fall heavily on the same taxpayers you claim to be helping now. At worst, it will relegate Texans to Draconian cuts in critical areas like education and health care for at least a generation. This is not a victory for taxpayers. It is a sham, and Texans will see it for what it is.

There is no economic miracle that will close the gap your plan creates. Even if every single dollar of the current $8.2 billion surplus was poured into the plan, it would not cover the plan's costs for more than two years, 2007 and 2008. The gap is going to continue to grow, year by year. There are only two ways to close a chasm of that magnitude -- future tax increases that you are hiding from Texans now or massive cuts in essential state services -- like public education -- already devastated by your past fiscal indifference.

I have outlined $7.7 billion in long-term "Strayhorn Solutions" to finance needed programs, such as a significant teacher pay raise, real property tax cuts and fully restoring the Children's Health Insurance Program. Those solutions include reinstating e-Texas Performance Reviews and the Texas School Performance Reviews to the Texas Comptroller's office, implementing video lottery terminals, closing corporate loopholes in the franchise tax, eliminating the taxpayer-funded Texas Enterprise Fund and Emerging Technology Fund, and a $1-a-pack increase in the cigarette tax tied to vital health-related programs.

Texans deserve relief from high property taxes, but they do not need it at the expense of future tax hikes and more cuts in public education. Educators are justifiably skeptical of this program because they know that when the state controls the purse strings, rather than locally elected school boards, the result will be devastating to our schools.

The property tax relief contained in the bill, if it can be financed past 2008, will be quickly eroded by rising property values, and increases in local tax rates forced on local school districts struggling to keep up with rising costs. In as little as five years, the state could be right back in court.

Finally, your plan represents the largest tax bill in Texas history, includes an unconstitutional income tax, represents a 200 percent tax increase on Texas businesses at a time when the state has taken an $8.2 billion surplus out of the pockets of hardworking Texans, and does not pay for itself as required by the spirit of our Texas Constitution's "pay-as-you-go, no-deficit-spending" provision. That is unconscionable.

Governor, we should be working to improve state services for Texans and to reduce the burden of government on businesses and individuals. This plan creates a rolling mess that will take 20 years for future leaders of the state to untangle. Texans will recognize this plan for what it is -- a short-term, smoke-and-mirrors patch at best.

I urge you to show true leadership and veto this legislation. Texas needs a school finance plan that provides long-term, pay-as-you-go solutions for education.

Sincerely,

Carole Keeton Strayhorn,
Texas Comptroller

c: The Honorable David Dewhurst, Lieutenant Governor
The Honorable Thomas R. Craddick, Speaker of the House
Members of the 79th Legislature

http://www.window.state.tx.us/news/60515letter.html

China says Middle East should solve problems itself

2011-03-13T08:17:00.000-07:00

BEIJING (Reuters) – Middle East countries should be left to themselves to resolve the problems they currently face without outside interference, a Chinese vice foreign minister said during a visit to the region.

While China supported a United Nations resolution for an arms embargo and other sanctions targeting Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and his inner circle, it has so far been cool to the idea of a no-fly zone over that country.

Arab countries appealed to the United Nations on Saturday to impose a no-fly zone on Libya as government troops backed by warplanes fought to drive rebels from remaining strongholds in western Libya.

Beijing has called for the situation in Libya to be resolved peacefully through dialogue, and demanded Libya's sovereignty and territorial integrity be respected, though added it would listen to the views of other Middle Eastern countries on the issue.

"The Middle East's stability is beneficial to the world's peace and development, and China respects the development path chosen by the Middle East's people," the Foreign Ministry cited Vice Foreign Minister Zhai Jun as saying during a visit to the region.

"Middle Eastern countries should handle their affairs themselves and should not be subject to outside interference," Zhai was paraphrased as saying.

"China is willing to work with the international community to maintain the peace and development of the Middle East region and to continue playing a constructive role to this end," he added.

Zhai visited Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia on his trip from March 6-12, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement released on its website (www.mfa.gov.cn) late on Saturday.

The four countries "approved of China's position," the statement said, without providing further details.

(Reporting by Ben Blanchard, editing by Jonathan Thatcher)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_china_middleeast

===================================================

China says Middle East should solve problems itself.

However painful this may sound, ultimately this is the correct approach for a lasting peace in the Middle East. Too often, we ignore a massive tradition of historical advancement and think WE ALONE CAN SOLVE THE PROBLEM. Where is the Arab League? There is at least 7000 years of civilization in the Middle East.

State SAT Scores 2009

2011-02-20T13:12:00.000-08:00

Here is the ranking of SAT Scores by State List:

Top SAT State Scores include Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Missouri. These States primarily have their students take the ACT test so their numbers may not be representative of the entire state.

The Worst States for SAT Scores include Maine, Hawaii, South Carolina, Georgia and New York. DC is also very low.
Here is the ranking of SAT Scores by State List:

Rate Reading Math Writing Total

1 Iowa 3% 610 615 588 1813
2 Wisconsin 5% 594 608 582 1784
3 Minnesota 7% 595 609 578 1782
4 Missouri 5% 595 600 584 1779
5 Illinois 6% 588 604 583 1775
6 Michigan 5% 584 603 575 1762
7 South Dakota 3% 589 600 569 1758
8 Nebraska 4% 587 594 572 1753
9 North Dakota 3% 590 593 566 1749
10 Kansas 7% 581 589 564 1734
11 Kentucky 7% 573 573 561 1707
12 Oklahoma 5% 575 571 557 1703
13 Tennessee 10% 571 565 565 1701
14 Arkansas 5% 572 572 556 1700
15 Colorado 20% 568 575 555 1698
16 Wyoming 5% 567 568 550 1685
17 Mississippi 4% 567 554 559 1680
18 Louisiana 7% 563 558 555 1676
19 Alabama 7% 557 552 549 1658
20 Utah 6% 559 558 540 1657
21 New Mexico 11% 553 546 534 1633
22 Ohio 22% 537 546 523 1606
23 Montana 22% 541 542 519 1602
24 Idaho 18% 541 540 520 1601
25 Washington 53% 524 531 507 1563
26 New Hampshire 75% 523 523 510 1557
27 Massachusetts 84% 514 526 510 1551
28 Oregon 52% 523 525 499 1548
29 Vermont 64% 518 518 506 1543
30 Connecticut 83% 509 513 512 1535
31 Arizona 26% 516 521 497 1534
32 Alaska 46% 520 516 492 1528
33 Virginia 68% 511 512 498 1522
34 California 49% 500 513 498 1511
35 West Virginia 18% 511 501 499 1511
36 New Jersey 76% 496 513 496 1506
37 Maryland 69% 500 502 495 1498
38 Rhode Island 66% 498 496 494 1489
39 North Carolina 63% 495 511 480 1487
40 Nevada 42% 501 505 479 1485
41 Indiana 63% 496 507 480 1484
42 Delaware 71% 495 498 484 1478
43 Pennsylvania 71% 493 501 483 1478
44 Florida 59% 497 498 480 1476
45 Texas 51% 486 506 475 1468
46 New York 85% 485 502 478 1466
47 Georgia 71% 490 491 479 1461
48 South Carolina 67% 486 496 470 1453
49 Hawaii 58% 479 502 469 1451
50 Maine 90% 468 467 455 1391
51 DC 79% 466 451 461 1379
All Students 46% 501 515 493 1509

http://blog.bestandworststates.com/2009/08/25/state-sat-scores-2009.aspx

The Republican Strategy by Robert Reich

2011-02-20T12:57:00.000-08:00

Thursday, February 17, 2011

The Republican strategy is to split the vast middle and working class – pitting unionized workers against non-unionized, public-sector workers against non-public, older workers within sight of Medicare and Social Security against younger workers who don’t believe these programs will be there for them, and the poor against the working middle class.

By splitting working America along these lines, Republicans want Americans to believe that we can no longer afford to do what we need to do as a nation. They hope to deflect attention from the increasing share of total income and wealth going to the richest 1 percent while the jobs and wages of everyone else languish.

Republicans would rather no one notice their campaign to shrink the pie even further with additional tax cuts for the rich – making the Bush tax cuts permanent, further reducing the estate tax, and allowing the wealthy to shift ever more of their income into capital gains taxed at 15 percent.

The strategy has three parts.

The battle over the federal budget.

The first is being played out in the budget battle in Washington. As they raise the alarm over deficit spending and simultaneously squeeze popular middle-class programs, Republicans want the majority of the American public to view it all as a giant zero-sum game among average Americans that some will have to lose.

The President has already fallen into the trap by calling for budget cuts in programs the poor and working class depend on – assistance with home heating, community services, college loans, and the like.

In the coming showdown over Medicare and Social Security, House budget chair Paul Ryan will push a voucher system for Medicare and a partly-privatized plan for Social Security – both designed to attract younger middle-class voters.

The assault on public employees

The second part of the Republican strategy is being played out on the state level where public employees are being blamed for state budget crises. Unions didn’t cause these budget crises — state revenues dropped because of the Great Recession — but Republicans view them as opportunities to gut public employee unions, starting with teachers.

Wisconsin’s Republican governor Scott Walker and his GOP legislature are seeking to end almost all union rights for teachers. Ohio’s Republican governor John Kasich is pushing a similar plan in Ohio through a Republican-dominated legislature. New Jersey’s Republican governor Chris Christie is attempting the same, telling a conservative conference Wednesday, “I’m attacking the leadership of the union because they’re greedy, and they’re selfish and they’re self-interested.”

The demonizing of public employees is not only based on the lie that they’ve caused these budget crises, but it’s also premised on a second lie: that public employees earn more than private-sector workers. They don’t, when you take account of their education. In fact over the last fifteen years the pay of public-sector workers, including teachers, has dropped relative to private-sector employees with the same level of education – even including health and retirement benefits. Moreover, most public employees don’t have generous pensions. After a career with annual pay averaging less than $45,000, the typical newly-retired public employee receives a pension of $19,000 a year.

Bargaining rights for public employees haven’t caused state deficits to explode. Some states that deny their employees bargaining rights, such as Nevada, North Carolina, and Arizona, are running big deficits of over 30 percent of spending. Many states that give employees bargaining rights — Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Montana — have small deficits of less than 10 percent.

Republicans would rather go after teachers and other public employees than have us look at the pay of Wall Street traders, private-equity managers, and heads of hedge funds – many of whom wouldn’t have their jobs today were it not for the giant taxpayer-supported bailout, and most of whose lending and investing practices were the proximate cause of the Great Depression to begin with.

