Archive for National Affairs
Is It Time for the President to Close the Border?
by John Weckerle
In case nobody has noticed, concerns have been escalating regarding the influx of migrants from nations to our south. There has been a great deal of discussion around the subject of closing the southern border of the United States as a means of dealing with an upsurge in migrant arrivals there. Multiple sources have debated whether the President has the authority to do so, and under what conditions it should happen.
Here’s a question that should intrigue us all: What happened to the last U.S. President who closed the southern border, and given the results, just how kind will history be in viewing his actions?
History will treat this President with total disregard – because the person of record in fact has no record. He doesn’t exist. No President has ever fully closed the southern border – or, for that matter, the northern one.
It’s not really clear what “closing the border” would actually entail. The shutdown of official border crossings would involve closure of at least 50 recognized border crossings. These are the places where legitimate land transportation associated with commerce between the two nations is focused. In 2019, Moody’s estimated that a quarter of the nation’s produce came from Mexico. In the article The US Exports More to Mexico Than to all EU Countries Combined, the Congressionally chartered Wilson Center estimates that cross-border commerce at the southern border amounts to $1.8 billion per day; that approximately 1.5 million people cross the border each day in both directions; and that 90% of the people who cross the border into the U.S. each morning are American citizens who live in Mexico and work in the U.S. According to the 2018 report Port of Entry: El Paso (texas.gov) by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “Of Texas’ total international trade, $408 billion, or 55.2 percent, traveled across the state’s border crossings with Mexico, with the El Paso port of entry accounting for 20.1 percent of land port trade, or about $81.9 billion” and that “trade through the El Paso port of entry in 2018 affected about 165,500 net jobs in Texas, and about $25 billion in gross domestic product (GDP) is related to trade through this port of entry.” And that’s just El Paso. The impact of closure on workers – and the businesses for which they work – would be immediate and severe.
Now, the current proposals largely do not involve the cessation of cross-border commerce. Rather, they tend to involve closing the border to migrants applying for asylum or other means of prolonged presence in the U.S. However, these are actually legal paths to entry into the country. It is unclear to what extent “closure” would decrease the rate of illegal crossings. And at the end of the day, at least some of the migrants and other entrants would likely find ways to enter the country anyway – by illicit crossings through ports of entry, unguarded remote portions of the southern border, by sea, or via the northern border.
H.L. Mencken once wrote “For every complex problem there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.” Closing the border is one of those solutions – and yet it is the primary focus of discussion on the subject of migrant issues at the border. We do not have any clear recommendations on solving those problems – we would love to hear from our readers on that – but it seems a waste of time to continue debating a solution that is nonviable and economically damaging.
A Stocking No Longer Full Of Coal
by John Weckerle
It has been some time since we published an article. There is a reason for this. After reading an article in which a West Virginia interviewee stated that he voted for Donald Trump because he believed that his state’s coal economy had been decimated under the Obama administration, we decided to dive into some research on the coal industry, what makes it tick, and what’s making it wind down. We downloaded production statistics, read dozens of articles and government publications, created some fairly complex spreadsheets, and generated a couple of dozen graphs, looking at trends at the national, regional, and state levels, finding some things we didn’t expect and that we found very interesting.
Then, earlier this week – just after we began writing the actual article – somebody (ahem) decided to sign an executive order. The national media pounced, and suddenly nearly all the results and findings we had generated – that the decline of the industry has been going on for decades; that it is the result of market forces such as decreased demand, ascendancy of competing products (natural gas, renewables, etc.) to a much greater extend than regulatory pressures; and that the jobs are never coming back – were suddenly all over the airwaves and the web. As recently as this morning, MSN Money reported that the entire coal industry employs fewer people nationwide than the Arby’s fast food chain.
This was a bit discouraging, and highlights the challenges faced by those of us with very small writing staffs. Nevertheless, we did gain one insight that we haven’t seen prominently discussed in the national media: even if the coal industry does rebound nationally, West Virginia’s likely won’t, nor will most of the eastern U.S. coal industry.
Our first major source was the United States Energy Adminstration’s (EIA’s) Coal Data Browser which, among other things, provided us with coal production data from 25 coal producing states spanning 15 years (2001 through 2015). We saw this as a promising range of data, because it incorporates nearly equivalent segments (in terms of years) from two Presidential administrations – eight years from the administration of George W. Bush (2001 through 2008) and seven years from Barak H. Obama’s administration (2009 through 2015). As most would expect – at least those who pop in and read our articles once in a while – we were delighted to find that we could download the data, load it into a spreadsheet, and see where the information might lead us.
To understand the market trends within the United States, it is important to know how the EIA defined (at least until recently) coal producing regions (we’ve added the 2015 coal production to give a sense of scale):
- Middle Atlantic – Pennsylvania; 50,030,833 tons
- East North Central – Illinois, Indiana, Ohio; 107,437,449 tons
- West North Central – Kansas, Missouri, North Dakota; 29,139,231 tons
- South Atlantic – Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia; 111, 469,038 tons
- East South Central – Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee; 78,656,669 tons
- West South Central – Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas; 40,228,355 tons
- Mountain – Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming; 477,417,852 tons
- Pacific Contiguous – Washington; no data
- Pacific Noncontiguous – Alaska; 1,177,390 tons
One thing that surprised us was the prominence of the Mountain region in terms of overall production. Previously, when we thought of coal, we thought of Eastern states, especially West Virginia and Pennsylvania. In fact, the Mountain region accounts for more than half the nation’s coal production, and Wyoming alone produced nearly 42% of the nation’s coal in 2016. The next largest output does come from West Virginia, which in 2015 commanded just under 11% of U.S. production.
