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+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Beware the Puppet Masters
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
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
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Perry's tech fund aided firms with ties to his donors
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
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
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Old Yeller: A Dog Named Slick Rick
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
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
Saturday, September 11, 2010
9/11:Since That Day by William Rivers Pitt
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
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
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
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
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Study shows majority of Texas companies given taxpayer money to create jobs failed to meet goals
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
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
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Glenn Beck, Dr. King, and why TODAY matters
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
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
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Rare Sharing of Data Led to Results on Alzheimer’s
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
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
Monday, July 19, 2010
US Welcomes WTO Ruling Against European AirBus Subsidies
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
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
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
“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
Saturday, July 17, 2010
For BP, Rising Pressure in Oil Well Seen as a Positive Sign
By HENRY FOUNTAIN
As the Gulf of Mexico entered a third day free of fresh oil from BP’s blown-out well, a company official said Saturday that there were still no signs of damage in the 13,000-foot-deep hole.
“We’re very encouraged at this point,” said Kent Wells, a senior vice president of BP. He said that a test to assess the condition of the well was continuing, and that any decision to end it would be made by Thad W. Allen, the retired Coast Guard admiral who commands the spill response.
“The longer the test goes, the more confidence we have in it,” Mr. Wells said. “But we don’t want to jump ahead of the process we’ve laid out. Admiral Allen is the ultimate decision maker.”
The test that began on Thursday afternoon with the closing of valves on a new, tighter-sealing cap atop the well had exceeded 48 hours. Officials had said that would likely be the upper time limit for the test, though they had said the procedure could be extended.
With the valves closed, oil stopped gushing into the gulf for the first time since the disaster began with the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig on April 20.
The test will help determine whether the well can remain shut off or whether it must be reopened and containment systems restarted.
Two vessels that had been collecting oil through pipes at the well head are on standby, Mr. Wells said, and a third, the Discoverer Enterprise, could be brought in quickly with a device to funnel oil from the top of the cap.
With three containment systems working, Mr. Wells said, “We could very well be collecting all the flow at that point.” The flow rate is estimated at 35,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil per day.
But in reopening the well, engineers would have to let oil gush into the water for a relatively short time to reduce pressure as the containment systems started.
Whatever decisions are made after the test, officials say work on a relief well would continue. It is considered the ultimate solution because it would permanently plug the runaway well.
On Friday, Admiral Allen said that the test results were ambiguous, and that the possibility remained that the well had been breached and that oil and gas were escaping into the surrounding rock and even into the gulf.
But Mr. Wells said on Saturday that there were still no signs of any leakage into the rock formation or up through the seabed into the water. “There’s no evidence that we don’t have integrity,” he said.
He said scientists were “not at all surprised” that pressure readings, while higher than had been forecast if the well was badly damaged, were lower than had been expected if the well was intact. One explanation could be that the reservoir of oil had been depleted by the gushing well, he said.
Mr. Wells said pressure in the well was still slowly rising, which he said was a good sign. Temperature readings showed that the well had cooled off; if oil was still flowing out through a leak, temperatures would be expected to be higher.
Scientists were reviewing data from seismic and sonar surveys as well, which could show if oil was leaking into shallow rock formations. And two remotely operated submersibles had video cameras trained on the seabed.
Video showed occasional small gas bubbles emerging from a valve on the topmost section of casing pipe, which starts at the seabed and is three feet in diameter. Mr. Wells said that instruments would sample the gas as a precaution, but he said that such bubbles were commonly seen coming from subsea wells.
Peter Baker contributed reporting from Washington, and Rogene Fisher Jacquette and Liz Robbins from New York.
By HENRY FOUNTAIN
As the Gulf of Mexico entered a third day free of fresh oil from BP’s blown-out well, a company official said Saturday that there were still no signs of damage in the 13,000-foot-deep hole.
“We’re very encouraged at this point,” said Kent Wells, a senior vice president of BP. He said that a test to assess the condition of the well was continuing, and that any decision to end it would be made by Thad W. Allen, the retired Coast Guard admiral who commands the spill response.