Last year, America’s top thirteen hedge-fund managers earned an average of $1 billion each. One of them took home $5 billion. Much of their income is taxed as capital gains – at 15 percent – due to a tax loophole that Republican members of Congress have steadfastly guarded.

If the earnings of those thirteen hedge-fund managers were taxed as ordinary income, the revenues generated would pay the salaries and benefits of 300,000 teachers. Who is more valuable to our society – thirteen hedge-fund managers or 300,000 teachers? Let’s make the question even simpler. Who is more valuable: One hedge fund manager or one teacher?

The Distortion of the Constitution

The third part of the Republican strategy is being played out in the Supreme Court. It has politicized the Court more than at any time in recent memory.

Last year a majority of the justices determined that corporations have a right under the First Amendment to provide unlimited amounts of money to political candidates. Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission is among the most patently political and legally grotesque decisions of our highest court – ranking right up there with Bush vs. Gore and Dred Scott.

Among those who voted in the affirmative were Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Both have become active strategists in the Republican party.

A month ago, for example, Antonin Scalia met in a closed-door session with Michele Bachman’s Tea Party caucus – something no justice concerned about maintaining the appearance of impartiality would ever have done.

Both Thomas and Scalia have participated in political retreats organized and hosted by multi-billionaire financier Charles Koch, a major contributor to the Tea Party and other conservative organizations, and a crusader for ending all limits on money in politics. (Not incidentally, Thomas’s wife is the founder of Liberty Central, a Tea Party organization that has been receiving unlimited corporate contributions due to the Citizens United decision. On his obligatory financial disclosure filings, Thomas has repeatedly failed to list her sources of income over the last twenty years, nor even to include his own four-day retreats courtesy of Charles Koch.)

Some time this year or next, the Supreme Court will be asked to consider whether the nation’s new healthcare law is constitutional. Watch your wallets.

The strategy as a whole

These three aspects of the Republican strategy – a federal budget battle to shrink government, focused on programs the vast middle class depends on; state efforts to undermine public employees, whom the middle class depends on; and a Supreme Court dedicated to bending the Constitution to enlarge and entrench the political power of the wealthy – fit perfectly together.

They pit average working Americans against one another, distract attention from the almost unprecedented concentration of wealth and power at the top, and conceal Republican plans to further enlarge and entrench that wealth and power.

What is the Democratic strategy to counter this and reclaim America for the rest of us?

http://robertreich.org/post/3353591266

Mubarak won't seek new term

2011-02-01T14:41:00.000-08:00

By SARAH EL DEEB and HADEEL AL-SHALCHI, Associated Press Sarah El Deeb And Hadeel Al-shalchi, Associated Press

CAIRO – President Hosni Mubarak announced Tuesday he will not run for a new term in September elections but rejected protesters' demands he step down immediately and leave the country, vowing to die on Egypt's soil, after a dramatic day in which a quarter-million Egyptians staged their biggest protest yet calling on him to go.

Soon after his speech, clashes erupted between protesters and government supporters in the Mediterranean city of Alexandria, and gunshots were heard, according to footage by Al-Jazeera television.

Muabrak's half-way concession — an end to his rule seven months down the road — threatened to inflame frustration and anger among protesters, who have been peaceful in recent days but have made clear they will not end their unprecedented week-old wave of demonstrations until he is out.

The speech was immediately derided by protesters massed in Cairo's central Tahrir Square. Watching his speech on a giant TV, protesters booed and waved their shoes over their heads at his image in a sign of contempt. "Go, go, go! We are not leaving until he leaves," they chanted. One man screamed, "He doesn't want to say it, he doesn't want to say it."

In the 10-minute address, Mubarak appeared somber but spoke firmly without an air of defeat. The president who has ruled the country for nearly three decades — and during that time has rarely if ever admitted to making a mistake or reversing himself under pressure — insisted that his decision not to run for a new six-year term had nothing to do with the protests.

"I tell you in all sincerity, regardless of the current circumstances, I never intended to be a candidate for another term," he said. "I will work for the final remaining months of the current term to accomplish the necessary steps for the peaceful transfer of power."

Mubarak, a former air force commander, resolutely vowed not to flee the country. "This is my dear homeland ... I have lived in it, I fought for it and defended its soil, sovereignty and interests. On its soil I will die. History will judge me and all of us."

The United States has been struggling to find a way to ease Mubarak out of office while maintaining stability in Egypt, a key ally in the Mideast that has a 30-year-old peace treaty with Israel and has been a bullwark against Islamic militantcy. An envoy sent by President Barack Obama to work out a transition — former U.S. ambassador to Egypt Frank Wisner, a friend of the Egyptian president — told Mubarak directly that that the U.S "view that his tenure as president is coming to close," according to an administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the ongoing diplomacy.

The U.S. ambassador in Cairo, Margaret Scobey, spoke by telephone Tuesday with Nobel Peace laureate Mohamed ElBaradei, one of the most prominent leaders of the opposition, the embassy said. The pro-democracy advocate has taken a key role with other opposition groups in formulating the movement's demands for Mubarak to step down and allow a transitional government paving the way for free elections. There was no immediate word on what they discussed.

Only a month ago, Mubarak's announcement could have been seen as a formula for a stable handover and would certainly have been a stunning development greeted with joy by reform activists — many Egyptians have assumed he was certain to run again despite health issues. But after the past week of unheaval, it struck many of those in the streets as too little and as an infuriating stubbornness.

Tuesday's protest marked a dramatic escalation that organizers said aims to drive Mubarak out by Friday. In a single day, the protesters' numbers multiplied more than tenfold, with more than a quarter-million people flooding into Tahrir, or Liberation, Square.

Protesters jammed in shoulder-to-shoulder, with schoolteachers, farmers, unemployed university graduates, women in conservative headscarves and women in high heels, men in suits and working-class men in scuffed shoes. Joining the crowds were significant numbers who defied a government transportation shutdown and roadblocks on intercity highways to make their way from rural provinces.

They sang nationalist songs, danced, beat drums and chanted the anti-Mubarak slogan "Leave! Leave! Leave!" as military helicopters buzzed overhead. Organizers said the aim was to intensify marches to get the president out of power by Friday, and similar demonstrations erupted in at least five other cities around Egypt.

Soldiers at checkpoints set up at the entrances of the square did nothing to stop the crowds from entering. The military promised on state TV Monday night that it would not fire on protesters answering a call for a million to demonstrate, a sign that army support for Mubarak may be unraveling.

Mubarak would be the second Arab leader pushed from office by a popular uprising in the history of the modern Middle East, following the ouster last month of the president of Tunisia — another North African nation.

The movement to drive Mubarak out has been built on the work of online activists and fueled by deep frustration with an autocratic regime blamed for ignoring the needs of the poor and allowing corruption and official abuse to run rampant. After years of tight state control, protesters emboldened by the Tunisia unrest took to the streets on Jan. 25 and mounted a once-unimaginable series of protests across this nation of 80 million.

The repercussions were being felt around the Mideast, as other authoritarian governments fearing popular discontent pre-emptively tried to burnish their democratic image.

Jordan's King Abdullah II fired his government Tuesday in the face of smaller street protests, named an ex-prime minister to form a new Cabinet and ordered him to launch political reforms. The Palestinian Cabinet in the West Bank said it would hold long-promised municipal elections "as soon as possible."

So far, Egypt's protesters have rejected earlier concessions by Mubarak, including the dissolution of his government, the naming of a new one and the appointment of a vice president, Omar Suleiman, who offered a dialogue with "political forces" over constitutional and legislative reforms.

In an interview with Al-Arabiya television Tuesdsay, ElBaradei dismissed Suleiman's offer, saying there could be no negotiations until Mubarak leaves. In his speech, Mubarak said the offer still stands and promised to change constitutional articles that allow the president unlimited terms and limit those who can run for the office.

Egypt's state TV on Tuesday ran a statement by the new prime minister, Ahmed Shafiq, pleading with the public to "give a chance" to his government.

The United States ordered non-essential U.S. government personnel and their families to leave Egypt. They join a wave of people rushing to flee the country — over 18,000 overwhelmed Cairo's international airport and threw it into chaos. EgyptAir staff scuffled with frantic passengers, food supplies were dwindling and some policemen even demanded substantial bribes before allowing foreigners to board their planes.

Banks, schools and the stock market in Cairo were closed for the third working day, making cash tight. Bread prices spiraled. An unprecedented shutdown of the Internet was in its fifth day.

The official death toll from the crisis stood at 97, with thousands injured, though reports from witnesses across the country indicated the actual toll was far higher.

But perhaps most startling was how peaceful the protests have been in recent days, after the military replaced the police around Tahrir Square and made no move to try to suppress the demonstrations. No clashes between the military and protesters have been reported since Friday night, after pitched street battles with the police throughout the day Friday.

Egypt's military leadership has reassured the U.S. that they do not intend to crack down on demonstrators, but instead they are allowing the protesters to "wear themselves out," according to a former U.S. official in contact with several top Egyptian army officers. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

Troops alongside Soviet-era and newer U.S.-made Abrams tanks stood guard at roads leading into Tahrir Square, a plaza overlooked by the headquarters of the Arab League, the campus of the American University in Cairo, the famed Egyptian Museum and the Mugammma, an enormous building housing departments of the notoriously corrupt and inefficient bureaucracy.

Protester volunteers wearing tags reading "the People's Security" circulated through the crowds in the square, saying they were watching for government infiltrators who might try to instigate violence. Organizers said the protest would remain in the square and not attempt to march to the presidential palace to avoid frictions with the military.

Two effigies of Mubarak dangled from traffic lights. On their chests was written: "We want to put the murderous president on trial." Their faces were scrawled with the Star of David, an allusion to many protesters' feeling that Mubarak is a friend of Israel, still seen by most Egyptians as their country's archenemy more than 30 years after the two nations signed a peace treaty.

Every protester had their own story of why they came — with a shared theme of frustration with a life pinned in by corruption, low wages, crushed opportunities and abuse by authorities. Under Mubarak, Egypt has seen a widening gap between rich and poor, with 40 percent of the population living under or just above the poverty line set by the World Bank at $2 a day.

Sahar Ahmad, a 41-year-old school teacher and mother of one, said she has taught for 22 years and still only makes about $70 a month.

"There are 120 students in my classroom. That's more than any teacher can handle," said Ahmad. "Change would mean a better education system I can teach in and one that guarantees my students a good life after school. If there is democracy in my country, then I can ask for democracy in my own home."