We examined the data from a variety of angles, and fairly quickly determined that where declining coal production is concerned, all regions – and all states – are not necessarily created equal. Overall, production in 2015 nationwide was about 231 million tons less than it was in 2001. Of this, 88 million tons of production were lost in the South Atlantic region (including West Virginia, whose production decreased by about 67 million tons), and the East South Central region was right behind, losing about 78 million tons of production (the lion’s share of which was lost by Kentucky at 72 million tons). The Mountain region was next, with production dropping by about 34 million tons, and the Middle Atlantic region, containing only Pennsylvania, saw production decrease by 24 million tons. Following were the West South Central region (decrease of 10 million tons), West North Central region (decrease of just over 1 million tons), and Pacific Noncontiguous region (decrease of about 337,000 tons). The East North Central region saw an increase of nearly 12 million tons, with Illinois’s gain of 22 million tons (a 66% gain compared to 2010) offsetting Indiana’s and Ohio’s losses.
Wait a minute…gains? If, as some people assert, Federal policy was responsible for the decline of the coal industry, one would expect that the industry would decline evenly, with perhaps a greater impact being seen in Western states where there might be more impact from banning coal mining from Federal lands. However, during the 15-year period, Wyoming’s production actually increased by 7 million tons, and its market share grew from 32.7% to 41.9%. During the same period, West Virginia slid from 14.4% to 10.7% of the market; Kentucky’s market share plunged from 11.9% to 6.8%; and Pennsylvania dropped from 6.6% to 5.6%. At the same time, Illinois’s share of the market grew from 3.0% to 6.3%; Montana picked up a little over a percent with an increase in production of 2.7 million tons; North Dakota picked up half a percent; several other states saw smaller gains in terms of market share even with production decreases; and Mississippi and Montana reaped smaller percentage gains with production increases of about 2.5 million tons each.
What gives? Why are some states faring better than others? To our eyes, it looked as if there might be an issue of variations in cost, so we decided to go hunting among the coal price data. There we found some interesting trends – while coal prices have fluctuated substantially even over the last few years, in every data set we examined, there was a substantial difference in price, and for the most part the hardest-hit states were those with the most expensive coal. In all cases, for example, the cost of West Virginia’s coal was 4 to 5 times higher than Wyoming’s and North Dakota’s, 3-4 times the cost of Montana’s, and in 2015 was nearly twice the cost of coal from Illinois.
A little more searching turned up some interesting sources of information, including a year-old USA Today article that outlines some of the factors contributing to the decline of the coal industry: lower costs in the West, the decline in exports, slowing of the Chinese economy, the decline in use for energy production (with an attendant increase in natural gas use), liabilities associated with restoration, bankruptcies, and more. An article by ClimateNexus.org provides a graphic depicting reported coal-fired generator retirements from 2012 to 2016, showing a major cluster of shutdowns surrounding those states with the greatest losses in coal production and market share. That article also discusses a variety of other industry-related trends that are of interest: China’s pledge to end the growth in carbon output, India’s strategy to increase its domestic coal production, and continued expansion of competing industries, including natural gas, solar energy, and wind energy. The article also discusses investor risk and divestiture, and discloses that the losses of large mining companies (including coal and oil drillers with assets of $50 million or more) in 2015 were greater than the profits made by the industry since 2007. Health costs and issues associated with high executive compensation are also discussed, as is the Miners’ Protection Act introduced by Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia.
The mediocre news is that domestic coal production has been more or less stable over about the last year. Projections for the next year, depending on the source, run from small decreases to small increases, based on speculation that natural gas prices will experience a moderate increase. We’ll see how this plays out.
The future of the coal industry does not seem to be in doubt – it seems certain that the decline will continue, and economies in the eastern United States will be the hardest hit. The future of coal country is far less certain. On the one hand, the current administration seems focused on perpetuating the illusion that coal jobs will return someday despite the obvious reality that they will not. At the same time, the administration – and Congress – appear bent on dismantling the programs currently benefiting those hit hardest by reversals in the coal industries, and in other industries nationwide. On the other hand, coal country, like other areas affected by shifts in the economy, is populated by hard-working people with hopes, ideas, and passions of their own, and these are the best hope for creating new enterprises and renewed growth. What should the people of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and elsewhere do? Having been on the wrong side of economic development, your editor hesitates to offer any suggestions – because in the end ideas that come from the outside of a community are perhaps of less value of those that come from within. That having been said, we’ll close with a link to a TED talk by someone who, by his own account, also started off on on the wrong side of the subject, but learned from that experience and developed a different way of helping people pursue their passions in business – Dr. Ernesto Sirolli.
ALEC And Us, Part IV: Corporate Influence In State and Local Politics
Editor’s note: This is the most recent in what is now an ongoing series regarding the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and its influence of State – and now local – legislation and decision making. A list of web resources used to prepare this article, and two tables containing associated information, are presented at the end of the article.
by John Weckerle
Back in 2012, New Mexico Central ran several articles on the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC):
- ALEC and Us
- ALEC and Us – IRS Complaint and Lobbying Issues
- East Mountain Representative Smith Reveals sordid ALEC Past
As the ALEC and Us article notes, ALEC was the involved in the drafting and passage of “Florida’s now-infamous ‘Stand Your Ground'” law. Further research into ALEC at the time revealed that the organization, which has often been described as a corporate-sponsored “bill mill,” is an association of industry associations, corporate entities, and State legislators that drafts industry-friendly legislation, then sending it to State legislatures via its legislative members and supporters for introduction, sponsorship, or other support. The Nonprofit Information Networking Association article describes ALEC’s activities as follows:
ALEC drafts “model” state legislation for conservative members of state legislatures. The model legislation sometimes becomes law, such as Arizona’s infamous immigration law. ALEC has also generated state resolutions against EPA regulation of greenhouse gasses, bills on privatizing public education, restricting public employee unions, and opposing state aspects of President Obama’s national health care reform. Many of the ALEC-generated model bills are seen as industry-friendly, in part because corporations pay well for participation at ALEC conferences giving them access to state legislators. However, despite its influence with many model bills, ALEC’s visibility with the public is limited and legislators often don’t disclose that the bills they are introducing come from ALEC.