“The longer the test goes, the more confidence we have in it,” Mr. Wells said. “But we don’t want to jump ahead of the process we’ve laid out. Admiral Allen is the ultimate decision maker.”
The test that began on Thursday afternoon with the closing of valves on a new, tighter-sealing cap atop the well had exceeded 48 hours. Officials had said that would likely be the upper time limit for the test, though they had said the procedure could be extended.
With the valves closed, oil stopped gushing into the gulf for the first time since the disaster began with the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig on April 20.
The test will help determine whether the well can remain shut off or whether it must be reopened and containment systems restarted.
Two vessels that had been collecting oil through pipes at the well head are on standby, Mr. Wells said, and a third, the Discoverer Enterprise, could be brought in quickly with a device to funnel oil from the top of the cap.
With three containment systems working, Mr. Wells said, “We could very well be collecting all the flow at that point.” The flow rate is estimated at 35,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil per day.
But in reopening the well, engineers would have to let oil gush into the water for a relatively short time to reduce pressure as the containment systems started.
Whatever decisions are made after the test, officials say work on a relief well would continue. It is considered the ultimate solution because it would permanently plug the runaway well.
On Friday, Admiral Allen said that the test results were ambiguous, and that the possibility remained that the well had been breached and that oil and gas were escaping into the surrounding rock and even into the gulf.
But Mr. Wells said on Saturday that there were still no signs of any leakage into the rock formation or up through the seabed into the water. “There’s no evidence that we don’t have integrity,” he said.
He said scientists were “not at all surprised” that pressure readings, while higher than had been forecast if the well was badly damaged, were lower than had been expected if the well was intact. One explanation could be that the reservoir of oil had been depleted by the gushing well, he said.
Mr. Wells said pressure in the well was still slowly rising, which he said was a good sign. Temperature readings showed that the well had cooled off; if oil was still flowing out through a leak, temperatures would be expected to be higher.
Scientists were reviewing data from seismic and sonar surveys as well, which could show if oil was leaking into shallow rock formations. And two remotely operated submersibles had video cameras trained on the seabed.
Video showed occasional small gas bubbles emerging from a valve on the topmost section of casing pipe, which starts at the seabed and is three feet in diameter. Mr. Wells said that instruments would sample the gas as a precaution, but he said that such bubbles were commonly seen coming from subsea wells.
Peter Baker contributed reporting from Washington, and Rogene Fisher Jacquette and Liz Robbins from New York.
By HENRY FOUNTAIN
As the Gulf of Mexico entered a third day free of fresh oil from BP’s blown-out well, a company official said Saturday that there were still no signs of damage in the 13,000-foot-deep hole.
“We’re very encouraged at this point,” said Kent Wells, a senior vice president of BP. He said that a test to assess the condition of the well was continuing, and that any decision to end it would be made by Thad W. Allen, the retired Coast Guard admiral who commands the spill response.
“The longer the test goes, the more confidence we have in it,” Mr. Wells said. “But we don’t want to jump ahead of the process we’ve laid out. Admiral Allen is the ultimate decision maker.”
The test that began on Thursday afternoon with the closing of valves on a new, tighter-sealing cap atop the well had exceeded 48 hours. Officials had said that would likely be the upper time limit for the test, though they had said the procedure could be extended.
With the valves closed, oil stopped gushing into the gulf for the first time since the disaster began with the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig on April 20.
The test will help determine whether the well can remain shut off or whether it must be reopened and containment systems restarted.
Two vessels that had been collecting oil through pipes at the well head are on standby, Mr. Wells said, and a third, the Discoverer Enterprise, could be brought in quickly with a device to funnel oil from the top of the cap.
With three containment systems working, Mr. Wells said, “We could very well be collecting all the flow at that point.” The flow rate is estimated at 35,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil per day.
But in reopening the well, engineers would have to let oil gush into the water for a relatively short time to reduce pressure as the containment systems started.
Whatever decisions are made after the test, officials say work on a relief well would continue. It is considered the ultimate solution because it would permanently plug the runaway well.
On Friday, Admiral Allen said that the test results were ambiguous, and that the possibility remained that the well had been breached and that oil and gas were escaping into the surrounding rock and even into the gulf.
