This week at progressive state blogs is designed specifically to focus attention on the writing and analysis of people focused on their home turf. Here is the Nov. 18 edition. Inclusion of a blog post does not necessarily indicate my agreement with—or endorsement of—its contents. |
At Blog for Arizona, Bob Lord writes—Inside the Pity-Our-Farmers Tax ‘Reform’ Scam:
NO FARM FAMILIES, REPEAT NO FARM FAMILIES, ARE LOSING THEIR FAMILY FARMS TO THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX.
The politicians currently scheming to repeal the federal estate tax — America’s only tax levy on grand concentrations of private wealth — don’t have any good arguments to make. They have only bogus sob stories. The most bogus of them all: the claim that the estate tax is forcing hard-working farm families to sell their beloved farms.
The repeal crowd has been circulating this canard for years – and frightened many farm families in the process. But let’s get real. This family farm story holds absolutely no water whatsoever.
Let’s start with the basic number of farms valuable enough to subject their owners to estate tax. This figure is currently running about 30 each year. For the entire country. That’s less, on average, than one farmer per state.
So hardly any farm families actually face any estate tax liability. But are those who do face this liability getting taxed unfairly? Are family farm heirs being forced to “sell the family farm”?
No, not even close.
You need to be ultra-wealthy in America today — have a net worth over $11 million — to be subject to the federal estate tax. Only two out of every thousand Americans reach that level of wealth.
At Blue Virginia, lowkell writes—Dominion Energy Clearly Panicking, Lashes Out with Conspiracy Theory, “Dark Money” Charge at Virginia Organizing, Anti-Pipeline Groups:
Yesterday’s Washington Post story on Dominion Energy’s “campaign to elect a pipeline” – astroturfing, disparaging pipeline opponents as “absolutists,” attacking the media for not toeing the Dominion Energy line, etc. – was not a big surprise to those of us who have long known what type of company we’re dealing with here. But the details were interesting, as was the clear tone of panic in the Dominion spokesperson’s presentation. Clearly, Dominion is worried, and with good reason, as their business model looks increasingly shaky, and they just witnessed an election in which a bunch of anti-Dominion Democrats defeated Dominion-friendly Republicans (people who Dominion had invested a ton of money over the years). Sad, huh? OK, no, not really. LOL
So now Dominion is clearly freaking out, as evidenced by the latest…I honestly don’t even know what to call it…on its “sponsored” blog. Here are a few highlights:
- Lots of whining about how the media looks into Dominion Energy – the most powerful company in Virginia, a state monopoly no less – but NOT into Dominion’s nefarious, dastardly, powerful and well-funded (hahahaha) opponents – Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Friends of Nelson, Virginia Organizing, etc.
- Conspiracy theories galore, including this bats***-crazy “report” by Senate Republicans in 2014, which claimed among other things that “an exclusive group of wealthy individuals, directs the far-left environmental movement” (yes, these fossil fuel tools actually believe that there’s a “far-left environmental movement” funded by “an exclusive group of wealthy individuals”).
- The assertion that “We know where Dominion’s money comes from — from Dominion rate payers and shareholders. It’s pretty straightforward.” Yes, I’ve got to concede, that one IS “pretty straightforwar
d” – Dominion spends s*** tons of money to buy up the Virginia political system and to maintain its state-protected, anti-competitive monopoly status, then takes the money “captured” Virginia ratepayers have little choice but to send Dominion (if said ratepayers want to stay cool in the summer, warm in the winter, etc.) and uses it to enrich its top executives, run well-funded propaganda and smear campaigns, etc. Straightforward, alright – straightforward corruption! [...]
At Eclectablog of Michigan, Chris Savage writes—If we don’t stop the repeal of net neutrality, a few giant corporations will become the gatekeepers of the internet:
On February 26th, 2015, after an extensive comment period where 3.7 million comments were submitted, the FCC classified internet service providers (ISPs) as telecommunications providers and is subject to Title II of the Communications Act just like phone and cable service. This ensures that all everyone on the internet has equal access to content. There were lawsuits by the corporations who stand to profit from the absence of these net neutrality rules but the decision survived to court challenges.
Under the Trump administration, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Ajit Pai is proposing rules that will overturn the classification subjecting ISPs from Title II and would allow them to enhance access to, slow down access to, or even block specific sites (like their competitors, e.g.) They will be voting on this on December 14th. It’s worth noting that Pai’s proposal would prohibit states and localities from adopting their own broadband consumer protection laws, including laws that protect consumer privacy. It’s also worth noting that Pai is a former Verizon attorney.
Corporate internet providers claim that “lifting the ban on paid prioritization will increase network innovation [because] the ban on paid prioritization agreements has had … a chilling effect on network innovation“. It’s difficult to see how slowing down or restricting access to specific content on the internet could be viewed as “innovation”. Comcast tweeted that they “do not and will not block, throttle, or discriminate against lawful content” despite the fact that they have already been caught doing this. It’s also not the same as pledging not to have “paid prioritization”, so-called “fast lanes” on the internet, something they used to do.