Tamer Adly, a driver of one of the thousands of minibuses that ferry commuters around Cairo, said he was sick of the daily humiliation he felt from police who demand free rides and send him on petty errands, reflecting the widespread public anger at police high-handedness.

"They would force me to share my breakfast with them ... force me to go fetch them a newspaper. This country should not just be about one person," the 30-year-old lamented, referring to Mubarak.

Among the older protesters, there was also a sense of amazement after three decades of unquestioned control by Mubarak's security forces over the streets.

"We could never say no to Mubarak when we were young, but our young people today proved that they can say no, and I'm here to support them," said Yusra Mahmoud, a 46-year-old school principal who said she had been sleeping in the square alongside other protesters for the past two nights.

Tens of thousands rallied in the cities of Alexandria, Suez and Mansoura, north of Cairo, as well as in the southern province of Assiut and the southern city of Luxor.

Authorities shut down all roads and public transportation to Cairo and in and out of other main cities, security officials said. Train services nationwide were suspended for a second day and all bus services between cities were halted.

Still, many from the provinces managed to make it to the square. Hamada Massoud, a 32-year-old a lawyer, said he and 50 others came in cars and minibuses from the impoverished province of Beni Sweif south of Cairo.

"Cairo today is all of Egypt," he said. "I want my son to have a better life and not suffer as much as I did ... I want to feel like I chose my president."

AP correspondents Maggie Michael, Maggie Hyde, Lee Keath and Michael Weissenstein in Cairo and Kimberly Dozier in Washington contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_egypt

Prison Economics Help Drive Ariz. Immigration Law by Laura Sullivan

2010-10-28T14:42:00.000-07:00

Last year, two men showed up in Benson, Ariz., a small desert town 60 miles from the Mexico border, offering a deal.

Glenn Nichols, the Benson city manager, remembers the pitch.

"The gentleman that's the main thrust of this thing has a huge turquoise ring on his finger," Nichols said. "He's a great big huge guy and I equated him to a car salesman."

What he was selling was a prison for women and children who were illegal immigrants.

"They talk [about] how positive this was going to be for the community," Nichols said, "the amount of money that we would realize from each prisoner on a daily rate."

But Nichols wasn't buying. He asked them how would they possibly keep a prison full for years — decades even — with illegal immigrants?

"They talked like they didn't have any doubt they could fill it," Nichols said.

That's because prison companies like this one had a plan — a new business model to lock up illegal immigrants. And the plan became Arizona's immigration law.

Behind-The-Scenes Effort To Draft, Pass The Law

The law is being challenged in the courts. But if it's upheld, it requires police to lock up anyone they stop who cannot show proof they entered the country legally.

When it was passed in April, it ignited a fire storm. Protesters chanted about racial profiling. Businesses threatened to boycott the state.

Supporters were equally passionate, calling it a bold positive step to curb illegal immigration.

But while the debate raged, few people were aware of how the law came about.

NPR spent the past several months analyzing hundreds of pages of campaign finance reports, lobbying documents and corporate records. What they show is a quiet, behind-the-scenes effort to help draft and pass Arizona Senate Bill 1070 by an industry that stands to benefit from it: the private prison industry.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, pictured here at Tea Party rally on Oct. 22, was instrumental in drafting the state's immigration law. He also sits on a American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) task force, a group that helped shape the law.Joshua Lott/Getty Images Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, pictured here at Tea Party rally on Oct. 22, was instrumental in drafting the state's immigration law. He also sits on a American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) task force, a group that helped shape the law.

The law could send hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to prison in a way never done before. And it could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in profits to private prison companies responsible for housing them.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce says the bill was his idea. He says it's not about prisons. It's about what's best for the country.

"Enough is enough," Pearce said in his office, sitting under a banner reading "Let Freedom Reign." "People need to focus on the cost of not enforcing our laws and securing our border. It is the Trojan horse destroying our country and a republic cannot survive as a lawless nation."

But instead of taking his idea to the Arizona statehouse floor, Pearce first took it to a hotel conference room.

It was last December at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C. Inside, there was a meeting of a secretive group called the American Legislative Exchange Council. Insiders call it ALEC.

It's a membership organization of state legislators and powerful corporations and associations, such as the tobacco company Reynolds American Inc., ExxonMobil and the National Rifle Association. Another member is the billion-dollar Corrections Corporation of America — the largest private prison company in the country.

It was there that Pearce's idea took shape.

"I did a presentation," Pearce said. "I went through the facts. I went through the impacts and they said, 'Yeah.'"

Drafting The Bill

The 50 or so people in the room included officials of the Corrections Corporation of America, according to two sources who were there.

Pearce and the Corrections Corporation of America have been coming to these meetings for years. Both have seats on one of several of ALEC's boards.

Credit: Stephanie D'Otreppe/NPR
And this bill was an important one for the company. According to Correctio
And this bill was an important one for the company. According to Corrections Corporation of America reports reviewed by NPR, executives believe immigrant detention is their next big market. Last year, they wrote that they expect to bring in "a significant portion of our revenues" from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that detains illegal immigrants.

In the conference room, the group decided they would turn the immigration idea into a model bill. They discussed and debated language. Then, they voted on it.

"There were no 'no' votes," Pearce said. "I never had one person speak up in objection to this model legislation."

Four months later, that model legislation became, almost word for word, Arizona's immigration law.

They even named it. They called it the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act."

"ALEC is the conservative, free-market orientated, limited-government group," said Michael Hough, who was staff director of the meeting.

Hough works for ALEC, but he's also running for state delegate in Maryland, and if elected says he plans to support a similar bill to Arizona's law.

Asked if the private companies usually get to write model bills for the legislators, Hough said, "Yeah, that's the way it's set up. It's a public-private partnership. We believe both sides, businesses and lawmakers should be at the same table, together."

Nothing about this is illegal. Pearce's immigration plan became a prospective bill and Pearce took it home to Arizona.

Campaign Donations

Pearce said he is not concerned that it could appear private prison companies have an opportunity to lobby for legislation at the ALEC meetings.

"I don't go there to meet with them," he said. "I go there to meet with other legislators."

Pearce may go there to meet with other legislators, but 200 private companies pay tens of thousands of dollars to meet with legislators like him.

As soon as Pearce's bill hit the Arizona statehouse floor in January, there were signs of ALEC's influence. Thirty-six co-sponsors jumped on, a number almost unheard of in the capitol. According to records obtained by NPR, two-thirds of them either went to that December meeting or are ALEC members.

That same week, the Corrections Corporation of America hired a powerful new lobbyist to work the capitol.

The prison company declined requests for an interview. In a statement, a spokesman said the Corrections Corporation of America, "unequivocally has not at any time lobbied — nor have we had any outside consultants lobby – on immigration law."

At the state Capitol, campaign donations started to appear.

Thirty of the 36 co-sponsors received donations over the next six months, from prison lobbyists or prison companies — Corrections Corporation of America, Management and Training Corporation and The Geo Group.

By April, the bill was on Gov. Jan Brewer's desk.

Brewer has her own connections to private prison companies. State lobbying records show two of her top advisers — her spokesman Paul Senseman and her campaign manager Chuck Coughlin — are former lobbyists for private prison companies. Brewer signed the bill — with the name of the legislation Pearce, the Corrections Corporation of America and the others in the Hyatt conference room came up with — in four days.

Brewer and her spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.

In May, The Geo Group had a conference call with investors. When asked about the bill, company executives made light of it, asking, "Did they have some legislation on immigration?"

After company officials laughed, the company's president, Wayne Calabrese, cut in.

"This is Wayne," he said. "I can only believe the opportunities at the federal level are going to continue apace as a result of what's happening. Those people coming across the border and getting caught are going to have to be detained and that for me, at least I think, there's going to be enhanced opportunities for what we do."

Opportunities that prison companies helped create.

Produced by NPR's Anne Hawke.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130833741+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Beware the Puppet Masters

2010-10-24T15:50:00.000-07:00

One day not long enough ago, I got an e-mail from someone; dressed up like Benedict Arnold, purporting to be Patrick Henry and the Tea Party. Remembering the Tea Party dumped tea in Boston Harbor before the Revolutionary War in 1776, I thought this was probably not him. Then I remembered that politics is often about money and looked for the Puppet Master of the Tea Party and found three: Rupert Murdock of Fox & News Corp and the Koch brothers of Koch Industries, the wealthiest private company in the United States.

Now, go back and remember that Barack Obama promised to undo the Bush tax cuts that give $1 billion dollars to the upper 2% of America’s income bracket over 10 years. The other 98% of us share $3 billion dollars over 10 years. I wonder how much one of the 400 billionaires in America would give to maintain a potential $100-million-dollar tax break on a 10-year return. The answer may be $100 million dollars this year by Mr. Murdock and the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers are worth at least $35 billion dollars and have paid multiple environmental related fines in the past. One brother ran as a Vice-Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party in 1980 because Ronald Regan was not conservative enough for him. He gives the most. In fact, the Puppet Masters had given 91% of Republican funds to Karl Rove’s political action group that operates outside regular and regulated Republican coffers at last accounting.

Taxed enough already sounds good those that that are most ideologically overtaxed; but what about those that care about local issues and local control over their daily lives? Do they not give fire and police protection because they are “taxed enough already”? Do sewer treatment plants get repaired by themselves? Are roads built and bridges repaired by men; in triangular-shaped hats, who had not even determined what the Declaration of Independence would say, much less the Constitution? That, in its Preamble, it talks about providing the general welfare of the United States, and its posterity?

No, this was a rebellion against taxes to pay for the war between England and France. But these Tea Party people seem to want to be taxed for war, but not for peace. Therein is the problem.

We need a modern-day FDR to cure financial problems worse than any time since the Great Depression, not men in funny hats and Puppet Masters screaming about taxes and likely to cut our Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and raise retirement age for the 98% that the Puppet Masters are not part of. Their same old sad song was proven wrong once before in the 1930’s.

Men in funny hats did nothing to create Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment benefits. A study concluded that, of thirteen ways to create jobs and grow the economy, tax breaks for the upper 2% was thirteenth and dead last. If you get a check for $100 million dollars, why risk it? Just put it in the bank. That is what the Puppet Masters really want. Don’t let their joke be at your expense this Election Day 2010.

-Tom Love

Perry's tech fund aided firms with ties to his donors

2010-10-03T17:45:00.000-07:00

By JAMES DREW, STEVE McGONIGLE and RYAN McNEILL / The Dallas Morning News

When Gov. Rick Perry announces that a company will get money from the Texas Emerging Technology Fund, he often describes it as an important investment in the state's future.