But Mr. Wells said on Saturday that there were still no signs of any leakage into the rock formation or up through the seabed into the water. “There’s no evidence that we don’t have integrity,” he said.
He said scientists were “not at all surprised” that pressure readings, while higher than had been forecast if the well was badly damaged, were lower than had been expected if the well was intact. One explanation could be that the reservoir of oil had been depleted by the gushing well, he said.
Mr. Wells said pressure in the well was still slowly rising, which he said was a good sign. Temperature readings showed that the well had cooled off; if oil was still flowing out through a leak, temperatures would be expected to be higher.
Scientists were reviewing data from seismic and sonar surveys as well, which could show if oil was leaking into shallow rock formations. And two remotely operated submersibles had video cameras trained on the seabed.
Video showed occasional small gas bubbles emerging from a valve on the topmost section of casing pipe, which starts at the seabed and is three feet in diameter. Mr. Wells said that instruments would sample the gas as a precaution, but he said that such bubbles were commonly seen coming from subsea wells.
Peter Baker contributed reporting from Washington, and Rogene Fisher Jacquette and Liz Robbins from New York.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/us/18spill.html?exprod=myyahoo
As the Gulf of Mexico entered a third day free of fresh oil from BP’s blown-out well, a company official said Saturday that there were still no signs of damage in the 13,000-foot-deep hole.
“We’re very encouraged at this point,” said Kent Wells, a senior vice president of BP. He said that a test to assess the condition of the well was continuing, and that any decision to end it would be made by Thad W. Allen, the retired Coast Guard admiral who commands the spill response.
“The longer the test goes, the more confidence we have in it,” Mr. Wells said. “But we don’t want to jump ahead of the process we’ve laid out. Admiral Allen is the ultimate decision maker.”
The test that began on Thursday afternoon with the closing of valves on a new, tighter-sealing cap atop the well had exceeded 48 hours. Officials had said that would likely be the upper time limit for the test, though they had said the procedure could be extended.
With the valves closed, oil stopped gushing into the gulf for the first time since the disaster began with the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig on April 20.
The test will help determine whether the well can remain shut off or whether it must be reopened and containment systems restarted.
Two vessels that had been collecting oil through pipes at the well head are on standby, Mr. Wells said, and a third, the Discoverer Enterprise, could be brought in quickly with a device to funnel oil from the top of the cap.
With three containment systems working, Mr. Wells said, “We could very well be collecting all the flow at that point.” The flow rate is estimated at 35,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil per day.
But in reopening the well, engineers would have to let oil gush into the water for a relatively short time to reduce pressure as the containment systems started.
Whatever decisions are made after the test, officials say work on a relief well would continue. It is considered the ultimate solution because it would permanently plug the runaway well.
On Friday, Admiral Allen said that the test results were ambiguous, and that the possibility remained that the well had been breached and that oil and gas were escaping into the surrounding rock and even into the gulf.
But Mr. Wells said on Saturday that there were still no signs of any leakage into the rock formation or up through the seabed into the water. “There’s no evidence that we don’t have integrity,” he said.
He said scientists were “not at all surprised” that pressure readings, while higher than had been forecast if the well was badly damaged, were lower than had been expected if the well was intact. One explanation could be that the reservoir of oil had been depleted by the gushing well, he said.
Mr. Wells said pressure in the well was still slowly rising, which he said was a good sign. Temperature readings showed that the well had cooled off; if oil was still flowing out through a leak, temperatures would be expected to be higher.
Scientists were reviewing data from seismic and sonar surveys as well, which could show if oil was leaking into shallow rock formations. And two remotely operated submersibles had video cameras trained on the seabed.
Video showed occasional small gas bubbles emerging from a valve on the topmost section of casing pipe, which starts at the seabed and is three feet in diameter. Mr. Wells said that instruments would sample the gas as a precaution, but he said that such bubbles were commonly seen coming from subsea wells.
Peter Baker contributed reporting from Washington, and Rogene Fisher Jacquette and Liz Robbins from New York.
By HENRY FOUNTAIN
As the Gulf of Mexico entered a third day free of fresh oil from BP’s blown-out well, a company official said Saturday that there were still no signs of damage in the 13,000-foot-deep hole.