This tweet from @LoresJoberg sums it up nicely, I think:
At BlueNC, scharrison writes—Brad Woodhouse may have been additional target in James O'Keefe's botched sting:
Leroy Gibbs' Rule 39: There is no such thing as coincidence:
Woodhouse said he recognized Phillips’s name and image in a Washington Post story Monday that described how she falsely told reporters that Roy Moore, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Alabama, impregnated her as a teenager. Phillips appears to work with Project Veritas, an organization that uses deceptive tactics and secretly records conversations in an effort to embarrass members of the mainstream media and left-leaning groups.
“I was stunned,” Woodhouse said Tuesday night. “It took a little while to sink in and then it was like, ‘Really? Are you kidding me?’ ” James O’Keefe, the Project Veritas founder, declined to answer questions about whether he dispatched Phillips to rent from Woodhouse. Phillips did not respond to inquiries.
And before you ask, it's because O'Keefe is an idiot. He always tries to go for a straight flush when a King-high two pair will usually win the hand. Okay, that's a little obscure, what I mean is: He can't help but add clever (he thinks) little twists to his plots, that make the cons much harder to pull off, but game-winning zingers if he does. In this case, he (thought) he could make the entire sexual harassment movement look like a Democratic plot, by tying Brad to this one false accusation. And the sad thing is, close to 1/3 of American citizens would probably believe that nonsense.
At Dakota Free Press, Cory Allen Heidelberger writes—Midco Promises No Changes Post-Net Neutrality Repeal; Open Internet Still Needs Legal Protection:
My Internet service provider wants to get rid of net neutrality. Midco government affairs director Dan Nelson says Midco supports the Trump FCC’s impending December 14 actionagainst the open Internet, but the company promises to keep treating customers fairly:
…Nelson says that Midco wants the rules repealed. But he says that some things won’t be different.The Trump FCC’s abandonment of net neutrality serves no one’s interests except the plutocrats who want to limit what we read and watch online to the content that makes them richer. ISPs could even choose our search engines and other tools for us instead of leaving shoppers, reporters, researchers, and activists free to choose their own online tools. If we can’t reason with the Trump FCC, we need to pressure Senator John Thune to mean what he says and write net neutrality into law.
“The way we deal with our customers, and the way we manage your network traffic is transparent, and it won’t change,” Nelson said [Dan Santella, “A Look at What ‘Net Neutrality’ Repeal Could Mean,” KELO-TV, 2017.11.27].
Translation: Midco may favor websites and videos from the highest bidders and make customers pay more for certain content, but Midco will at least tell us exactly which content it’s favoring or throttling. [...]
The Trump FCC’s abandonment of net neutrality serves no one’s interests except the plutocrats who want to limit what we read and watch online to the content that makes them richer. ISPs could even choose our search engines and other tools for us instead of leaving shoppers, reporters, researchers, and activists free to choose their own online tools. If we can’t reason with the Trump FCC, we need to pressure Senator John Thune to mean what he says and write net neutrality into law.
At MN Progressive Project, Dan Burns writes—The psychology of more tax cut welfare for the super-rich:
This is just really quick, basic stuff. There’s more to it. You could write a book.
– The people backing the Trump tax plan, especially those in elected office, honestly believe that it will lead to incredible, glorious economic “growth” that lasts for ever. This time it will work for sure, and everyone can be a millionaire, just like Almighty Reagan said! And they honestly believe it despite almost forty years now of conclusive evidence to the contrary: the accumulation of real access to resources and opportunity into fewer and fewer hands, regular economic downturns/plunges, and massive corporate influence over our democracy. It’s called “cognitive rigidity” – essentially a state beyond motivated reasoning to a sort of absolute hardening of the mind. Overwhelming evidence to the contrary of what they desperately want to believe just bounces off and is not even considered. And when it does work, this time, those mocking, condescending “liberals” will have to admit the tax-cutters were right all along, and come abjectly crawling to beg forgiveness.
– A great analogy is the Iraq War. Despite Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc., this time the neocowards’ greatness would manifest, and the Middle East would be wonderfully transformed, via savage mass violence, into a glorious model of corporate “democracy” for all the world to admire, and emulate ASAP. And the doubting “liberals” would have to come crawling, etc.
– Remember to always frame the issue in terms of tax fairness. Not tax cuts, not tax reform, and sure as heck not tax “relief.”