Link: Emerging Technology Fund
Behind the scenes, some of the governor's biggest political supporters have been making investments of their own – in Perry and in companies getting money from the tech fund.

An investigation by The Dallas Morning News found that more than $16 million from the Emerging Technology Fund has been awarded to companies with investors or officers who are large campaign donors to Perry.

The governor denied that politics influence his decisions on tech fund awards.

The fund gives taxpayers' dollars to promising high-tech startups. It is a key part of Perry's economic development program, which he has touted in his re-election campaign against Democrat Bill White.

The governor's office administers the tech fund, and the governor must approve each award – a system that most other states with tech funds avoid to guard against political influence.

The News found that tech fund money has been awarded to companies with which at least eight significant Perry donors are affiliated. Among them:

•$2.75 million to Terrabon Inc., a Houston company. Its backers have included Phil Adams, a college friend of Perry's who has given his campaign at least $314,000.

•$1.75 million to Gradalis Inc., a Carrollton firm. Among its investors has been Dr. James R. Leininger, who has contributed more than $264,000 to Perry's campaigns.

•$1.5 million to ThromboVision Inc., a Houston company. One of its investors was Charles W. Tate, who has donated more than $424,000 to Perry.

•$4.5 million to Convergen Lifesciences Inc. of Austin. The company was founded by David G. Nance, a former Perry appointee who has given the governor $80,000.

•$2 million to Seno Medical Instruments Inc. of San Antonio. Its investors have included Southwest Business Corp. and its subsidiaries, whose chairman, Charles Amato, gave Perry more than $32,000.

•$975,000 to Carbon Nanotechnologies Inc. of Houston. At the time of the award, one investor was William A. McMinn, who has contributed $152,000 to Perry.

In an interview with The News, Perry said he usually does not know if his campaign supporters have financial interests in the companies that get tech fund money. "From time to time, I may know someone who has an interest in a project. That is a pretty rare occurrence," he said.

However, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said in an e-mail that applicants for technology funding must provide full financial disclosure to the governor's staff, including the names of investors.

The governor said he does not look at these disclosures when deciding whether to approve an award. He added: "Whether they contribute to my campaign or not has nothing to do with whether or not the project is appropriate" for funding.

Mark Ellison, a former director of the tech fund, called the involvement of Perry's contributors incidental. "Decisions were based on the quality of the deal, the market and character of the people running the company or the project," he said.

SEC documents

The News reviewed thousands of pages of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission documents, personal financial disclosures, court filings, contracts and other public records to determine who has invested in companies that were tech fund recipients. Campaign contribution amounts were taken from Texas Ethics Commission filings.

Gauging the degree to which Perry contributors benefit from the tech fund is difficult because most of the applicants are privately held companies, and the fund's proceedings are shrouded in secrecy.

Perry said confidentiality protects companies that "really aren't interested in opening up their books so their competitors can stroll in and write down all of the different business practices, their cash on hand, or even more detailed descriptions of their technology."

Not every state's program is as closed. In Pennsylvania, meetings of the decision-making boards are open and proprietary information is still protected, said Walter Plosila, an architect of that state's Ben Franklin Partnership.

"You can keep intellectual property issues confidential and proprietary while still providing information on what the partnership projects are about and what the public money is being used for," said Plosila, a former Pennsylvania deputy secretary of commerce.

The Texas approach is not the best public policy, he said. "How are citizens supposed to make sure their elected officials are accountable, not just for ideas but their implementation, if they don't know what's going on?"

The lack of transparency fuels the perception among some applicants that politics affects decisions, said the head of a nonprofit group that works with companies seeking tech fund money.

"There's a lot of suspicion that there's more political influence than meets the eye," said Russ Peterman, executive director for the Texas Life-Sciences Collaboration Center in Georgetown. "The process leaves the state open to some cynicism about how it is working."

State Rep. Mark Strama, D-Austin, chairs the House committee that has oversight of the tech fund. If money is going to companies backed by political donors, he said, "it certainly is something that should be investigated."

The Legislature created the Emerging Technology Fund in 2005 at Perry's urging. Since then, the state has awarded $173 million under the tech fund to 120 companies, according to the governor's office. An additional $161 million has gone to Texas universities, primarily for research.

At a time when private investment capital is tight, the tech fund has helped many companies get their ideas off the ground, supporters say.

"It's been a real game-changer," said Thomas Kowalski, president of the Texas Healthcare & Bioscience Institute, a nonprofit group in Austin.

There have been about 1,600 applications for funding since 2005, according to testimony at a state Senate hearing in July. Only about 7 percent receive funding.

Under the law, companies that receive tech fund money must have approval from the governor, the lieutenant governor and the House speaker. However, the speaker and lieutenant governor don't act until Perry decides to back an applicant or gives them detailed information prepared by his staff about the recommended firms, aides said.

Max Sherman, former dean of the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, said such decisions should be in the hands of an independent body, not the state's three top elected officials.

"If you were advising those three people that make that ultimate decision," he said, "you would almost say you ought to try to distance yourself from any kind of flak you might get that might be perceived as an improper relationship."

State Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, was the Senate sponsor of the bill the created the tech fund. She said last week that she would be willing to eliminate the governor, lieutenant governor and House speaker from the decision-making process if politics has infected the tech fund.

"It would be preferable to getting rid of the program as a result of what is being uncovered," she said.

Perry makes his decision on tech fund awards after receiving recommendations from a 17-member advisory committee that he appoints. The advisory committee meets in sessions closed to the public and does not take minutes of its meetings. Its recommendations to Perry are not made public, either.

Before the advisory committee considers applications, seven regional boards and one statewide life science board conduct their own reviews. The boards are private, nonprofit groups, and their meetings also are closed to the public.

Texas is one of more than 20 states that have established economic development funds to nurture start-up technology companies.

Dan Berglund, head of an Ohio-based nonprofit group that promotes technology development, said Texas is distinctive in its tech fund's organization.

Most states, he said, do not have their top political leaders as decision makers. Technical review, he said, is normally done by out-of-state experts.

"It's a safeguard against politics coming into play, and it's a safeguard against conflicts of interest," said Berglund, president and chief executive officer of the State Science & Technology Institute.

The tech fund's advisory committee is a mixture of private investors, entrepreneurs, scientists and academics. Some are also Perry donors.

Because their opinions are advisory and not binding, committee members are not required to file financial disclosures with the ethics commission.

On Friday afternoon, the governor's office gave The News an undated, sixpage "ethics code" for the advisory committee.

The policy says a conflict of interest exists when a committee member has a business relationship that could "reasonably be expected to diminish" his judgment or objectivity.

If a member wants to invest in a company that has applied for tech fund money, he is required to disclose this. A separate committee that includes a member of the governor's staff is then formed to resolve the issue.

Bill Sproull of Richardson, an advisory committee member since the panel's inception, said the governor's staff has often given oral instructions about conflict of interest policies. He said he did not recall a written policy.

"The very first thing we talk about are those recusal policies and other things [related to conflicts of interest]," said Sproull, who was recently named chairman of the tech fund committee. "So that's pretty well engrained."

The regional boards also have conflict of interest policies.

Houston financier

Charles W. Tate, a noted Houston financier, is the head of one of those boards.

Tate was a partner in the investment firm led by Dallas businessman Tom Hicks, former owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

In 2006, Tate started the Texas Life Science Center for Innovation and Commercialization. It functions like a regional board, but it has statewide responsibilities for tech fund applicants involved in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and medical devices.

ThromboVision brought its tech fund application before the board. The firm was developing technology to measure the effectiveness of anti-clotting drugs.

In November 2006, the life science board recommended that ThromboVision get money from the tech fund. Tate said he voted for it. The endorsement was forwarded to the advisory committee in Austin.

Four months later, ThromboVision's CEO, Edward Teitel, approached Tate with an "investment opportunity," Tate wrote in a letter to The News.

"At the time," he wrote, "the [state advisory committee] had already approved the ThromboVision application contingent upon the company's ability to raise matching funds from the private sector."

Tate made two investments in the company, he wrote, in May and August of 2007.

Perry announced in October 2007 that ThromboVision would get $1.5 million in tech fund money.

Tate said his vote to recommend funding was proper. "There was no need to recuse myself from [life science board] discussions on ThromboVision as I was not an investor on the date of that meeting," Tate wrote.

Nothing in the rules of the tech fund's state advisory committee, he said, barred him from investing in companies receiving tech fund awards.

"Furthermore," he wrote, "the [life science] board received oral advice from legal counsel at Vinson & Elkins at its first board meeting that there was nothing to prohibit ... directors from investing in ETF-funded companies."

That soon changed, Tate said. "However," he wrote, "in the fall of 2007, Vinson & Elkins reversed its prior opinion and orally advised the ... Board that under federal IRS tax guidelines, [life science] directors should avoid investing in ETF-funded companies."

An attorney who advises the Internal Revenue Service on tax-exempt matters told The News he would counsel board members not to make investments in companies they review.

"You're benefiting from confidential information," said James P. Joseph, who heads the tax-exempt practice at Arnold & Porter LLP in Washington, D.C. "It's just a classic conflict of interest."

The ThromboVision investment was Tate's second in a company that received a tech fund award. In January 2007, Tate bought shares in OrthoAccel Technologies Inc., another Houston-based firm.

Five months later, the life science board recommended that OrthoAccel get money. This time, Tate said he did not vote.

Perry's office announced in early 2008 that OrthoAccel would receive $750,000 from the tech fund.

Records used by the state to monitor the award show that the governor's office was informed that Tate was an investor in OrthoAccel.

Tate said that ThromboVision and OrthoAccel were treated the same as other tech fund applicants.

"My campaign contributions [to Perry] had absolutely no effect on OrthoAccel or ThromboVision receiving funds," he wrote. "Both of these companies were subjected to the same rigorous review and approval process" as other applicants.

Tate's more than $424,000 in donations to Perry's campaigns since 2000 includes travel on Tate's private airplane, he said.

In May, he wrote a $100,000 check to Perry, and is a member of the governor's statewide re-election committee.

Despite support from the state, Tate and other investors, ThromboVision filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 2. Court filings show that Tate owned 200,000 shares of the company's preferred stock.

The filings also revealed that the company had an investment from another Perry supporter: Houston investor Charles Miller, who gave the governor $125,000.

Miller said he's had "virtually no contact" with Perry since resigning from the University of Texas System Board of Regents.