In our 2012 article, we listed New Mexico State legislators in the House and Senate who were identified by Sourcewatch as members of ALEC’s various task forces. For some time after these articles were published (and certainly not as a result of those articles, as bigger fish were targeting ALEC), ALEC seemed to fall on hard times. The organization’s web site was static for some time, and it seems that corporations were abandoning it in droves (last year, Enterprise Rent-A-Car joined and rapidly left ALEC following an outcry from its customers). ALEC has been accused in many articles as essentially being a lobbying organization masquerading as a charity (the entity is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization), and its tax-exempt status has been challenged.
Since 2012, ALEC has reasserted itself as a force to be reckoned with, and seems as influential as ever. As always, the organization seems reticent to publish its list of members; however, some information can be gleaned from its website, and we can now at least begin to identify its supporters. One of the most likely suspects is…
…You.
If you enjoy wine by Chateau Ste. Michelle, or smoke tobacco produced by Phillip Morris (both owned by Altria), buy your insurance from State Farm Insurance Companies, acquire cell phone services from AT&T, send packages or otherwise pay for shipping via UPS, purchase electricity through any of the nation’s rural electric cooperatives, or spend money in any number of states and municipalities, some amount of your expenditures is probably headed for ALEC.
At the end of this article, we are providing two tables we have compiled from information on the ALEC web site regarding the membership in its committees. Note that this is not the entire membership; again, the organization does not publish a comprehensive membership list, and it is likely that the majority of its members cannot be easily identified.
We believe that citizens have a right to know where the bills being introduced in their legislatures originate. Accordingly, we have sent the following questions to our State Representative, Jim Smith, and our State Senator, James B. White:
- Are you a current or former member of ALEC?
- Have you attended any ALEC-sponsored meetings or events? If so, when, how many and what was the focus of the meeting (s) or event(s)?
- Have you participated in any of ALEC’s task force activities?
- Have you introduced, sponsored, co-sponsored, voted for, or otherwise supported legislation resulting from ALEC’s activities?
- Have you received campaign contributions or other support from ALEC, its members, or its supporters?
We’ve requested responses by January 28, 2017, and will share what we receive with our readers – as well as the results of other research we are conducting into the matter. We also encourage our readers to pose these questions to their State and local legislators (ALEC has created a subsidiary organization focusing on local government, the American City County Exchange (ACCE)).
Among the articles and resources we reviewed on this issue include (but are certainly not limited to):
- The American Legislative Exchange Council
- ALEC Corporations – Sourcewatch.org
- American Legislative Exchange Council – Guidestar.org
- List of membes of the American Legislative Exchange Council – Wikipedia.org
- ALEC Energy, Environment and Agricultural Task Force – Sourcewatch.org
- ALEC Exposed – Center for Media and Democracy
- Exxon Illegally Funded ALEC under Tillerson’s Tenure, CMD Tells Committee – Center for Media and Democracy
- ALEC Pay to Play on Display in Washington, DC – Steve Arnold, Mayor of Fitchburg, Wisconsin via Center for Media and Democracy
- American Legislative Exchange Council – Sourcewatch.org
- American Legislative Exchange Council – Wikipedia
- Fact Sheet on the IRS Whistleblower Complaint against ALEC – Common Cause via PRWatch.org
- Groups File IRS Complaint Alleging ALEC is a Lobbying Vehicle, Not A Charity – DESMOG
- Exxon and ALEC Running Illegal Lobbying Scheme, Watchdog Groups Charge In IRS Complaint – Center for Media and Democracy
- List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council – Wikipedia
- The Hidden Influence of the American Legislative Exchange Council – Nonprofit Information Networking Association
- American Legislative Exchange Council – Guidestar.org
- ALEC Corporations – Sourcewatch.org
| ALEC Private Enterprise Advisory Council | |
| Affiliation | Member |
| American Bail Coalition | Bill Carmichael |
| Exxon Mobil Corporation | Cynthia Bergman |
| Peabody Energy | Michael Blank |
| VISTRA Energy | Sano Blocker |
| PhRMA | Jeff Bond |
| Pfizer, Inc. | Josh Brown |
| NetChoice | Steve DelBianco |
| Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company | Marianne Eterno |
| UPS | Mike Kiely |
| AT&T | Bill Leahy |
| K12 Inc. | Don Lee |
| Not specified (Americans For Prosperity) | Frayda Levin |
| Not specified (Heritage Foundation) | Stephen Moore |
| Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC | Michael Morgan |
| Asian American Hotel Owners Association | Chip Rogers |
| Altria Client Services | Daniel Smith |
| State Farm Insurance Companies | Roland Spies |
| National Federation of Independent Business | Steve Woods |
| State Budget Solutions (ALEC) | Bob Williams |
| Automotive Trade Association Executives | Jennifer Colman |
| ALEC Task Forces | ||
| Affiliation | Member | Role |
| American City Council Exchange (ACCE) | ||
| Mayor, Gulfport, Mississippi; Capitol Gain, LLC; Billy Hewes Real Estate; Former State Senator/Senate President Pro Tempore | Billy Hewes | Public Chair |
| Not Sepcified (formerly of American Bail Coalition | Nick Wachinski | Private Chair |
| ACCE | Jon Russell | Director |
| Civil Justice | ||
| Tennessee State Senate | Brian Kelsey | Public Chair |
| Shook, Hardy and Bacon LLP | Mark Behrens | Private Chair |
| ALEC | Amy Kjose Anderson | Director |
| Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development | ||
| Iowa House of Representatives | Dawn Pettengill | Public Chair |
| United Parcel Service | Frank Morris | Private Chair |
| ALEC | Ben Wilterdink | Director |
| Communications and Technology | ||
| South Carolina House of Representatives | Garry Smith | Public Chair |
| National Cable and Telecommunications | Rick Cimerman | Private Chair |
| ALEC | Jonathon Hauenschild | Director |
| Criminal Justice Reform | ||
| Oklahoma Legislature | Lisa Billy | Public Chair |
| Stop Child Predators | Stacie Rumenap | Private Chair |
| ALEC | Ronald J. Lampard | Director |
| Education and Workforce Development | ||
| Utah State Senate | Howard Stephenson | Public Chair |
| Goldwater Institute | Jonathan Butcher | Private Chair |
| ALEC | Inez Feltcher | Director |
| Energy, Environment, and Agriculture | ||
| Illinois House of Representatives | David B. Reis | Public Chair |