At Show Me Progress of Missouri, WillyKay writes—Ann Wagner says her DNA makes her destroy citizen protections:
GOP Rep. Ann Wagner must have a fixation on The Wizard of Oz because she spends lots of time creating straw men – and like the straw man in the story, they are all equally brainless. Witness her comments justifying President Moron’s efforts to rescind climate and consumer friendly regulations enacted during the Obama years:
“Everyone pays for the cost of compliance by government overreach, and it was on steroids during the Obama administration,” said Wagner, who said that an aversion to government regulation had been in “my DNA” since she was 12 or 13 and she saw her father and mother have to replace a new sign in their carpet store because it was a few inches too wide.
My heart breaks. The sheer inconvenience of all that overreach. Just imagine having to get a new sign.
Of course, my heart also nearly broke when my husband and I finally faced up to the fact of my 84 year old mother-in-laws’ increasing dementia and took over her finances. Imagine our surprise when we examined investments sold to her by her long-time (small) bank and learned that not only was she being sold highly risky securities, but that they were being sold over and over (the technical term is “churned”), generating comfortable commissions for the financial “advisor.” That discovery was nothing, though, compared to the statement she had been given to sign asserting that she had sufficient expertise to understand the risks of the investments made in her name. Bear in mind that this was a woman who couldn’t understand her electric bill – and who insisted that the banker in question took good care of her investments because she, the banker, was a “vice-president” and such a friendly woman who appreciated my mother-n-law’s long history with the bank.
Ann Wagner worked hard to dismantle the fiduciary regulations promulgated during the Obama years that would have insured that this type of behavior was unthinkable. Of course, to hear her tell it, she was actually insuring that elderly investors could get financial advice – advisors might chose, she implies, to refuse to work with such folks if they can’t fleece them.
At Blue Jersey, Bill Orr writes—Bob Menendez: our likely senator for the next six years:
If you view an election as a horse race, US Senator Robert Menendez is ready at the gate and chomplng to go with $4 million Cash in Hand, endorsements of pretty much every major Democratic political player in the state, including Phil Murphy, no announced Democratic challenger, and five announced Republican candidates none of whom have more than $4,400 in Cash on Hand. He has the built-in advantage of 934,000 more registered D’s than R’s, and a Republican hasn’t won a U.S. Senate election in New Jersey since 1972 1992. Above is a photo of Menendez at a rally with New Jerseyans against a last-ditch Trumpcare proposal. So what could go wrong?
The fly in the ointment can be viewed through polling. In the most recent poll from Quinnipiac of September, prior to the mistrial verdict, New Jersey voters said 50% – 20% with 30% undecided, that he does not deserve reelection next year, and they gave him a negative 31 – 49 percent job approval rating. Among Democrats in the poll only 29% said he deserves to be elected whereas 41% said he does not and 30% were undecided. However, 45% of Democrats in the poll approved of his job performance, 35% did not, and 20% were undecided. His job performance will be a major 2018 consideration. [...]
In 2018 voters will have to decide the relative merits of re-electing him. Some Democrats might vote for an Independent candidate but are unlikely to go Republican, particularly with such a weak field. As time passes, the memory of constituents and the fact that he was not found guilty will be of some help. His millions of dollars to be spent on rehabilitating his image will aid him. Importantly both the positions he has taken on issues and his voting record will be viewed by Democrats as positive. In a low-voting non-presidential year with many Democrats energized to vote against Republican representatives in five congressional districts he has an advantage. Barring some spectacular Democratic challenger suddenly appearing in the Primary with sufficient funding, he appears assured to be the victor.
At The Montana Post, Don Pogreba writes—Lock Him Up! Greg Gianforte Gets Away With Breaking the Law Again:
Yesterday, Democratic congressional candidate and attorney John Heenan offered to help Gallatin County prosecute Greg Gianforte for making a false claim to law enforcement following the release of documents that demonstrate unequivocally that Gianforte misled officers following his assault of reporter Ben Jacobs in April.
The letter was both an excellent example of political theater, reminding voters about Gianforte’s penchant for dishonesty and violence, and a striking reminder that the justice system treats certain defendants much differently than others. For reasons that are not difficult to discern, Mr. Gianforte has received the kind of deferential treatment the wealthy defendants seem entitled to while those with less means make due with a justice system that is punishing and applied with incredible force on those least able to defend themselves. [...]
Fresh after telling the newspaper last week that Mr. Gianforte had said “misleading things” to law enforcement, Bozeman county attorney Marty Lambert continued his pattern of treatment of Mr. Gianforte Tuesday, telling the Bozeman Daily Chronicle that Gianforte, despite not telling the truth,
did not give false statements to investigators:
On Tuesday, Lambert said there was no case because he believed Gianforte was telling his side of the story at the time. He said the sergeant who interviewed Gianforte sorted the facts out and found the citation of misdemeanor assault to be appropriate, and Lambert agreed with the deputy’s assessment.