“We’re very encouraged at this point,” said Kent Wells, a senior vice president of BP. He said that a test to assess the condition of the well was continuing, and that any decision to end it would be made by Thad W. Allen, the retired Coast Guard admiral who commands the spill response.
“The longer the test goes, the more confidence we have in it,” Mr. Wells said. “But we don’t want to jump ahead of the process we’ve laid out. Admiral Allen is the ultimate decision maker.”
The test that began on Thursday afternoon with the closing of valves on a new, tighter-sealing cap atop the well had exceeded 48 hours. Officials had said that would likely be the upper time limit for the test, though they had said the procedure could be extended.
With the valves closed, oil stopped gushing into the gulf for the first time since the disaster began with the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig on April 20.
The test will help determine whether the well can remain shut off or whether it must be reopened and containment systems restarted.
Two vessels that had been collecting oil through pipes at the well head are on standby, Mr. Wells said, and a third, the Discoverer Enterprise, could be brought in quickly with a device to funnel oil from the top of the cap.
With three containment systems working, Mr. Wells said, “We could very well be collecting all the flow at that point.” The flow rate is estimated at 35,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil per day.
But in reopening the well, engineers would have to let oil gush into the water for a relatively short time to reduce pressure as the containment systems started.
Whatever decisions are made after the test, officials say work on a relief well would continue. It is considered the ultimate solution because it would permanently plug the runaway well.
On Friday, Admiral Allen said that the test results were ambiguous, and that the possibility remained that the well had been breached and that oil and gas were escaping into the surrounding rock and even into the gulf.
But Mr. Wells said on Saturday that there were still no signs of any leakage into the rock formation or up through the seabed into the water. “There’s no evidence that we don’t have integrity,” he said.
He said scientists were “not at all surprised” that pressure readings, while higher than had been forecast if the well was badly damaged, were lower than had been expected if the well was intact. One explanation could be that the reservoir of oil had been depleted by the gushing well, he said.
Mr. Wells said pressure in the well was still slowly rising, which he said was a good sign. Temperature readings showed that the well had cooled off; if oil was still flowing out through a leak, temperatures would be expected to be higher.
Scientists were reviewing data from seismic and sonar surveys as well, which could show if oil was leaking into shallow rock formations. And two remotely operated submersibles had video cameras trained on the seabed.
Video showed occasional small gas bubbles emerging from a valve on the topmost section of casing pipe, which starts at the seabed and is three feet in diameter. Mr. Wells said that instruments would sample the gas as a precaution, but he said that such bubbles were commonly seen coming from subsea wells.
Peter Baker contributed reporting from Washington, and Rogene Fisher Jacquette and Liz Robbins from New York.
By HENRY FOUNTAIN
As the Gulf of Mexico entered a third day free of fresh oil from BP’s blown-out well, a company official said Saturday that there were still no signs of damage in the 13,000-foot-deep hole.
“We’re very encouraged at this point,” said Kent Wells, a senior vice president of BP. He said that a test to assess the condition of the well was continuing, and that any decision to end it would be made by Thad W. Allen, the retired Coast Guard admiral who commands the spill response.
“The longer the test goes, the more confidence we have in it,” Mr. Wells said. “But we don’t want to jump ahead of the process we’ve laid out. Admiral Allen is the ultimate decision maker.”
The test that began on Thursday afternoon with the closing of valves on a new, tighter-sealing cap atop the well had exceeded 48 hours. Officials had said that would likely be the upper time limit for the test, though they had said the procedure could be extended.
With the valves closed, oil stopped gushing into the gulf for the first time since the disaster began with the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig on April 20.
The test will help determine whether the well can remain shut off or whether it must be reopened and containment systems restarted.
Two vessels that had been collecting oil through pipes at the well head are on standby, Mr. Wells said, and a third, the Discoverer Enterprise, could be brought in quickly with a device to funnel oil from the top of the cap.
With three containment systems working, Mr. Wells said, “We could very well be collecting all the flow at that point.” The flow rate is estimated at 35,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil per day.