| National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association | Jennifer Jura | Private Chair |
| ALEC | John Eick | Director |
| Federalism and International Relations | ||
| Oregon House Public Chair | C. Gene Whisnant | Public Chair |
| Americans for Tax Reform | Lorenzo Montanari | Private Chair |
| ALEC | Karla Jones | Director |
| Health and Human Services | ||
| Georgia Senate | Judson Hill | Public Chair |
| Takeda Pharmeceuticals, U.S.A. | John Schlatter | Private Chair |
| ALEC | Mia Heck | Director |
| Tax and Fiscal Policy | ||
| New Hampshire House of Representatives | Ken Weyler | Public Chair |
| Altria Client Services | Amanda Klump | Private Chair |
| ALEC | Joel Griffith | Director |
| ALEC | Elliot Young | Staff |
| ALEC | Chritine Smith | Staff |
| ALEC | Ted Lafferty | Staff |
| ALEC | Kati Siconolfi | Staff |
| ALEC/Center for State Fiscal Reform | Jonathan Williams | Director |
Welfare: Stop Beating Up On The Recipients
by John Weckerle
It was with a certain degree of disappointment when, during a recent visit to Facebook, I saw that a friend had “liked” the photo above. Created by conservative blogger Bill Whittle, it was found in a repost from “Cold Dead Hands” on the Facebook page of John Jacobs, which appears to be dedicated to alt-right reposts. It is unusual for your editor to comment directly on such things, but this one was egregious enough that it begged for a response:
It’s disappointing to see a friend like a thing like this. It’s essentially inflammatory, lacking in any real factual basis, and has very little relevance with respect to what welfare really is and how it works. Painting people who are out of work as grifters, as this does, is entirely inappropriate and inexcusable. Welfare and other public assistance programs have helped a lot of people get back on their feet. There are cheats in any system, but stereotyping welfare recipients in this way is shameful and fundamentally false. People who post or “like” this sort of thing should perhaps consider how fortunate they are to make their way without welfare – and hope they don’t someday join the ranks they so enthusiastically criticize.
A couple of friends concurred, and then another user (Kathy Arnold, whose account also seems repost-heavy) weighed in:
HELLO JOHN…..only 5-10%of people getting government assistance are disabled or abandoned children and veterans..the other 90-95%are able bodied………drug users, frauds, or just plain lazy,,i worked with HRS. DSS. DHS…FROM 1977,,,UNTIL I RETIRED IN 2014…I KNOW,,,,
An inquiry as to the source of this particular statistic rather predictably went unanswered, and so we decided to help Ms. Arnold out and do some looking around to see if we could either confirm the statistic and the characterization of welfare recipients, which we didn’t expect, or perhaps find some information to the contrary, which is what we expected.
We reviewed information from the following sources:
- Government Benefits, Source: USA.gov.
- Welfare Statistics, Source: Statistic Brain.
- Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Participation in Government Programs, 2009–2012: Who Gets Assistance?, Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
- The High Public Cost of Low Wages, Source, University of California Berkeley Labor Center.
- Finally, The Truth About Welfare – How Many Blacks Vs. How Many Whites, Source: National Low Income Housing Authority.
- Who’s on Welfare? 9 Shocking Stats About Public Assistance, Source: The Cheatsheet. (Note: this article summarizes the UC Berkely report)
- MILITARY PERSONNEL: DOD Needs More Complete Data on Active-Duty Servicemembers’ Use of Food Assistance Programs, Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees.
- Hungry Heroes: 25 Percent of Military Families Seek Food Aid, Source: NBC News.
- Food stamp use among military rises again, Source: CNN Money.
- Military families turn to food stamps, Source: Marketplace.org
- Are there more welfare recipients in the U.S. than full-time workers? Source: Politifact
The references varied somewhat based on what specific programs they examined and the time frames in which the studies (or studies referenced in the article) were conducted.
The Berkely report examines participation and costs associated with major public assistance programs, including Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Plan (CHIP), Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF, which many people typically refer to as “welfare”), Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as the food stamp program). It discusses wage stagnation, noting that wages for the bottom 10 percent of the wage distribution were only 5% higher than they were in 1979, and that from 2003 from 2013 “Inflation-adjusted wage growth was either flat or negative for the entire bottom 70 percent of the wage distribution.” The report goes on to note that 73 percent of the enrollees in major public support programs are members of working families. Consider this table from the Berkeley report:
| Program |
Total Program Enrollment |
Enrollment from Working Families | Working Families’ Share of Enrollment |
| Medicaid/CHIP (individuals) | 56,300,000 | 34,100,000 | 61% |
| TANF (individuals) | 7,300,000 | 2,300,000 | 32% |
| EITC (families) | 28,000,000 | 20,600,000 | 74% |
| SNAP (families) | 29,000,000 | 10,300,000 | 36% |
The report concludes: “When jobs don’t pay enough, workers turn to public assistance in order to meet their basic needs. These programs provide vital support to millions of working families whose employers pay less than a liveable wage…. Overall, higher wages and employer-provided health care would lower both state and federal public assistance costs, and allow all levels of government to better target how their tax dollars are used.”
The Census Bureau report, analyzing date from 2009 to 2012, provides a wealth of information, Worthy of note is that 21.3 percent of the population participated in at least one assistance program in 2012, up from 18.6 percent in 2009, with Medicaid and SNAP being the apparent major factors considered in the study. Participation by people below the poverty rate was substantially higher than those above, and people below the poverty rate also tended to remain on assistance longer. A higher rate of participation is seen for people under 18 years of age than for other groups. Single-parent households participated more than households with married couples, and household with a single, female householder participated at a much higher rate than others. Participation was estimated at 37.3 percent, 21.6 percent, and 9.6 percent for people who did not graduate high school, graduated high school, and had one or more years of college, respectively. Program participation was highest for the unemployed and those not in the labor force, but substantial numbers of full-time and part-time workers also participated.