"I didn't support him in the primary," he said. "I supported Kay Hutchison. I don't have an argument or fight with him, but I don't have an ongoing relationship with him."

Multiple donors

Some other companies that have received tech fund awards have multiple investors who are big Perry donors.

The News obtained a capitalization table for Gradalis that showed James R. Leininger owning 390,000 shares.

Leininger, a former Army doctor in San Antonio who became one of the wealthiest Texans by developing specialty medical beds, has been a major contributor to Republican candidates for years.

The documents also showed that John McHale, an Austin high-tech millionaire who for several years has contributed to Democratic candidates, agreed to invest $2 million for 200,000 shares in Gradalis.

Perry announced a $1.75 million tech fund award to Gradalis on March 5, 2009. Four days later, McHale signed the stock purchase agreement. McHale made a $50,000 contribution to Perry's re-election campaign later that year.

Neither McHale nor Leininger returned messages seeking comment.

Terrabon is another with multiple Perry donors as investors. In 2008, Texas A&M System regent Adams made a $100,000 loan to the company. It was later converted to equity, Adams said.

Perry announced in July that Terrabon, which is trying to convert landfill waste into fuel, would receive $2.75 million from the tech fund.

One of its founders is Emil Ogden, father of state Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan. The younger Ogden, chairman of the senate finance committee, said he has "no interest and no involvement with Terrabon."

Another of the company's founders is David S. Carrabba. The Carrabba family and their company have donated $23,000 to Perry.

"I never talked to the governor about the company [Terrabon]," Carrabba said. "The [tech fund] process is designed to take politics out of it."

The tech fund is structured so that the state gets the right to buy stock in each company that receives an award. The state can cash in when a company is sold or goes public.

That has happened at least once. CardioSpectra Inc., which was $1.35 million in 2006, was bought by Volcano Corp. in 2007. Perry spokeswoman Cesinger placed the return on the state's investment at $2.2 million.

The governor's office would not reveal how many shares the state owns in any other companies, how many shares the state can buy in each company, and the current value of its portfolio.

In response to a question from The News about a 2009 financial report from the governor's office, a Perry spokeswoman said it referred to the state's right to buy 87,412 shares of Gradalis stock.

The governor's office also did not provide any figures on job creation, one of the stated goals of the tech fund.

"The information is simply not yet available," Perry spokeswoman Cesinger said. "If we had it, we would provide it." Those figures will be included in a report to the Legislature next year, she said.

Perry's office would not allow the tech fund's director, Jonathan Taylor, to be interviewed.

Legislators concerned

The tech fund has the same disclosure weaknesses as many other government programs that try to mirror the private sector, said James Nolen, a distinguished senior lecturer at the University of Texas at Austin business school.

"Transparency, accountability, measurement: that is what most of these programs lack," said Nolen. "They don't want transparency. People might figure out what is going on."

Strama, the Democratic state representative from Austin, said he questions whether the tech fund is being properly run from the governor's office.

"I think they weren't doing a good job of managing it from the beginning," he said. "They didn't have systems in place to monitor and measure the health of the companies they had invested in and the health of the overall portfolio."

Strama said budget shortfalls may force a cut in the tech fund when the legislature convenes next year. "I can't see any way it's not going to be downsized," he said.

And Republican Shapiro said some lawmakers remain incensed that Perry granted $50 million in tech fund money last year to his alma mater, Texas A&M. The governor transferred the money from the state's Enterprise Fund and largely bypassed the tech fund's advisory process.

"There were many in the legislature following that act that wanted to get rid of the whole program," Shapiro said.

Shapiro said she remains a supporter of the tech fund. But because of continuing resentment, budget shortfalls and the possibility of involvement by Perry donors, she said, the fund could be fighting for its survival next year.

"I would hope that if it is of value we will find a way to cure the ills that have transpired and continue the program at some level," she said.

jdrew@dallasnews.com; smcgonigle@dallasnews.com; rmcneill@dallasnews.com

TIMELINE: THROMBOVISION INVESTMENT July 18, 2005: ThromboVision Inc. is incorporated by Edward Teitel. It is based in Houston.

January 25, 2006: Houston investor Charles W. Tate starts Texas Life Science Center for Innovation and Commercialization. It vets applicants for the Texas Emerging Technology Fund.

Nov. 9, 2006: The life science center board recommends ThromboVision to the tech fund's state advisory board. Tate, who is chairman of the life science center's board, votes yes.

March 15, 2007: Teitel makes an investment presentation to Tate.

April 20, 2007: A letter from Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and then-House Speaker Tom Craddick tells Teitel that ThromboVision is the recipient of a $1.5 million award from the tech fund.

May 8, 2007: Tate makes his first investment in ThromboVision.

June 13, 2007: Teitel signs a contract with the governor's office to receive the ETF money.

July 5, 2007: Perry chief of staff Brian C. Newby signs the ETF contract.

Aug. 31, 2007: Tate makes his second investment in ThromboVision.

Oct. 9, 2007: Perry's office announces the ThromboVision award to the public.

Sept. 2, 2010: ThromboVision declares bankruptcy. It reveals that major Perry donors Tate and Houston investor Charles Miller own 200,000 and 250,000 preferred shares, respectively.

SOURCE: Dallas Morning News research

AT A GLANCE: ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS A statewide advisory committee of 17 members, appointed by the governor, must decide whether to recommend a company for Emerging Technology Fund money. The committee passes its recommendations to the governor.

Here are the current members. Two positions are vacant.

•Bill Sproull, Richardson Chamber of Commerce and advisory committee chair

•Aruna Viswanathan, Clear Spring Capital Group and advisory committee vice chair

•Bob Pearson, WeissComm Group

•C. Mauli Agrawal, dean of Engineering, University of Texas at San Antonio.

•Michael Bleyzer, president & CEO, SigmaBleyzer Investment Group LLC

•T. Randall Cain, managing partner, Ernst & Young

•Brett Gilbert, Texas A&M University

•Judy Hawley, Advanced Acoustic Concepts

•Bill Holmes, Datamark

•Rick Ledesma, DataLogic Software, Inc

•William E. Morrow, chairman & CEO, CSIdentity Corp.

•John Schrock Sr., Lifetime Industries

•Max Talbott, principal consultant and owner, Max Talbott LLC

•Richard Williams, head of renewable energy, Energy Future Holdings

•Enrique "Henry" R. Venta, Lamar University College of Business

SOURCE: Governor's office

http://cache.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/100310dntexetfmain.2981294.html

Old Yeller: A Dog Named Slick Rick

2010-09-30T17:33:00.000-07:00

Now most of you may remember Old Yeller and think it’s a Disney movie, but it’s really a story about a Texas hound named Slick Rick. Well sir, this hound is really bad at debating because his history keeps getting in the way. So instead of going out and trying to debate, he manufactured a cover story that smells all the way from Dalhart to Brownsville, and all places in between. But this hound can sniff out a special interest dollar quicker than a bloodhound on a pork chop, and friends that’s a slick trick indeed.

Now there was once a man named PT Barnum, and he and Slick Rick certainly believe that a sucker is born every minute. Not satisfied with having misled Texans on property tax relief, fast track TXU coal plant construction, the Trans Texas Corridor, and the sale of State Parks' mineral rights and management, Slick Rick huckstered up other proposals. They were: the sale of the Texas lottery, and a mandatory HPV virus vaccine for 11 to 12 year old girls.

Merck brought us Vioxx; a medical mistake that was recalled under massive lawsuits and desperately needed another revenue source. Their record for public safety leaves much to be desired. Texans answered that they did not want their loved ones to be the guinea pigs courtesy of Merck and that was stopped too.*

The lottery sale was to be $14 billion to $20 billion lump sum payment of a proven billion dollar a year money maker and the deal was for a forty year exclusive revenue source or $14 billion for $40 billion guaranteed. This deal makes no accounting sense to anyone, but a quick change artist or someone who might pocket a handsome commission. But Texans got wind of these deals and Slick Rick sulked all the way to a ten thousand dollar a month tax payer funded home and the Governor’s Mansion mysteriously burned down.

We had this hound for ten years, so why would anyone want him for another four?

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vioxx

9/11:Since That Day by William Rivers Pitt

2010-09-11T12:12:00.000-07:00

I moved into a new apartment last week, and I've since noticed that when there are low clouds in the sky, the airplanes out of Logan fly low over my new neighborhood as they depart for wherever. It is cloudy today and I can hear them overhead, roaring by every few minutes, hidden in the gray weather above.

I think about that day when I hear the engines. Of course I do. It was nine years ago, but still, for me, it is the sound of airplane engines that brings it all back, if only for a moment.

Everyone has a story about where they were on that day. One friend of mine, a cook, was buried in the kitchen for the breakfast rush and had no idea what was going on until the orders dried up. He walked out of the kitchen wondering what was going on to find everyone staring dumbstruck at the television. Another friend of mine was working at a brokerage house in San Francisco. He didn't have a television and liked to listen to music on headphones during his commute to work. He got to work and started calling various extensions at the New York home office in the World Trade Center, but nobody was picking up. It wasn't until his boss came in and told him what had happened that he realized he had been calling dead people.

I was a teacher, and it was the first day of school. I was the first person in the building to find out what was going on, and I ran around from teacher to teacher letting them know what had happened before hauling two televisions out of the library closet so we could all watch together. I was shattered, but the children were terrified, and so I had to hold myself together and reassure them, even as the sound of fighter jets started roaring overhead. One of my students heard the news and turned white, because her father was supposed to be at a meeting in the Trade Center that morning. He survived, many others did not. That night, I bought a bottle of brown liquor on the way home and drank it off in front of my own television as those images were seared into my memory forever.

When all is said and done, someone once said, there's nothing left to do or say. There are 300 million versions of this story in America, and billions more around the world. Everyone remembers where they were, and what they were doing, on that day. Give anyone you meet a chance, and they'll tell you all about it.

Nine years, four national elections, two wars and two presidents since that day, and where are we now as a nation? Broke, deranged and dangerous pretty much sums it up. We have Christian-Taliban pastors in Florida with filthy souls threatening to burn the Qu'ran, as if such an act had any meaning beyond a desire to make money, and a national news media apparatus all too happy to give them all the ink and air time he could ever wish for. We have seething crowds threatening arson and murder because a Muslim community center might get built next to a strip club on the site of a defunct coat store. We have national caricatures like Sarah Palin charging people more than $200 for the chance to meet with her on that day, as if she has any significance at all. We've got stabbings and beatings and firebombings, and this is nine years later.