But in reopening the well, engineers would have to let oil gush into the water for a relatively short time to reduce pressure as the containment systems started.
Whatever decisions are made after the test, officials say work on a relief well would continue. It is considered the ultimate solution because it would permanently plug the runaway well.
On Friday, Admiral Allen said that the test results were ambiguous, and that the possibility remained that the well had been breached and that oil and gas were escaping into the surrounding rock and even into the gulf.
But Mr. Wells said on Saturday that there were still no signs of any leakage into the rock formation or up through the seabed into the water. “There’s no evidence that we don’t have integrity,” he said.
He said scientists were “not at all surprised” that pressure readings, while higher than had been forecast if the well was badly damaged, were lower than had been expected if the well was intact. One explanation could be that the reservoir of oil had been depleted by the gushing well, he said.
Mr. Wells said pressure in the well was still slowly rising, which he said was a good sign. Temperature readings showed that the well had cooled off; if oil was still flowing out through a leak, temperatures would be expected to be higher.
Scientists were reviewing data from seismic and sonar surveys as well, which could show if oil was leaking into shallow rock formations. And two remotely operated submersibles had video cameras trained on the seabed.
Video showed occasional small gas bubbles emerging from a valve on the topmost section of casing pipe, which starts at the seabed and is three feet in diameter. Mr. Wells said that instruments would sample the gas as a precaution, but he said that such bubbles were commonly seen coming from subsea wells.
Peter Baker contributed reporting from Washington, and Rogene Fisher Jacquette and Liz Robbins from New York.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/us/18spill.html?exprod=myyahoo
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Oil containment effort facing 2 key moments
By Mark Seibel, McClatchy Newspapers Mark Seibel, Mcclatchy Newspapers
Wed Jul 7, 7:01 pm ET
.WASHINGTON — The battle to contain BP's massive Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is approaching two critical junctures in coming days that could affect how the months-long catastrophe ends.
The first will happen for sure: the connection of a third ship to the jury-rigged containment system through which BP has been capturing about 24,000 barrels of oil per day since early June. That may take place as soon as this weekend, depending on how rough the seas are, and it would raise the amount of oil that BP can collect from the well to as much as 53,000 barrels per day. That's 88 percent of the 60,000 barrels per day that the government says is the current best guess of the maximum amount that's gushing from the well.
The second may not happen: replacing the "top hat" component of that containment system with a new cap that would fit more snugly but whose installation would require that the well be uncapped for as long as 10 days, allowing tens of thousands of additional barrels of crude to spew into the Gulf.
The new containment cap was the subject of Cabinet-level meetings in Washington last week, including one with President Barack Obama , and the decision remains uncertain.
Retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said Wednesday that he'd had more meetings on the topic with BP officials Tuesday in Houston and that more meetings were scheduled for when he returned to Washington this week.
"We are still reviewing the technical specifications . . . the amount of time . . . and the weather window that it would take" for installation, Allen said. He was unwilling to lay odds on whether the new cap would be approved.
"I wouldn't want to attach a percentage right now," he said.
Adding the third ship, the Helix Producer I, has been planned for weeks and was supposed to have happened by June 30 . High seas generated by Hurricane Alex and then by an unnamed storm system near the Mexico's Yucatan peninsula so far have thwarted the final few days of work, however.
Allen said he flew to the Deepwater Horizon site on Wednesday in part to assess weather conditions.
In a conference call from the Discoverer Enterprise, the drilling ship that's taking on oil from the well through the "top hat," Allen said that the waves buffeting the area were 4 to 6 feet tall, still too high to complete the final connections between the Helix Producer I and the Deepwater Horizon's failed blowout preventer.
Forecasts anticipate calmer seas in the next 48 hours, he said, after which the last of the work hooking up undersea hoses should take three days.
The addition of the Helix Producer I is likely to re-energize the controversy over just how much oil is escaping from the well. A government panel of scientists estimated last month that the well is leaking anywhere from 35,000 to 60,000 barrels per day.
Once the Helix Producer I is connected, however, the lower end of those estimates could well be proved moot, increasing pressure on the Obama administration and BP to determine the high end of the gusher more precisely.