We could go through this one article or report at a time, but we’ll summarize some of the other information we found. Among the various articles and reports we found a great many other interesting trends. Several sources indicated that perhaps 23,000 active military personnel receive SNAP benefits; that about 7 percent of veterans used food stamps in 2012; that about 23 percent of of households with at least one working adult received some form of assistance; and that about “60 percent of food stamp recipients who were of working age and weren’t disabled were employed while receiving benefits” (Politifact article).
In short, we found nothing that supports Ms. Arnold’s statistic or her assessment of the welfare-receiving population. In fact, we find quite the contrary. Low wages and income/wealth inequality represent a substantial contributor to participation in public assistance programs, and age and education also appear to play a substantial role.
We’ll close this article by reiterating our earlier point – it is shameful and dishonest to portray “welfare” recipients – many of whom are working but not making enough, and many of whom may not be able to work for a variety of reasons, as wealth-stealing parasites. Public assistance provided to many of these people is for all intents and purposes going into the pockets of those who are not paying the legitimate cost of doing business in terms of wages and benefits – essentially socializing their costs while privatizing their profits. Perhaps we should focus on that problem rather than maligning those who are affected by it.
When Belief Trumps Fact: Waging The War On Fake News
by John Weckerle
Throughout our history at New Mexico Central we have, at times, attempted to shine a light on what is now widely termed “fake news” when we see it (and when time permits) – and we will continue to do so as often as we can. In concert with this, we have long been fascinated by the factors that feed into what appears to be an insistence on the part of some people to believe things even when factual evidence is provided that disproves the concept in which belief is held. This phenomenon has never been more obviously present or widespread than it has in the year or so leading up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and in the months since.
In a Scientific American article titled How to Convince Someone When Facts Fail: Why worldview threats undermine evidence (originally published with the title “When Facts Backfire), Michael Shermer, author of the magazines Skeptic column (and also the founding publisher of Skeptic Magazine and author of The Believing Brain) discusses cognitive dissonance, which he describes as “the uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts simultaneously.” In the article, quotes a study by Brendan Nyhan (Dartmouth College) and Jason Reifler (University of Exeter) in which subjects were provided first with fake newspaper articles and then an article correcting the misinformation in the first. After reading the correction, the subjects believed the initial article even more strongly. The researchers termed this “the backfire effect” in which corrections actually increase misperceptions among the group in question.” The reason: “Because it threatens their worldview or self-concept.”
Dr. Shermer provides some fascinating information on this phenomenon in The Believing Brain, and many of the relevant concepts are discussed in his Ted Talk The pattern behind self-deception, which we highly recommend (along with his other Ted Talk, Why people believe weird things). In the former Ted Talk, as in the book, Dr Shermer explains “patternicity” – the “tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless noise” – and identifies two types of error – Type 1, seeing a pattern where there is none, and Type II, not perceiving a pattern that is real. These are false positives and false negatives. Later, in the talk, he introduces the concept of agenticity, “the tendency to infuse patterns with meaning, intention and agency, often invisible beings from the top down.” Agents may include a number of concepts; some examples provided include ghosts, gods, aliens, intelligent designers, and government conspirators. He then addresses conspiracy theories, observing that many are believed even though they are shown to be false – while noting, of course that some conspiracy theories are actually true.
In the Scientific American article, Dr. Shermer provides a strategy for potentially changing at least some minds caught up in believing falsehoods – a strategy very much like the one New Mexico Central has followed, albeit admittedly sometimes less than perfectly. We have focused specifically, in many cases, on re-posted/recycled falsehoods that again fall into the category of fake news. What we have found, at least in a couple of cases, that directly addressing the re-posts some times results in a reduced frequency in their appearance, and in one case may have lead to a cessation. Nobody likes to be shown as purveying falsehood, and stopping fake news anywhere in the chain can only help, even if just a little. With two years to mid-term elections, we have a lot of work to do in the hope that perhaps voters will have better information on which to base their decisions than they did last year.
To that end, we have expanded into the “Twitterverse” and will be moving into Facebook, so we can find, follow, and potentially correct misinformation and disinformation as it is forwarded/re-posted. We hope that our readers, when presented with the inevitable e-mail forwards, re-posted articles, and similar communications containing fake news or misleading information, will consider sending us a link or forward them to editor@nm-central.com and providing us with the source so we can follow up.
Electoral Integrity In The U.S.
by John Weckerle
In an op-ed piece published in North Carolina’s The Observer, co-designer of an approach used to measure the integrity of elections worldwide, presented a case for concluding that North Carolina is no longer a functioning democracy. The approach, according to Dr. Reynolds, was used as “the cornerstone of the Electoral Integrity Project” (EIP), a joint academic program operated by Harvard University in the U.S. and the University of Sydney, Australia since 2012. Dr. Reynolds, an international consultant on democratic design and Professor of Political Science at the prestigious University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, uses the recent analysis by the EIP to make the case that North Carolina, with an electoral integrity score of 58 out of 100 in the EIP’s recent analysis of the 2016 U.S. election, ranks alongside Cuba, Indonesia, and Sierra Leone, and with respect to legal framework and voter registration, alongside Iran and Venezuela. He then examines non-electoral issues associated with the state. The article is relatively short and an easy read, and we recommend that our readers give it a few minutes.