We are a nation of euphemisms now. It's not spying on the American people, it is "national security." It's not holding someone in a hellhole without charges or trial, it is "indefinite detention." It's not kidnapping, it is "extraordinary rendition." It's not murder or assassination, it is "targeted killing." It's not torture, it is "enhanced interrogation." It's not wildly and patently illegal and immoral on its face, it is "war."

We are a lessened nation nine years later, and much of the damage has been done by our own hand. It is one thing for people to react with fear and rage after an outrageous act of violence. It is quite another for the leaders of those people to exploit that fear and rage for their own dark and greedy purposes, and nine years later, we are down in the ditch thanks to exactly that sort of behavior. Thousands of American soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and tens of thousands more have been grievously maimed. Millions of civilians in those two countries have been slaughtered or shattered, but we may never know the true scope of the carnage, because "we don't do body counts."

It is not all darkness, however, because we also have this, from the second president to take up residence in the White House since that day:
President Obama concluded his press conference today with a statement on the importance of protecting the rights of American Muslims. "We don't differentiate between them and us," he said. "It's just us. And that is a principle that I think is going to be very important for us to sustain."
Obama was asked about the controversial Park51 Islamic center, and said: "I think I've been pretty clear on my position here. And that is: This country stands for the proposition that all men and women are created equal, that they have certain inalienable rights, and one of those inalienable rights is to practice their religion freely."

"What that means," he continued, "is that if you could build a church on a site, you could build a synagogue on a site, if you could build a Hindu temple on a site, then you should be able to build a mosque on the site."
"We've got millions of Muslim Americans, our fellow citizens in this country," Obama said. "They're going to school with our kids. They're our neighbors. They're our friends. They're our coworkers. And when we start acting as if their religion is somehow offensive, what are we saying to them?"

That’s about exactly right, despite the sorry fact that it comes from the same president who has been helpless to refrain from perpetuating – or all too eager to perpetuate – the barbaric and anti-American practices that have become all too commonplace in the nine years since that day. In this, he must not be allowed to lead us, because the grooves of this manner of leadership are too deeply cut into the road for him to easily deviate. In this, we must lead him, and I suspect he will follow if given the chance.
Nine years later, one truth remains: America is an idea, a dream, a hope that has yet to be realized. Take away our people, our cities, our roads, our crops, our armies and navies and bombs and guns, take all of that away and there is still the idea, as vibrant and vital as it was when the Founders first put ink to parchment and changed the world. Everyone you know owns a heritage that began somewhere else; we are all different in so many ways, and all that binds us is the ink on that parchment and the ideas therein contained. We are all our brother’s and sister’s keeper, beholden to one another, all of us children of that idea.

Nine years ago, we were forced into an accounting of how dear that idea is to us, and were found wanting. Nine years later, we still are. The idea deserves better than what we have given to it. We can continue in this fashion, or we can summon within ourselves the will and wisdom to locate those better angels of our nature that are surely there, waiting for us.
Let us try, at least, to locate them, and make them sing. 365 days from now, we will be marking the passage of a decade since that day. What a proper moment to celebrate a new beginning, a renewed focus on how we can dedicate ourselves to the daily creation of that more perfect union we know is possible. What a chance to transform a day of sorrow and hatred into a day of somber recognition of our flaws, our faults, and the boundless possibilities of the idea that is, still, us.

http://www.truth-out.org/since-that-day63150

G.O.P. Leader Is Tightly Bound to Lobbyists:John Boehner

2010-09-11T11:51:00.000-07:00

By ERIC LIPTON

WASHINGTON — House Democrats were preparing late last year for the first floor vote on the financial regulatory overhaul when Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio and other Republican leaders summoned more than 100 industry lobbyists to Capitol Hill for a private strategy session.

The bill’s passage in the House already seemed inevitable. But Mr. Boehner and his deputies told the Wall Street lobbyists and trade association leaders that by teaming up, they could still perhaps block its final passage or at least water it down.

“We need you to get out there and speak up against this,” Mr. Boehner said that December afternoon, according to three people familiar with his remarks, while also warning against cutting side deals with Democrats.

That sort of alliance — they won a few skirmishes, though they lost the war on the regulatory bill — is business as usual for Mr. Boehner, the House minority leader and would-be speaker if Republicans win the House in November. He maintains especially tight ties with a circle of lobbyists and former aides representing some of the nation’s biggest businesses, including Goldman Sachs, Google, Citigroup, R. J. Reynolds, MillerCoors and UPS.

They have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaigns over the years, provided him rides on their corporate jets, socialized with him at luxury golf resorts and waterfront bashes and are now leading fund-raising efforts for his Boehner for Speaker campaign, which is soliciting checks of up to $37,800 each, the maximum allowed.

Some of the lobbyists readily acknowledge routinely seeking his office’s help — calling the congressman and his aides as often as several times a week — to advance their agenda in Washington. And in many cases, Mr. Boehner has helped them out.

As Democrats increasingly try to cast the Ohio congressman as the face of the Republican Party — President Obama mentioned his name eight times in a speech last week — and as Mr. Boehner becomes more visible, his ties to lobbyists, cultivated since he arrived here in 1991, are coming under attack.

The woman he hopes to replace, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, derided him on Friday as having met “countless times with special-interest lobbyists in an effort to stop tough legislation” that would regulate corporations and protect consumers. And the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, through a spokeswoman, charged that he “epitomizes the smoked-filled, backroom, special-interest deal making that turns off voters about Washington.”

Mr. Boehner, who declined to be interviewed for this article, and his lobbyist allies ridicule such criticism as politically motivated by desperate Democrats. His actions, they say, simply reflect the pro-business, antiregulatory philosophy that he has espoused for more than three decades, dating back to when Mr. Boehner, the son of a tavern owner, ran a small plastics company in Ohio. And fielding requests from lobbyists is nothing unusual, he says.

“I get lobbied every day by somebody,” he said last month after a speech in Cleveland. “It could be by my wife. It could be the bellman. It goes on all day, everyday, everyplace.”

Mr. Boehner — a 60-year-old, perpetually tanned, sharply tailored, chain-smoking golfer — is not as fiery as Newt Gingrich or as unrelenting an arm-twister as Tom DeLay, two of his Republican predecessors in top House posts. It is his reputation as a “Chamber of Commerce” Republican and his fund-raising skills — he has raised $36 million for Republican causes during this election cycle, more than almost anyone else in his party — that explain, in part, his rise.

If elected as his party’s leader in the House, Mr. Boehner will certainly lean on his industry allies for help as he builds coalitions necessary to push legislation through Congress, his office acknowledges. His friends say there is nothing wrong with that.

“Does he have a lot of relationships in this city? Yes, absolutely,” said Mark Isakowitz, a friend whose Republican firm represents more than three dozen financial, telecommunications, energy and consumer products companies as diverse as Coca-Cola and Zurich Financial Services. “But I think all the good lawmakers do.”

Mr. Boehner won some of his first national headlines back in 1996 after he was caught handing out checks from tobacco lobbyists to fellow Republicans on the House floor. Then the fourth-ranking House Republican, Mr. Boehner said he had broken no rules and was simply assisting his lobbyist friends, who were contributing to other Republicans’ campaigns.

His business-friendly reputation was enhanced through the weekly powwows he organized on Capitol Hill nicknamed the Thursday Group, a gathering of conservative leaders and business lobbyists whom he relied on to help push the party’s legislative agenda. The Thursday gathering was disbanded after a Republican power struggle that cost him his leadership position.

But he continued to routinely meet with business leaders, particularly in his role as chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee, and returned to power as House G.O.P. leader in 2006. Several of the onetime Thursday regulars, along with some newcomers, are among the close-knit group that routinely call on Mr. Boehner’s office for client matters, write checks to his campaign and socialize with him.

That tight circle includes Mr. Isakowitz; Bruce Gates, a lobbyist for the cigarette maker Altria; Nicholas E. Calio, a Citigroup lobbyist; and two former aides, Marc Lampkin and Sam Geduldig, both now financial services lobbyists.

The tobacco industry is particularly well represented, with both Mr. Gates and John Fish, a lobbyist for R. J. Reynolds, maker of Camel cigarettes, in the group. People affiliated with those companies have contributed at least $340,000 to Mr. Boehner’s political campaigns, with Mr. Gates being the top individual donor among the thousands during Mr. Boehner’s political career, according to a tally by the Center for Public Integrity.

While many lawmakers in each party have networks of donors, lobbyists and former aides who now represent corporate interests, Mr. Boehner’s ties seem especially deep. His clique even has a nickname on Capitol Hill, Boehner Land. The members of this inner circle said their association with Mr. Boehner translates into open access to him and his staff.

“He likes to bring similarly minded people together to try to advance legislation or oppose it,” said Drew Maloney, a lobbyist at Ogilvy Government Relations. “That is how you get things done.”

One lobbyist in the club — after lauding each staff member in Mr. Boehner’s office that he routinely calls to ask for help — ticked off the list of recent issues for which he had won the lawmaker’s backing: combating fee increases for the oil industry, fighting a proposed cap on debit card fees, protecting tax breaks for hedge fund executives and opposing a cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

Still, with Mr. Boehner and his party in the minority, they often lost the fights.

But despite the recent string of defeats on the House floor, Mr. Boehner has benefited from his alliance with lobbyists.

From 2000 to 2007, Mr. Boehner flew at least 45 times, often with his wife, Debbie, on corporate jets provided by companies including R. J. Reynolds. (As required, Mr. Boehner reimbursed part of the costs.)

In addition, over the last decade, he has taken 41 other trips paid for by corporate sponsors or industry groups, often to popular golf spots. Those trips make him one of the top House beneficiaries of such travel, which has recently been curbed as a result of changes in ethics rules in Washington.

Mr. Boehner continues to travel to popular golf destinations on a corporate-subsidized tab, although now it is paid for through his political action committee, the Freedom Project. In the last 18 months, it has spent at least $67,000 at the Ritz Carlton Naples in Florida, at least $20,000 at the Robert Trent Jones Golf Club in Gainesville, Va., and at least $29,000 at the Muirfield Village Golf Club in Dublin, Ohio, federal records show, for fund-raising events.

In June, with the prospects for a Republican takeover of the House rising, Mr. Boehner moved to accelerate his fund-raising effort, starting what he called the Boehner for Speaker campaign. The idea was to use his high profile to draw large donations that would be mostly allocated to help elect other House Republicans.

He turned again to the same group of lobbyists, former aides and friends during a July meeting at the headquarters of the Republican National Committee.