While the two vessels that currently collecting oil have a combined maximum capacity of just 28,000 barrels per day — below the government's minimum estimates — the three ships together easily could capture 40,000 to 53,000 barrels a day, well in excess of the minimum range.
The Helix Producer I can take 20,000 to 25,000 barrels per day, officials have said. The Discoverer Enterprise has a stated capacity of 18,000 barrels per day, though it's been collecting an average of about 15,000 barrels on most days, and the Q4000 drilling rig, which is burning the oil it collects, can dispose of 10,000 barrels a day, though it recent days it's been averaging something more than 8,000 barrels daily.
Allen acknowledged that people watching the oil well via a video feed on BP's website — a near-constant presence during newscasts from the Gulf on cable television — will still see crude billowing into the water after the Helix Producer I begins operating.
He tried to put the best possible face on that likelihood, however, saying that as long as oil is coming out of the cap, it means that seawater isn't leaking in, something that would risk the formation of icelike crystals known as hydrates, which would render the top hat unusable.
"Oil in the water is never a good thing," he said. "But some oil that comes out around that seal right now is actually the price of being able to produce up to 25,000 barrels a day and maybe up to close to 53,000 when we get the Helix Producer online. . . . We've got to have a little bit of oil coming out, not water coming in, to avoid the hydrate problem."
The new containment cap under consideration would seal off the well completely because it would be bolted directly to the blowout preventer rather than sitting loosely atop a sheared-off pipe.
Officials have said previously that the new containment cap is necessary for BP to reach the 80,000-barrel-per-day capacity that the government has required the oil giant to achieve. Allen didn't say how that requirement would be affected if officials decide that installing the cap is too risky.
Allen also gave a tepid review of a massive oil-skimming vessel from Taiwan that began tests over the weekend in the Gulf. Critics of the Obama administration's oil spill response have charged that the administration's unwillingness to waive legal restrictions on foreign vessels in U.S. waters delayed the deployment of the A Whale. In fact, the ship, an oil tanker, was being reconfigured in Portugal to skim oil and arrived in the Gulf only last week.
Allen said the tests had shown the A Whale to be so large that it needed "large patches of oil to be effective" and "requires a large amount of maneuvering room."
"I don't have the final evaluation from our research and development folks that are on site," he said of the A Whale tests, "but, in a word, I would say inconclusive."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100707/sc_mcclatchy/3559853/print
Wed Jul 7, 7:01 pm ET
.WASHINGTON — The battle to contain BP's massive Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is approaching two critical junctures in coming days that could affect how the months-long catastrophe ends.
The first will happen for sure: the connection of a third ship to the jury-rigged containment system through which BP has been capturing about 24,000 barrels of oil per day since early June. That may take place as soon as this weekend, depending on how rough the seas are, and it would raise the amount of oil that BP can collect from the well to as much as 53,000 barrels per day. That's 88 percent of the 60,000 barrels per day that the government says is the current best guess of the maximum amount that's gushing from the well.
The second may not happen: replacing the "top hat" component of that containment system with a new cap that would fit more snugly but whose installation would require that the well be uncapped for as long as 10 days, allowing tens of thousands of additional barrels of crude to spew into the Gulf.
The new containment cap was the subject of Cabinet-level meetings in Washington last week, including one with President Barack Obama , and the decision remains uncertain.
Retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen said Wednesday that he'd had more meetings on the topic with BP officials Tuesday in Houston and that more meetings were scheduled for when he returned to Washington this week.
"We are still reviewing the technical specifications . . . the amount of time . . . and the weather window that it would take" for installation, Allen said. He was unwilling to lay odds on whether the new cap would be approved.
"I wouldn't want to attach a percentage right now," he said.
Adding the third ship, the Helix Producer I, has been planned for weeks and was supposed to have happened by June 30 . High seas generated by Hurricane Alex and then by an unnamed storm system near the Mexico's Yucatan peninsula so far have thwarted the final few days of work, however.
Allen said he flew to the Deepwater Horizon site on Wednesday in part to assess weather conditions.