The op-ed was picked up and reported on by a number of Internet news outlets, both mainstream and otherwise, but few if any provided links to the actual study. A little searching brought us to two articles on the EIP website addressing the 2016 U.S. election: one containing the featured dataset, and another, Why It’s Not About Election Fraud, It’s Much Worse (referred to as “the article,” below), containing an analysis of the results. The latter article examines potential issues with the 2016, including fraud (noting that there was “next to no credible evidence for cases of voter fraud); suppression of voting rights (noting that there was evidence that stricter registration rights was clearer but that the magnitude of the effects is under debate); maladministration; and cybersecurity, among others.
The good news for New Mexicans is that our state ranks among the highest in the nation for electoral integrity, coming in fifth with a score of 73 out of 100 – only 2 points behind Vermont, which had the highest score. Our lowest scores were in the areas of electoral laws, district boundaries, voter registration, and media coverage.
The bad news for all of us is that, at least in terms of the parameters analyzed in the report, there are some serious potential problems with the way the U.S. electoral process functioned in 2016. The article discusses the lack of substantive policy discussion, the role of fake news, false equivalency standards of journalism, and issues associated with party control of states. As discussed in the article:
In terms of campaign communications, the impact of fake news and Russian meddling in the campaign have both emerged as major issues of bipartisan concern after November 8th, despite some poo-pooing by Trump.
By contrast there are other broader issues about campaign media which should raise serious concern, as reports by Harvard’s Shorenstein Center have highlighted, including the lack of substantive policy discussion during the campaign, the false equivalency standards of journalism, and the overwhelmingly negative tone of news coverage.
Moreover the issue of gerrymandered district boundaries, regarded by experts as the worst aspect of U.S. voting procedures, was never seriously debated throughout the campaign. The practice ensures that representatives are returned time and again based on mobilizing the party faithful, without having to appeal more broadly to constituents across the aisle, thus exacerbating the bitter partisanship which plagues American politics. Gerrymandering through GOP control of state legislatures has also led to a systematic pro-Republican advantage in House districts which is likely to persist at least until 2022. In 2016 House Republicans won 241 seats out of 435 (55%), although they won only 49.1% of the popular vote, a six-percentage point winners bonus.
The article also examines the influence of party dominance (Democrat vs. Republican) within states with respect to the parameters assessed, noting:
The results clearly demonstrate that, according to the expert evaluations, Democratic-controlled states usually had significantly greater electoral integrity than Republican-controlled states, across all stages except one (the declaration of the results, probably reflecting protests in several major cities following the unexpected Trump victory). The partisan gap was substantial and statistically significant on the issues of gerrymandered district boundaries, voter registration, electoral laws, and the performance of electoral officials.
Noting that Mr. Trump won more states with electoral malpractices and Ms. Clinton won more states with better scores, the article states:
We do not claim, as we do not have sufficient evidence, that Trump won these states because of malpractices. But the correlation is clear. Thus, throughout the campaign, and even afterwards, it was Donald Trump who repeatedly claimed that the election was rigged and fraudulent. In terms of votes being intentionally cast illegally, the strict meaning of ‘voter fraud’, there is little or no evidence supporting these claims. But if the idea of integrity is understood more broadly, there is indeed evidence from this study that US elections suffer from several systematic and persistent problems – and Donald Trump and the Republican party appear to have done well in states with the most problems.
Overall, the article, along with the associated publications, is very informative, and reveals substantial issues associated with partisan gerrymandering, campaign communications, campaign finance, and fake news/junk reporting. It ends with a caution, and one which we would do well to heed: “…countries which fail to reach a consensus about the legitimacy of the basic electoral rules of the game, especially those with deeply polarized parties and leaders with authoritarian tendencies, are unlikely to persist as stable democratic states.”
U.N. Passes Resolution On Israeli Settlements In The Occupied Palestinian Territories
by John Weckerle
Yesterday, the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council adopted Resolution 2334 (2016), calling for an end to Israeli settlement in occupied Palestinian territory in accordance with past agreements and resolutions. Reactions to the resolution have been swift, prolific, and predictable, with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan declaring it “a blow to peace” and the government of Israel decrying it as “shameful.” As reported by MSN here, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has threatened a reduction or suspension of payments to the U.N. and potential retaliation against members who supported the resolution.
Rather than wait for the alt-right blosphere/twitterverse to erupt and then challenge the rantings, we decided to take a direct look at the actual text of the resolution itself. The text of the resolution is included in this announcement on the U.N. website.
The resolution begins by reaffirming eleven prior resolutions stretching back to 1967 and proceeds to reaffirm Israel’s responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention (Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949). It condemns “all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character, and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967.” The resolution directly references the Quartet Performance-based Roadmap to a Permanent Two State Solution (2003), which, among many other provisions, specifies a freeze on all settlement activities.
The resolution states that the U.N. Security Council “Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;” and “Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard.” It calls for immediate steps to prevent violence against citizens, including terrorist acts, and calls upon both parties (Israel and the Palestinians) observe international law and refrain from provocative actions. The resolution further calls upon the international and regional communities to intensify and accelerate efforts to achieve “without delay, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”
There are a few things to consider with respect to the resolution. First, it contains no provisions for sanctions whatsoever. Second, as reported in the MSN article, it has been U.S. policy since the days of the Reagan Administration to oppose the establishment of these settlements. Third, the United States did not vote for the resolution, but simply abstained – effectively declining to veto it.
It is unclear why the expectation seems to be that we would veto it. Israel has been been establishing these settlements and does not deny it, and these settlements are contrary to U.S. policy and international agreements to which Israel is a party. As an ally, Israel has reason to expect U.S. support in the event of a military attack, but it seems a little absurd to suggest that we should extend that support to protecting Israel from criticism regarding acts that are counter to our established policy and international accords. It is, perhaps, time for Israel to stand up for itself and its actions rather than have the U.S. do it for them, and to recognize that the U.S. is the only member of the Security Council not to vote directly in favor of the resolution.
We see nothing untrue or inappropriate in the resolution (and, in the end, very little if anything that could directly harm Israel), and the logic behind the outraged reaction to it is unclear. We suspect that it is more partisan or ideological in nature than substantive. As always, we suggest that people read the full text (rather than, or in addition to, stories about it) before reacting to it, or reposting/retweeting others’ opinions on the subject.