“The wave is there, there is a rebellion in the country, and we have good candidates,” Mr. Boehner told his supporters, one of the lobbyists present at the meeting recalled. “But I don’t want to miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity because we have not raised enough money. They might be able to stop us with a wall of money.”

Mr. Calio of Citigroup was among the first to write a large check. So far, a party spokesman said, the campaign has raised nearly $2 million. Mr. Boehner has helped raise millions more in the last six weeks for Republican House candidates across the country and the party, appearing at more than 40 fund-raisers.

The Boehner for Speaker campaign offers donors who give the maximum amount special perks, like “meetings with Leader Boehner and much much more.”

But his lobbyist friends and former aides said these incentives did not mean too much, because they already had plenty of access to Mr. Boehner. They just now want to see him as the speaker of the House.

“He knows this is going to be a tough election,” said Samuel J. Baptista, a friend, golf partner and lobbyist whose clients include Goldman Sachs and Discover Financial. “But people who underestimate him really do so at their own peril.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/us/politics/12boehner.html?_r=1&exprod=myyahoo&pagewanted=print

Study shows majority of Texas companies given taxpayer money to create jobs failed to meet goals

2010-09-08T13:16:00.000-07:00

By ERIN MULVANEY / Austin Bureau Dallas Morning News emulvaney@dallasnews.com

AUSTIN — Two-thirds of the companies given taxpayer money from the job creation fund that Gov. Rick Perry has touted as a key reason for Texas’ economic growth failed to meet their promises last year, a study released today finds.

In a study released Wednesday, the progressive watchdog group Texans for Public Justice compared Texas Enterprise Fund contracts to compliance reports that were filed in the governor’s office in 2009. Of the 50 companies that were given a combined $368 million to create or maintain 49,581 jobs by the end of last year, six were terminated, 13 failed to meet promises and 14 were amended to lower job targets or postpone deadlines.

The new study shows a jump from the group’s 2008 study of the fund that showed 42 percent of those companies it reviewed failing to meet their target.

As of June 17, enterprise fund companies were fined $2.8 million by the governor’s office for failing to meet goals. That amounted to 2 percent of the $116 million in state money they had received from the fund so far, the report states.

The Texas Enterprise fund was created in 2003 as a “deal-closing” fund to create new jobs in Texas. The governor, the lieutenant governor and the speaker of the House approve the projects, but the governor’s office can make amendments to the original deals.

The governor’s website says, “The fund has vastly expanded the state’s economic development tools, and as a result, Texas now has one of the best economic environments in the nation.”

The governor’s office did not immediately respond to the study, but the Texas Enterprise Fund website says that to date the fund has brought more than 52,000 new jobs to the state and generated more than $14.3 billion in capital investment. The report has evidence that about 31,000 jobs have been created under the fund, or 56 percent of the claim.

Andrew Wheat, spokesman for Texans for Public Justice, said that because the fund is a centerpiece of Perry’s gubernatorial campaign, there is an overwhelming desire to present it as successful.

“When the facts turned against the portrayal it didn’t change the need to portray it as a success,” Wheat said. “Because of the recession, we need jobs now and need them today.”

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/yahoolatestnews/stories/090810dntexTEF.d362e316.html

Glenn Beck, Dr. King, and why TODAY matters

2010-08-28T12:09:00.000-07:00

by Jim Wallis

Last spring Fox News commentator Glenn Beck told Christians to leave churches that promoted social justice. To do so, Christians would have to walk out on Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech too. Dr. King was a social justice Christian, the kind of Christian Mr. Beck constantly derides.

Today marks the 47th anniversary of Dr. King’s “I Have A Dream” speech. And, if you were in Washington, D.C., you could have seen Glenn Beck standing on the historic location of King’s speech – only Mr. Beck will be giving his "I have a plan" speech.

I want to challenge Christians to understand the true significance of King’s speech – for our work on social justice, for racial reconciliation, and for the health of the American church.

Sojourners has been working hard to make sure that Christians understand the prophetic power of King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, and we need your support.

This morning I spoke at Celebrate the Dream, a dedication ceremony for a work of public art that commemorates the words and legacy of Dr. King, in the face of Mr. Beck’s challenge of civil rights history with his Restoring Honor rally.

Read our God’s Politics blog series on The Legacy of Martin Luther King - with favorite blog writers Vincent Harding, Valerie Elverton Dixon, and Troy Jackson - on how King’s legacy has impacted their own social justice work.

Also, we have uploaded a free online version of a new Sojourners magazine article by civil rights leader Dr. Vincent Harding, called “Revisiting (and Revisioning?) King’s ‘I Have a Dream’ Speech.”

I know you’ll want to read these articles on the God’s Politics blog and on our website. But before you do that, support this work.

We’re invested in standing with our sisters and brothers in the civil rights movement and in addressing the challenges that Mr. Beck aims at Sojourners and me. When I remember that Dr. Martin Luther King would also have been a Beck target – up on his infamous blackboard too – I know that I am in good company.

With Sojourners’ media credibility and profile, our strong coalitions of faith leaders, and dedicated readers like you, we can address the brash lies told by Glenn Beck and invite a more civil dialogue – one that does not drive people to fear and division, but one that is inspired by hope and the biblical call to racial reconciliation and social justice, care for the poor, prophetic advocacy, and personal and social transformation in Christ.

We have reached out to Mr. Beck with an invitation to civil dialogue, but until he responds, we cannot remain silent. Sojourners will speak truth against his allegations, and we refuse to let Mr. Beck’s rally cast a dark shadow over the civil rights movement, which has inspired Sojourners and other movements for freedom and dignity around the world.

Early next week, pictures and updates from this weekend’s events will be posted on the God’s Politics blog.

Blessings for all your support!

Jim Wallis
President and CEO of Sojourners

Rare Sharing of Data Led to Results on Alzheimer’s

2010-08-12T19:11:00.000-07:00

By GINA KOLATA
In 2003, a group of scientists and executives from the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the drug and medical-imaging industries, universities and nonprofit groups joined in a project that experts say had no precedent: a collaborative effort to find the biological markers that show the progression of Alzheimer’s disease in the human brain.

Now, the effort is bearing fruit with a wealth of recent scientific papers on the early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s using methods like PET scans and tests of spinal fluid. More than 100 studies are under way to test drugs that might slow or stop the disease.

And the collaboration is already serving as a model for similar efforts against Parkinson’s disease. A $40 million project to look for biomarkers for Parkinson’s, sponsored by the Michael J. Fox Foundation, plans to enroll 600 study subjects in the United States and Europe.

The work on Alzheimer’s “is the precedent,” said Holly Barkhymer, a spokeswoman for the foundation. “We’re really excited.”

The key to the Alzheimer’s project was an agreement as ambitious as its goal: not just to raise money, not just to do research on a vast scale, but also to share all the data, making every single finding public immediately, available to anyone with a computer anywhere in the world.

No one would own the data. No one could submit patent applications, though private companies would ultimately profit from any drugs or imaging tests developed as a result of the effort.

“It was unbelievable,” said Dr. John Q. Trojanowski, an Alzheimer’s researcher at the University of Pennsylvania. “It’s not science the way most of us have practiced it in our careers. But we all realized that we would never get biomarkers unless all of us parked our egos and intellectual-property noses outside the door and agreed that all of our data would be public immediately.”

Biomarkers are not necessarily definitive. It remains to be seen how many people who have them actually get the disease. But that is part of the research project.

The idea for the collaboration, known as ADNI, for Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, emerged about 10 years ago during a casual conversation in a car.

Neil S. Buckholtz, chief of the Dementias of Aging Branch at the National Institute on Aging, was in Indianapolis, and Dr. William Potter, a neuroscientist at Eli Lilly and his longtime friend, was driving him to the airport.

Dr. Potter had recently left the National Institutes of Health and he had been thinking about how to speed the glacial progress of Alzheimer’s drug research.

“We wanted to get out of what I called 19th-century drug development — give a drug and hope it does something,” Dr. Potter recalled in an interview on Thursday. “What was needed was to find some way of seeing what was happening in the brain as Alzheimer’s progressed and asking if experimental drugs could alter that progression.”

Scientists were looking for biomarkers, but they were not getting very far.

“The problem in the field was that you had many different scientists in many different universities doing their own research with their own patients and with their own methods,” said Dr. Michael W. Weiner of the San Francisco Department of Veterans Affairs, who directs ADNI. “Different people using different methods on different subjects in different places were getting different results, which is not surprising. What was needed was to get everyone together and to get a common data set.”

But that would require a huge effort. No company could do it alone, and neither could individual researchers. The project would require 800 subjects, some with normal memories, some with memory impairment, some with Alzheimer’s, who would be tested for possible biomarkers and followed for years to see whether these markers signaled the disease’s progression.

Suddenly, in the car as he drove Dr. Buckholtz to the airport, “everything just jelled,” Dr. Potter said, adding, “Maybe this was important enough to get people to work together and coordinate in a way that hadn’t been possible before.”

The idea, Dr. Buckholtz said, was that the government’s National Institutes of Health “could serve as an honest broker between the pharmaceutical industry and academia.”

Soon, Dr. Richard J. Hodes, the director of the National Institute on Aging, was on the phone with Dr. Steven M. Paul, a former scientific director at the National Institute of Mental Health who had recently left to head central-nervous-system research at Eli Lilly. Dr. Paul offered to ask other drug companies to raise money.

It turned out to be relatively easy to get companies to agree, Dr. Paul said. It had become clear that the problem of finding good diagnostic tools was huge and complex. “We were better off working together than individually,” he said.

A critical aspect of the project was the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, which was set up by Congress to raise private funds on behalf of the institutes. Dr. Paul was on its board.

In the end, the National Institute on Aging agreed to pay $41 million, other institutes contributed $2.4 million, and 20 companies and two nonprofit groups contributed an additional $27 million to get the project going and sustain it for the first six years. Late last year, the institute contributed an additional $24 million and the foundation was working on a renewal of the project for another five years that would involve federal and private contributions of the same magnitude as the initial ones.

At first, the collaboration struck many scientists as worrisome — they would be giving up ownership of data, and anyone could use it, publish papers, maybe even misinterpret it and publish information that was wrong.

But Alzheimer’s researchers and drug companies realized they had little choice.

“Companies were caught in a prisoner’s dilemma,” said Dr. Jason Karlawish, an Alzheimer’s researcher at the University of Pennsylvania. “They all wanted to move the field forward, but no one wanted to take the risks of doing it.”

Many people look askance at collaborations with drug companies, and often that attitude is justified, Dr. Karlawish said.

