Shelter reveals that families are being priced out of the ‘out-of-control’ rental market in 55% of English local authorities Families have been priced out of rental property in the majority of local authorities in England, according to the homeless charity Shelter . The Shelter Rent Watch found that average private rents were unaffordable for ordinary working families in 55% of local authorities in England. Typical rents charged by private landlords were more than a third of median take-home pay, the widely accepted measure of affordability. Shelter said research showed that 38% of families with children who were renting privately had cut down on food to pay their rent. Although renting has traditionally been regarded as a cheaper alternative to home ownership, the credit crunch and high house prices have forced many potential homebuyers to remain as tenants. At the same time, growing numbers of people who would normally qualify for social housing have been pushed into the private sector by an acute shortage of local authority and housing association property. The number of tenants renting privately has increased by nearly one million in the past five years. The increased demand has pushed up rents , particularly in London boroughs, which are the most expensive in England. At £1,360, an average rent for a two-bedroom home in the capital is almost two-and-a-half times the average in the rest of the country (£568). The least affordable local authority area outside London is Oxford, where typical rents account for 55% of average earnings. Tenants on benefits in these areas are already having problems finding properties to rent within the new local housing allowance limits , implemented in April for new tenants and from the beginning of next year for those in existing tenancies. Shelter said tenants in many rural areas were also bearing the brunt of high rents and low earnings. It found it is cheaper to rent in Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham than in north Devon, north Dorset or Herefordshire. In Yorkshire, properties in Bradford and Sheffield are more affordable to rent than in the rural areas of Ryedale and Richmondshire. Shelter’s analysis showed that in England 8% of local authorities were extremely unaffordable to rent in, with a median rent of 50% or more of median full-time take-home pay; 21% were very unaffordable with a median rent equivalent of 40% to 49% of median full-time take-home pay; and 29% were fairly unaffordable with the median rent equivalent to 35% to 39% of the median full-time take-home pay. Campbell Robb, chief executive of Shelter, said: “With huge differences in affordability across the country, there are now worrying signs that families are likely to be displaced by our out-of-control rental market. “We have become depressingly familiar with first-time buyers being priced out of the housing market, but the impact of unaffordable rents is more dramatic. With no cheaper alternative, ordinary people are forced to cut their spending on essentials like food and heating, or uproot and move away from jobs, schools and families.” Robb said it was time for the government to urgently consider how private renting could become a stable, affordable option for families “and not a heavy financial burden that makes parents choose between buying food for their children and paying the rent.” Alice Barnard, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance , said the lack of affordable housing to rent or buy was one of the most pressing issues facing rural communities. “The countryside has seen its population grow at twice the rate of urban areas, which has driven up prices, forcing families to make sacrifices to meet spiralling rental costs and pricing young families out of the communities in which they have grown up,” she said. “If we want our rural communities to flourish then the government needs to urgently review the rental market in rural areas to enable rural communities to meet their housing needs.” Melissa Brown, a part-time yoga teacher, and her husband David*, a college lecturer, found it impossible to rent a decent affordable property when their landlord decided to sell their existing home. The couple, who live in Brighton with their three children, had been renting a three-bedroom terrace house for £1,250 a month for two-and-a-half years but last January were told they had to move out because the landlord wanted to sell up. It took them six months to find somewhere that was still close enough to their children’s school and they ended up moving in September into a three-bedroom house for £1,550 a month. The house is in a poor state of repair with damp and needs decorating and other work, but Melissa said that most of the properties they looked at was “eye-wateringly bad”. “Most of the rented houses around here are not suitable for families because the lounges have been turned into bedrooms so landlords can put students in there and make more money. Even groups of professionals are living in shared houses with no lounge,” she said. “We’ve been renting for years and it’s never been as bad as this. It’s all driven by greed.” She added: “We did ask about repairs to this house and the landlord is paying for paint, but she has been told she could rent the house out to students for £1,650 a month and already thinks she’s doing us a favour.” Their couple’s household income is about £2,000 a month and they are already really struggling to make ends meet. The family is planning to use the loft area as an extra bedroom for a lodger to raise money. Melissa said: “The landlord doesn’t mind how we raise the rent, so we are considering becoming landlords ourselves. If you can’t beat them join them.” *The names have been changed in this case study Renting property Property First-time buyers House prices Housing Housing benefit Jill Insley guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
enlarge Take that pitchfork down to Wall Street, man! Good news, my fellow Americans: You don’t have enjoy drum circles or want to free Mumia to support Occupy Wall Street! And there’s a simple reason for this: Our political and economic elites have screwed all of us, not just out-of-work twenty-somethings. How have they done this, you ask? Let us count the ways: First, our political and business leaders have cheered on the decimation of America’s manufacturing industries through trade pacts that open up American workers to competition from countries where workers have no rights and are paid something like negative-five billion cents per year. This has not only led to the destruction of millions of middle-class jobs but has given America an absurd current-account deficit where we basically import cheap crap from China and don’t make much of anything ourselves anymore. See this graph: enlarge At the same time our politicians and business leaders pursued policies that benefited the super rich at the expense of everyone else. Think income tax cuts, capital gains tax cuts, the repeal of Glass-Stegall , the deregulation of derivatives and the creation of a billion-zillion-katrillion loopholes in the tax code that let the super rich get away with paying fewer and fewer taxes. The result has, quite predictably, been a rise in income inequality See this graph: enlarge To cover up the stink of good jobs disappearing and real wages stagnating, our politicians and business leaders assured us not to worry since we had access to all kinds of cheap crap and, even better, we could exponentially expand our credit through the miracles of modern finance! So even if you go deeper and deeper into debt to maintain your lifestyles and to pay for college and medical expenses, don’t sweat it! You can always take out a home equity line of credit to pay the bills since home prices always, always, always go upupup and you can just sell your house for a higher price if all else fails! See this graph: enlarge Except… ooops. Housing prices are plummeting… enlarge …and now you’re stuck with a paying a mortgage on a house that is worth far, far less than it was just last year. (Note to my conservative friends: This isn’t just a subprime problem for shifty inner-city layabouts. One-third of all prime mortgage loan borrowers are underwater as well.) And this, then, is more or less the face of America in 2011: We’re basically a nation of former factory workers who now work as Walmart greeters. As if that weren’t bad enough, we are getting tossed out of our homes and are living in fear of coming down with any sort of illness because our crappy part-time job doesn’t provide us with health insurance. And the reason we got ourselves into this mess in the first place is because we followed the advice of our best and brightest business and political leaders. I mean, if you can’t get pissed off about that you can’t get pissed off about anything.