Have Yourself A Deplorable Little Christmas (Shopping Experience)
by John Weckerle
It was with a certain degree of shock and disappointment that we read this article on MSN.com containing a video of a woman behaving very badly at a J.C. Penney store in Louisville, Kentucky. Irritated by the addition of a couple of extra items to the order being checked out in front of her, this person entered into an apparently alt-right-inspired, ethnically charged rant against the two women whose items were being rung up.
J.C. Penney is seeking the two women accosted in the video with the purpose of reimbursing them for their purchase and apologizing for the experience. Along with the Jefferson Mall management, they are also working to identify the foul-mouthed ranter, so that she may be banned from both the store and the mall for life. We suspect that the search will be short, given that her name and credit card number are probably on record after her purchase.
We understand that holiday shopping can be stressful, but there is no excuse for behavior like this. If you’re feeling frustrated, just remember that everybody has a cell phone these days, including the denizens of NM-Central.com, and this is not the sort of national fame that anybody wants. So be good, for goodness sake!
Tractor Supply Company Reaches Settlement In Emissions Case
by John Weckerle
On September 30, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice issued a press release announcing a settlement with Tractor Supply Company Inc. and Tractor Supply Company of Texas L.P. (“Tractor Supply Company”) regarding the import and sale of more than 28,000 all terrain vehicles, off-road motorcycles, and engines that “did not comply with federal Clean Air Act certification and emission labeling requirements.” These requirements specify that all vehicles and engines sold in the United States must be covered by a valid certificate of conformity issued by EPA. The vehicles and engines, sold by Tractor Supply Company between 2006 and 2009, were imported from China (suggesting that they were not manufactured by Volkswagen) and allegedly “varied from the certificates of conformity that had been submitted to EPA.” EPA estimated that the noncompliance resulted in excess emissions of up to 23.5 tons of excess hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions and 12.2 tons of excess carbon monoxide emissions.
Tractor Supply Company will pay $775,000 in civil penalties and be required to “implement a rigorous compliance plan that requires regular vehicle and engine inspections, emissions and catalyst testing, staff training and reporting for five years. Tractor Supply Company will also mitigate potential adverse environmental effects of equipment already sold to consumers.”
Boehner To Resign?
by John Weckerle
This just in – the New York Times is reporting that Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner will resign effective October 31.
While we disagree with Mr. Boehner’s positions on many things, we hope that his decision is political and not a result of health problems or family issues. We’ll likely comment further when more information is available.
Press Release: EPA and USDA Join Private Sector, Charitable Organizations to Set Nation’s First Goals to Reduce Wasted Food
Editor’s note: This is a few days old but we found it interesting enough to pass on.
WASHINGTON, September 16, 2015 — Today, U.S. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the United States’ first-ever national food waste reduction goal, calling for a 50-percent reduction by 2030. As part of the effort, the federal government will lead a new partnership with charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, the private sector and local, state and tribal governments to reduce food loss and waste in order to improve overall food security and conserve our nation’s natural resources. The announcement occurs just one week before world leaders gather at the United Nations General Assembly in New York to address sustainable development practices, including sustainable production and consumption. As the global population continues to grow, so does the need for food waste reduction.
“Let’s feed people, not landfills. By reducing wasted food in landfills, we cut harmful methane emissions that fuel climate change, conserve our natural resources, and protect our planet for future generations” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. “Today’s announcement presents a major environmental, social and public health opportunity for the U.S., and we’re proud to be part of a national effort to reduce the food that goes into landfills.”
“The United States enjoys the most productive and abundant food supply on earth, but too much of this food goes to waste,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “This announcement demonstrates America’s leadership on a global level in getting wholesome food to people who need it, efficient use of natural resources, cutting environmental pollution and promoting innovative approaches for reducing food loss and waste.”
Food loss and waste in the United States accounts for approximately 31 percent—or 133 billion pounds—of the overall food supply available to retailers and consumers and has far-reaching impacts on food security, resource conservation and climate change. Food loss and waste is the single largest component of disposed U.S. municipal solid waste, and accounts for a significant portion of U.S. methane emissions, which fuel climate change. This large volume of wasted food is a main contributor to the roughly 18 percent of total U.S. methane emissions that come from landfills. Landfills are the third largest source of methane in the United States.
Furthermore, experts have projected that reducing food losses by just 15 percent would provide enough food for more than 25 million Americans every year, helping to sharply reduce incidences of food insecurity for millions. It is estimated that at the retail and consumer levels in the United States, food loss and waste totals $161 billion dollars.
Ongoing federal initiatives are already building momentum for long-term success. In 2013, USDA and EPA launched the U.S. Food Waste Challenge, creating a platform for leaders and organizations across the food chain to share best practices on ways to reduce, recover, and recycle food loss and waste. By the end of 2014, the U.S. Food Waste Challenge had over 4,000 active participants, well surpassing its initial goal of reaching 1,000 participants by 2020. EPA is working with nearly 800 grocers, restaurants, venues, stadiums, and other organizations to reduce wasted food through prevention, donation, and composting. In 2014, participants in EPA’s Food Recovery Challenge diverted nearly 606,000 tons of wasted food, which included over 88,500 tons donated to people in need.
USDA and EPA will also continue to encourage the private sector—food service companies, institutions, restaurants, grocery stores, and more—to set their own aggressive goals for reducing food loss and waste in the months ahead. Organizations such as the Consumer Goods Forum, which recently approved a new resolution to halve food waste within the operations of its 400 retailer and manufacturers members by 2025, are helping to lead the way.
The United States is leading global efforts to address the threat of climate change. The first-ever national food waste goal is just one part of the Obama Administration’s commitment to protecting our environment for future generations. Since President Obama took office in 2009, the United States has increased solar generation by more than ten-fold, tripled electricity production from wind power, and reduced greenhouse gas pollution in the United States to its lowest levels in nearly 20 years. By setting achievable environmental goals, this Administration is making strides to help boost the economy and protect the health of American families for the long-term.