That’s just not how the truth works, though. In the post-Trump world, where the President of the United States lies as routinely as others draw breath, the Gianforte lie is nothing special, but it’s still a lie. In a country where the President lies about being named Time Person of the Year and seeks to discredit his own admission that he bragged about sexually assaulting women, it’s even more important that we emphasize the fact that objective truth still exists.
And there are no “sides” to this story: Greg Gianforte assaulted a reporter in front of witnesses and didn’t come clean until after the election results were in.
Glenn Smith at Progress Texas writes—Caddies Versus the Thimbleriggers: Examining the GOP Tax Plan:
To assess the congressional Republican tax plan, let’s begin with the movie, Caddyshack. At one point, Carl Spackler, played by Bill Murray, tells a story about the time he was the Dalai Lama’s golf caddy.
“And I say,” says Spackler, “‘Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know?’ And he says, ‘Oh, uh, there won’t be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness.’ So, I got that goin’ for me. Which is nice.”
That’s how a deadpan-dry Bill Murray in just a few words sums up the economic policies of the American Right. The bit is made funnier by using the egalitarian Dalai Lama to make the point: there’s nothing for the poor and middle class caddies, though believers will get a snake-oiled promise of a place in heaven or at least a sign they are waiting in the right line.
Meanwhile, the wealthy in their carts wheel their windfall profits across the golf clubs of their dreams, which, it turns out, were not confiscated by the United Nations international conspirators of Agenda 21, as Sen. Ted Cruz once said would happen.
Let’s look at the scorecard. An NBC News analysis of the tax plan passed by the U.S. House said, “By 2027, the bottom 40 percent of earners would see almost no average change in their tax bill at all versus current law. Nearly half the bill’s benefits would go to the top 1 percent.”
In case you wondered, Trump and his family would save $1 billion under the plan.
If that possibility makes you sick, you should hope you are not one of the 13 million Americans who would lose their health care under the Senate tax proposal.
At Appalachian Voices, Adam Wells writes—Going solar in the coalfields of Southwest Virginia:
A group of local leaders from far Southwest Virginia have crafted a nuts-and-bolts “how-to” plan for spurring growth of the solar industry in the coalfield region over the next decade.
The Solar Workgroup of Southwest Virginia today released its Solar Roadmap for Far Southwest Virginia detailing a multi-faceted strategy for establishing the region as a vibrant economic hub of solar energy. The report maps out the public and private sector infrastructure needed to prepare the region for growth of a solar industry, including workforce development, entrepreneurism, community education, and tax and policy reform.
The report and downloadable photos and graphics are available here.
A primary feature of the report is identification of 15 “ambassador sites” — schools, businesses, medical facilities, and low-income housing complexes — that are ideal for solar installations in the near-term and would serve as models for further deployment of solar projects. [...]
Among the sites are the four Southwest Virginia locations of the grocery chain, Food City, the Mutual Drugstore in downtown Big Stone Gap, and Ridgeview High School in Clintwood, which would yield Dickenson County a net savings of approximately $1.7 million over 25 years. [...]
The Solar Workgroup was founded last year to explore the viability of solar energy to help revive the economy of the seven counties of far Southwest Virginia, where communities are re-imagining their future as the coal industry continues to decline.
At Bleeding Heartland of Iowa, desmoinesdem writes—Sexual harassment investigator had warned Iowa senators about clerks' attire:
Secretary of the Iowa Senate Charlie Smithson has sometimes encouraged senators to “tell your clerk to wear something different” if a female clerk’s short skirt or top was attracting attention from older male lawmakers, he told an audience earlier this year.
Smithson’s handling of concerns about clerks’ attire raises further questions about whether he was the right person to investigate alleged sexual harassment within the Senate Republican caucus.
In his role as chief parliamentarian and supervisor of non-partisan staff in the upper chamber, Smithson spoke at an event organized by the Iowa non-profit 50-50 in 2020, which seeks to increase women’s representation at all levels of government. A participant provided Bleeding Heartland with a recording of the March 28 session after learning earlier this month that Majority Leader Bill Dix had tapped Smithson—who serves at his pleasure—to look into the workplace environment for Iowa Senate employees. (At the time, Dix intended to keep those findings secret.)
Smithson brought up the Senate’s informal dress code about a minute into his presentation, which I’ve posted in full here. The relevant clip:
Both in the House and in the Senate it’s never been an issue for the elected person. It’s been the clerk. A lot of the clerks you get are younger, and unfortunately, sometimes the females wear some stuff that kind of drew some attention. And so part of my job is to go to the member and say, “Hey, you might want to tell your clerk to wear something different. Some of our older male members are starting to sweat a little bit, right? OK? You know what I mean?” [...]
When I asked participants an open-ended question about what they recalled from the session with Smithson, several immediately referenced his remarks about attire, which they interpreted to mean that women are expected not to wear clothes that older men might find distracting. One woman told me, “Our collective jaw was on the floor.”