In a conference call from the Discoverer Enterprise, the drilling ship that's taking on oil from the well through the "top hat," Allen said that the waves buffeting the area were 4 to 6 feet tall, still too high to complete the final connections between the Helix Producer I and the Deepwater Horizon's failed blowout preventer.
Forecasts anticipate calmer seas in the next 48 hours, he said, after which the last of the work hooking up undersea hoses should take three days.
The addition of the Helix Producer I is likely to re-energize the controversy over just how much oil is escaping from the well. A government panel of scientists estimated last month that the well is leaking anywhere from 35,000 to 60,000 barrels per day.
Once the Helix Producer I is connected, however, the lower end of those estimates could well be proved moot, increasing pressure on the Obama administration and BP to determine the high end of the gusher more precisely.
While the two vessels that currently collecting oil have a combined maximum capacity of just 28,000 barrels per day — below the government's minimum estimates — the three ships together easily could capture 40,000 to 53,000 barrels a day, well in excess of the minimum range.
The Helix Producer I can take 20,000 to 25,000 barrels per day, officials have said. The Discoverer Enterprise has a stated capacity of 18,000 barrels per day, though it's been collecting an average of about 15,000 barrels on most days, and the Q4000 drilling rig, which is burning the oil it collects, can dispose of 10,000 barrels a day, though it recent days it's been averaging something more than 8,000 barrels daily.
Allen acknowledged that people watching the oil well via a video feed on BP's website — a near-constant presence during newscasts from the Gulf on cable television — will still see crude billowing into the water after the Helix Producer I begins operating.
He tried to put the best possible face on that likelihood, however, saying that as long as oil is coming out of the cap, it means that seawater isn't leaking in, something that would risk the formation of icelike crystals known as hydrates, which would render the top hat unusable.
"Oil in the water is never a good thing," he said. "But some oil that comes out around that seal right now is actually the price of being able to produce up to 25,000 barrels a day and maybe up to close to 53,000 when we get the Helix Producer online. . . . We've got to have a little bit of oil coming out, not water coming in, to avoid the hydrate problem."
The new containment cap under consideration would seal off the well completely because it would be bolted directly to the blowout preventer rather than sitting loosely atop a sheared-off pipe.
Officials have said previously that the new containment cap is necessary for BP to reach the 80,000-barrel-per-day capacity that the government has required the oil giant to achieve. Allen didn't say how that requirement would be affected if officials decide that installing the cap is too risky.
Allen also gave a tepid review of a massive oil-skimming vessel from Taiwan that began tests over the weekend in the Gulf. Critics of the Obama administration's oil spill response have charged that the administration's unwillingness to waive legal restrictions on foreign vessels in U.S. waters delayed the deployment of the A Whale. In fact, the ship, an oil tanker, was being reconfigured in Portugal to skim oil and arrived in the Gulf only last week.
Allen said the tests had shown the A Whale to be so large that it needed "large patches of oil to be effective" and "requires a large amount of maneuvering room."
"I don't have the final evaluation from our research and development folks that are on site," he said of the A Whale tests, "but, in a word, I would say inconclusive."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100707/sc_mcclatchy/3559853/print
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Slick Rick's Sick Shtick is Latest Trick
Another GOP operative's name comes up in Texas Green Party ballot case
By WAYNE SLATER / The Dallas Morning News
wslater@dallasnews.com
AUSTIN — A Republican consultant with ties to Gov. Rick Perry is the latest in a growing number of GOP operatives described in court documents as helping the Green Party get on the Texas ballot. Anthony Holm, whose political-consulting firm represents Gov. Rick Perry’s campaign and the state GOP, said Tuesday that he talked with Green Party officials numerous times in recent months about fielding candidates.
But Holm disputed an e-mail suggesting he could provide funding for a petition drive to put the party on the November ballot.
Democrats contend that the liberal Green candidate for governor would help Perry by siphoning votes from Democrat Bill White. The Perry campaign denies involvement.
The Democratic Party contends the petition drive was illegally financed with corporate money. The Texas Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Green Party to certify candidates while it reviews the case.
At issue is the legality of a GOP-backed signature-gathering effort bankrolled with $532,000 from an out-of-state nonprofit corporation. The source of the money remains a mystery.