Energy, Such As It Is
by John Weckerle
In a recent article re-posted by Sandia Tea Party Official Internet Spokesman Chuck Ring…
Okay, we’re ribbing Chuck here a bit; as we recall that he wasn’t crazy about the implication that he is the “official internet spokesman.” Still, as essentially the editor of the site, the mantle falls upon his shoulders and we’re sticking with it, while acknowledging that Chuck is a good person and a dedicated member of the community. We would like our readers to understand that our reference to Chuck as “the official internet spokesman” carries a specific recognition that may not have been apparent: We may agree or disagree on a variety of issues, but Chuck is willing to put his name where his mouth is, where the entire planet can see it, and that takes a certain amount of intestinal fortitude.*
We are, however, a bit concerned to see that the Sandia Tea Party site, apart from a few cartoons, seems to be dedicated to reposting articles by Marita Noon on the subject of – well – energy. We will begin with some disclosures, beginning with Ms. Noon’s relationship with the conventional energy industry:
SourceWatch article: Marita Noon
SourcWatch Article: Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy
We will also disclose your editor’s occasional commercial involvement with the energy industry, which includes consulting to the oil and gas industry in the early 1990s and to some small solar enterprises in the early to mid-2000s.
Ms. Noon’s article opens up with what has become a bit of a tired argument – the idea that including solar and wind energy in the total energy portfolio would result in a situation in which coal-fired power plants would be turned off during peak hours and have to be restarted from cold state on a daily basis. We do not dispute Ms. Noon’s proposal that natural gas-fired plants would restart more effectively. However, we do find the idea that conventional power plants would have to undergo a shutdown-and-restart process based on some perceived peak productivity on the part of renewable energy rather questionable; given the state of the industry, we see no reason to assume that renewable energy resources, as currently projected, would be expected to entirely satisfy peak demands in the short- or medium-term. We challenge Ms. Noon and her compatriots – given that she and they are making the case – to provide convincing economic analyses to make their case -and if they cannot, we challenge the Sandia Tea Party to do so.
* Guts.
Proof Positive: There Is Life After Death
by John Weckerle
Or something to that effect.
On January 4, 2013, the East Mountain Tea Party announced its dissolution. No doubt some were relieved, and others disappointed (not the least of whom were those of us who enjoyed commenting on their commentary). As it turns out, the East Mountain Tea Party is back, and may never really have gone anywhere in the first place.
A recent Internet search led us to a Facebook page* upon which the first post, written on April 4, 2010, provides convincing (to us, at least) evidence that the owners of this Facebook account are likely the same people responsible for the posts that gave us all so much to discuss some years ago. The fact that the cell phone number associated with the page (505-269-5617) is the same as that used for the previous web site perhaps supports that conclusion. The commentary continued at a reduced pace, with a meager nine posts in 2013 and just one in 2014. Now, however, we see two posts less than a week apart in March 2015, and one of them contains an all-too-familiar combination of religious intolerance and inaccuracy, referring to President Barack Obama as a “Marxist, Muslim man-boy,” all of which is clearly intended to be derogatory. And of course, there is the signature anonymity – no name, just the pseudonym “East Mountain Tea Party.”
Is the East Mountain Tea Party back, or are these just a couple of posts before the page goes silent again? We’ll see – because we’ll be watching!
* We’re not providing them with a link, but if you search Facebook for “East Mountain Tea Party,” you’ll find them right away.
Ladies and Gentlemen…
The President of Ireland.
Editor’s note: As recent life events have turned your editor’s thoughts toward, well, expressing them, we took a little time to look through some old drafts and came upon this one, from April 6, 2012. We were surprised to discover that we apparently never posted it. While it is approaching three years since we found the video, it nevertheless seems to retain a certain relevance.
But On Us, It Looks Good – Good And Boring
by John Weckerle
In a June 3 article titled “Stranger Than Fiction: Which It Appears To Be,” Sandia Tea Party official internet spokesman Chuck Ring denounces the Evangelical Immigration Table – a coalition of evangelical organizations seeking immigration reform – and its logistics partner, the National Immigration Forum, on the basis of a Breitbart.com (once the web site of the late serial liar Andrew Breitbart) article. Mr. Ring and the Breitbart writer, Mike Flynn, take issue with the fact that the coalition had announced a $250,000 ad buy as part of its efforts to support the immigration reform bill currently slogging its way around (note that we did not say “through”) Congress. The criticism is based on two premises: that the coalition “doesn’t legally exist as an incorporated entity or nonprofit organization,” and that the organization is not transparent with respect to its funding and activities to the point that Mr. Ring, speaking for the Sandia Tea Party, accuses the organization of “hiding its true agenda.”
Let’s deal with the legality of the group’s existence first. There is no legal requirement that coalitions or other groups of people exercising their First Amendment right to free speech (and, as legal precedent based on the First Amendment dictates, free association) be registered or recognized by government in any way, and there is no prohibition against such groups purchasing advertising. The Breitbart article states: “There are strict limitations on what (c)3’s (sic) and (c)4’s (sic) can undertake” (somewhat true, but these limits apply primarily to interference with elections and lobbying and can be fairly murky; see the IRS web site on exemption requirements for charitable organizations for more information) “and clear prohibitions on them coordinating on an issue campaign” (an absolute falsehood in the grand tradition of the site’s founder).
As far as transparency is concerned, those who have already clicked through to the two organizations in question will have seen what we did: both organizations list their leadership and/or key members, something that the Sandia Tea Party has neglected to do on their web site. Neither does the Sandia Tea Party publish the names of their contributors and the amounts of their donations. We challenge them to do both. On our own, we can’t gather much information about the latter, but a little research has provided us with some information regarding the Sandia Tea Party, its officers, and its (at least as far as we can find out) “nonexistent” status as a Federally recognized tax-exempt organization.