But not in this case. To those who are skeptical, he says, “My answer to them is ‘get over it.’ ”

He went on: “This one makes sense. The development of reliable and valid measures of Alzheimer’s disease requires such large science with such limited returns on the investment that it was in no one company’s interest to pursue it.”

Companies as well as academic researchers are using the data. There have been more than 3,200 downloads of the entire massive data set and almost a million downloads of the data sets containing images from brain scans.

And Dr. Buckholtz says he is pleasantly surprised by the way things are turning out.

“We weren’t sure, frankly, how it would work out having data available to everyone,” he said. “But we felt that the good that could come out of it was overwhelming. And that’s what’s happened.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/health/research/13alzheimer.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

US Welcomes WTO Ruling Against European AirBus Subsidies

2010-07-19T11:58:00.000-07:00

By Stephen Kaufman

Washington — The Obama administration welcomed the World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) June 30 ruling against “launch aid” and other subsidies paid to the Airbus aircraft company from European countries, saying those subsidies are inconsistent with WTO rules and have harmed the U.S. aircraft industry.

In a June 30 statement, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said the ruling acknowledges that “distortive government subsidies should have no place in the global marketplace.”

The decision, coming after four decades of European subsidies for Airbus, “marks a victory” for small- and medium-sized American companies who produce components for jetliners produced by the Boeing aircraft corporation, he said.

“No industry supports more U.S. jobs through exporting than American aerospace manufacturing,” Locke said, adding that the Commerce Department and the office of U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Ron Kirk are aggressively trying to sell American products and services around the world to “help us reach President Obama’s goal of doubling exports in five years and supporting 2 million new jobs.”

According to the report released by the WTO panel, more than $20 billion in low-interest government loans to Airbus has been used to develop six models of passenger jets. The WTO ruled that the loans were prohibited export subsidies.

USTR General Counsel Tim Reif explained June 30 that in order to launch a new model of large commercial aircraft, aircraft producers must invest billions of dollars before the first aircraft is delivered or any revenue is received.

To cover some or all of its launch development costs, Airbus received loans from many European governments and the European Union (EU), which then was to be repaid through aircraft sales royalties, Reif said. However, the loan balance was forgiven even if Airbus did not sell enough aircraft, he added.

The WTO panel “found that the launch aid for each and every model of Airbus aircraft was provided free of market interest rate, and therefore constituted a subsidy,” Reif said. “The panel also found that the launch aid and other subsidies that the United States challenged caused adverse effects to the interests of the United States, and therefore are inconsistent with WTO rules.”

The approximately $15 billion in launch aid and $5 billion in other subsidies to Airbus “caused massive adverse effects to the U.S. industry,” Reif said, pointing to the WTO report’s documentation of Boeing’s loss in market share to Airbus in Europe, Australia, China and other countries.

Reif also said the WTO panel concluded that certain launch aid provided for the A380 superjumbo, which made its first commercial flight in October 2007, was “prohibited outright under WTO rules, without the need for showing adverse effect.”

The panel’s ruling confirms that “launch aid and other subsidies significantly distorted the launch decisions that Airbus made, and found that, but for these subsidies, none of the Airbus aircraft models would have been launched when they were and certainly not with the same features,” Reif said.

The United States initiated the WTO case in October 2004 and a panel chaired by Uruguay’s former ambassador to the WTO, Carlos Perez del Castillo, was formed to examine the matter in May 2005. The EU has filed its own WTO complaint that the U.S. government is subsidizing Boeing and a decision is expected in August, according to press reports.

Reif said the United States is seeking the immediate adoption of the panel’s report, and would then see if the European Union decides to appeal the decision.

U.S. Trade Representative Kirk “has made clear that he is prepared to sit down or have his staff sit down with European Commission representatives at any point to work on the problems raised by the panel report,” Reif said.

Airbus developed a new A350 airplane after the WTO dispute was filed in 2004, and Reif said U.S. officials hope that “the clarity of this ruling and its scope is something the EU will take to heart and the member states as they proceed forward” with existing and future Airbus programs.

“It would be very disappointing at this point in time if any of the member states proceeded ahead with disbursing launch aid to the A350,” Reif said.

(This is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://www.america.gov)

http://usinfo.americancorner.org.tw/st/eur-english/2010/July/20100707145015esnamfuak0.4017908.html

Unlikely Tutor Giving Military Afghan Advice by Elisabeth Bumiller

2010-07-19T09:53:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON — In the frantic last hours of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s command in Afghanistan, when the world wondered what was racing through the general’s mind, he reached out to an unlikely corner of his life: the author of the book “Three Cups of Tea,” Greg Mortenson.

“Will move through this and if I’m not involved in the years ahead, will take tremendous comfort in knowing people like you are helping Afghans build a future,” General McChrystal wrote to Mr. Mortenson in an e-mail message, as he traveled from Kabul to Washington. The note landed in Mr. Mortenson’s inbox shortly after 1 a.m. Eastern time on June 23. Nine hours later, the general walked into the Oval Office to be fired by President Obama.

The e-mail message was in response to a note of support from Mr. Mortenson. It reflected his broad and deepening relationship with the United States military, whose leaders have increasingly turned to Mr. Mortenson, once a shaggy mountaineer, to help translate the theory of counterinsurgency into tribal realities on the ground.

In the past year, Mr. Mortenson and his Central Asia Institute, responsible for the construction of more than 130 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan, mostly for girls, have set up some three dozen meetings between General McChrystal or his senior staff members and village elders across Afghanistan.

The collaboration, which grew in part out of the popularity of “Three Cups of Tea” among military wives who told their husbands to read it, extends to the office of Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Last summer, Admiral Mullen attended the opening of one of Mr. Mortenson’s schools in Pushghar, a remote village in Afghanistan’s Hindu Kush mountains.

Mr. Mortenson — who for a time lived out of his car in Berkeley, Calif. — has also spoken at dozens of military bases, seen his book go on required reading lists for senior American military commanders and had lunch with Gen. David H. Petraeus, General McChrystal’s replacement. On Friday he was in Tampa to meet with Adm. Eric T. Olson, the officer in charge of the United States Special Operations Command.

Mr. Mortenson, 52, thinks there is no military solution in Afghanistan — he says the education of girls is the real long-term fix — so he has been startled by the Defense Department’s embrace.

“I never, ever expected it,” Mr. Mortenson, a former Army medic, said in a telephone interview last week from Florida, where he had paused between military briefings, book talks for a sequel, “Stones into Schools,” and fund-raising appearances for his institute.

Mr. Mortenson, who said he had accepted no money from the military and had no contractual relationship with the Defense Department, was initially critical of the armed forces in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as “laptop warriors” who appeared, he said, indifferent to the civilian casualties inflicted by the American bombardment of Afghanistan.

In its early days “Three Cups of Tea,” the story of Mr. Mortenson’s efforts to build schools in Pakistan, was largely ignored by the military, and for that matter by most everyone else. Written with a journalist, David Oliver Relin, and published in hardcover by Viking in March 2006, the book had only modest sales. Most major newspapers, including this one, did not review it.

But the book’s message of the importance of girls’ education caught on when women’s book clubs, church groups and high schools began snapping up the less expensive paperback published in January 2007.

Sales to date are at four million copies in 41 countries, and the book’s yarn is well known: disoriented after a 1993 failed attempt on Pakistan’s K2, the second-highest mountain in the world, Mr. Mortenson took a wrong turn into the village of Korphe, was nursed back to health by the villagers and, in gratitude, vowed to build them a school.

He returned to Pakistan a year later with a $12,000 donation from a Silicon Valley benefactor and spent most of it on school construction materials in the city of Rawalpindi — only to be told he could not get his cargo to Korphe without first building a bridge.

The story of that bridge, Mr. Mortenson’s relationships with Pakistanis, and the schools that followed appealed so much to one military spouse that in the fall of 2007 she sent the book to her husband, Christopher D. Kolenda, at that time a lieutenant colonel commanding 700 American soldiers on the Pakistan border.

Colonel Kolenda knew well the instructions about building relationships with elders that were in the Army and Marine Corps’ new counterinsurgency manual, which had been released in late 2006. But “Three Cups of Tea” brought the lessons to life.

“It was practical, and it told real stories of real people,” said Colonel Kolenda, now a top adviser at the Kabul headquarters for the International Security Assistance Force, in an interview at the Pentagon last week.

Colonel Kolenda was among the first in the military to reach out to Mr. Mortenson, and by June 2008 the Central Asia Institute had built a school near Colonel Kolenda’s base. By the summer of 2009, Mr. Mortenson was in meetings in Kabul with Colonel Kolenda, village elders and at times President Obama’s new commander, General McChrystal. (By then at least two more military wives — Deborah Mullen and Holly Petraeus — had told their husbands to read “Three Cups of Tea.”)

As Colonel Kolenda tells it, Mr. Mortenson and his Afghan partner on the ground, Wakil Karimi, were the American high command’s primary conduits for reaching out to elders outside the “Kabul bubble.”

As Mr. Mortenson tells it, the Afghan elders were often blunt with General McChrystal, as in a meeting last October when one of them said that he had traveled all the way from his province because he needed weapons, not conversation.

“He said, ‘Are you going to give them to me or am I going to sit here and listen to you talk?’ ” Mr. Mortenson recalled. The high command replied, Mr. Mortenson said, that they were making an assessment of what he needed. “And he said, ‘Well, you’ve already been here eight years, ” Mr. Mortenson recalled.

Despite the rough edges, Colonel Kolenda said the meetings helped the American high command settle on central parts of its strategy — the imperative to avoid civilian casualties, in particular, which the elders consistently and angrily denounced during the sessions — and also smoothed relations between the elders and commanders.

For Mr. Mortenson’s part, his growing relationship with the military convinced him that it had learned the importance of understanding Afghan culture and of developing ties with elders across the country, and was willing to admit past mistakes.

At the end of this month, Mr. Mortenson, who lives in Bozeman, Mont., with his wife, Tara Bishop, and two children, is going back for the rest of the summer to Afghanistan, where to maintain credibility he now has to make it clear to Afghans and a number of aid organizations that he has no formal connection to the American military.

Mr. Mortenson acknowledges that his solution in Afghanistan, girls’ education, will take a generation and more. “But Al Qaeda and the Taliban are looking at it long range over generations,” he said. “And we’re looking at it in terms of annual fiscal cycles and presidential elections.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/world/asia/18tea.html?_r=1&ref=elisabeth_bumiller&pagewanted=print