In March, when the Green Party was struggling to get signatures, state coordinator Kat Swift told party officials in an e-mail that big Republican money was coming to the rescue.
“I just got a call that a Republican in Texas wants to give us 40 percent of the cost of petitioning,” Swift wrote. “I got his name! Anthony Holm.”
Holm says he told Swift he couldn’t provide any money. But he said he supports the Green Party’s bid to be on the ballot and has provided informal political advice.
Holm is a partner in an Austin consulting firm, and his clients include Houston homebuilder Bob Perry, the state’s most prolific contributor. Holm said the builder, who is the biggest campaign donor to the governor but is not related to him, was not involved in helping the Green Party.
“Bob Perry did not contribute one penny to this effort,” Holm said.
Holm is among several GOP figures linked to the Green Party petition case. At the time of Swift’s e-mail, the party was being assisted by former Perry chief of staff Mike Toomey, now a lobbyist.
When that petition effort sputtered, out-of-state Republicans with ties to the governor’s chief political strategist, Dave Carney, took over. They paid a petition-drive company to collect 92,000 signatures, which were turned over to the Green Party as an in-kind contribution.
Democratic strategist Matt Angle said the party wants to know who paid for the drive.
“It is no longer credible for Rick Perry to deny his campaign’s involvement in the ballot scandal,” Angle said. “At least three of his closest political associates have been connected to the scheme.”
Perry spokesman Mark Miner said whoever funded the effort to help the Green Party did so on his own, not in connection with the campaign.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/yahoolatestnews/stories/070710dntexgreenparty.11555ac8a.html
By WAYNE SLATER / The Dallas Morning News
wslater@dallasnews.com
AUSTIN — A Republican consultant with ties to Gov. Rick Perry is the latest in a growing number of GOP operatives described in court documents as helping the Green Party get on the Texas ballot. Anthony Holm, whose political-consulting firm represents Gov. Rick Perry’s campaign and the state GOP, said Tuesday that he talked with Green Party officials numerous times in recent months about fielding candidates.
But Holm disputed an e-mail suggesting he could provide funding for a petition drive to put the party on the November ballot.
Democrats contend that the liberal Green candidate for governor would help Perry by siphoning votes from Democrat Bill White. The Perry campaign denies involvement.
The Democratic Party contends the petition drive was illegally financed with corporate money. The Texas Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Green Party to certify candidates while it reviews the case.
At issue is the legality of a GOP-backed signature-gathering effort bankrolled with $532,000 from an out-of-state nonprofit corporation. The source of the money remains a mystery.
In March, when the Green Party was struggling to get signatures, state coordinator Kat Swift told party officials in an e-mail that big Republican money was coming to the rescue.
“I just got a call that a Republican in Texas wants to give us 40 percent of the cost of petitioning,” Swift wrote. “I got his name! Anthony Holm.”
Holm says he told Swift he couldn’t provide any money. But he said he supports the Green Party’s bid to be on the ballot and has provided informal political advice.
Holm is a partner in an Austin consulting firm, and his clients include Houston homebuilder Bob Perry, the state’s most prolific contributor. Holm said the builder, who is the biggest campaign donor to the governor but is not related to him, was not involved in helping the Green Party.
“Bob Perry did not contribute one penny to this effort,” Holm said.
Holm is among several GOP figures linked to the Green Party petition case. At the time of Swift’s e-mail, the party was being assisted by former Perry chief of staff Mike Toomey, now a lobbyist.
When that petition effort sputtered, out-of-state Republicans with ties to the governor’s chief political strategist, Dave Carney, took over. They paid a petition-drive company to collect 92,000 signatures, which were turned over to the Green Party as an in-kind contribution.
Democratic strategist Matt Angle said the party wants to know who paid for the drive.
“It is no longer credible for Rick Perry to deny his campaign’s involvement in the ballot scandal,” Angle said. “At least three of his closest political associates have been connected to the scheme.”
Perry spokesman Mark Miner said whoever funded the effort to help the Green Party did so on his own, not in connection with the campaign.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/yahoolatestnews/stories/070710dntexgreenparty.11555ac8a.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)