Continue reading …
MoD permanent secretary, who is investigating whether Fox breached ministerial code, is said to have raised concerns The most senior civil servant in the Ministry of Defence had previously warned Liam Fox about his connections to a self-styled adviser and personal friend, Adam Werritty, the Guardian can reveal. Officials had also previously told Fox to stop Werritty handing out business cards that falsely describe him as an “adviser to the Rt Hon Dr Fox MP”. On Thursday, Fox said he was referring the matter to Ursula Brennan, permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, to investigate “baseless accusations” that the friendship had led to breaches of national security. But according to three separate sources, Brennan had already confronted Fox about Werritty on the day the Guardian revealed that Werritty had brokered a crucial meeting at a five star hotel in Dubai . Sources close to the MoD said Brennan had raised concerns about whether Fox and Werritty’s friendship had strayed into official government business. Werritty, 34, who is not a government employee, has visited Fox at the MoD offices in Whitehall 14 times in a little over a year. One source said Brennan spoke to Fox about Werritty’s role in the meeting in Dubai this summer on 19 August – the day the Guardian revealed Werritty’s role in the meeting, which has left Fox facing the prospect of being called to give evidence in a blackmail trial in the US. “They have offices next to each other, they discuss any number of matters every day – she would have mentioned this on the day your story came out,” the source told the Guardian. The MoD did not respond to requests to detail how often Brennan had spoken to Fox about Werritty. The department also failed to respond to claims that the officials had earlier told Fox to stop Werritty handing out the business cards, which are embossed with a House of Commons portcullis logo. This latest revelation comes as Fox said it was “unacceptable” that Werritty had distributed the business cards. “I understand those cards are no longer used. I have made it very clear to him that it’s unacceptable to carry a card saying that he is a personal adviser.” On Thursday Fox asked Brennan to launch an investigation into what he called “wild allegations”. “Because there have been some allegations of security leaks and so on, I’ve asked the permanent secretary to look into that for me,” he told the BBC. “I’ve asked the permanent secretary to look into any of these wild allegations, and I’m very happy to stand by that investigation.” Brennan will investigate whether Fox has breached the ministerial code. Kevan Jones, a Labour MP and former armed forces minister, said it was “unthinkable” that the permanent secretary would not have already raised concerns about Werritty. “She would have raised it,” Jones told the Guardian. “She is there to protect the reputation of the department. And also to protect the secretary of state from any conflict of interest.” The Guardian reported on Thursday that Fox had been joined by Werritty during an official visit to Sri Lanka in July despite claiming that Werritty had never accompanied him on government business. It came a month after the pair went to Dubai to meet Harvey Boulter, the chief executive of Porton Capital, a private equity partner of the government which is embroiled in a legal case over a threat to withdraw a knighthood awarded to the British chief executive of the US Post-it note maker 3M. The meeting, at which no government officials were present and of which no records were kept, is at the heart of a pending US blackmail trial. Fox has been told that he will be requested to attend the trial if it reaches court. Liam Fox Ministry of Defence Rupert Neate guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Doctor accused of helping CIA find Osama bin Laden should be charged with high treason, says Pakistani state commission A Pakistani doctor accused of helping the CIA to track down Osama bin Laden should be charged with high treason, a Pakistani state commission has recommended. The finding against Dr Shakeel Afridi, who allegedly ran a fake Hepatitis B vaccination scheme in Abbottabad at the behest of the CIA , is likely to further complicate relations between Pakistan and the US. Afridi was picked up by Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) three weeks after the raid on May 2 in which the fugitive al-Qaida leader was killed, and he has been held without access to a lawyer ever since. The US has pressured Pakistan to release Afridi into American custody , saying he helped locate the most wanted fugitive on earth. But Pakistani spies, furious at being humiliated by the CIA, have indicated Afridi would have to face the full force of the law. In a statement, the four-man government commission which was set up to investigate the killing of Bin Laden, and which is led by a supreme court judge, said it was of the view that “prima facie, a case of conspiracy against the state of Pakistan and high treason” should be made against Afridi. The finding came hours after it conducted an “exhaustive interview” with the ISI chief, General Shuja Pasha, it said. The commission interviewed Afridi earlier in the week. The commission also announced it was ending restrictions on Bin Laden’s wives and children, who have been in custody since the raid, potentially opening the way for their repatriation to Yemen and Saudi Arabia. The ISI has been at the centre of most US-Pakistan tensions this year. US critics questioned whether Pakistani spies had been aware of Bin Laden’s presence in Pakistan. More recently, the ISI has also been accused of secretly supporting the Taliban-affiliated Haqqani network on the Afghan border. President Barack Obama said he was concerned by the ISI’s ties to “unsavoury characters” , but he said he was not about to cut off aid to Pakistan. Afridi was employed as a senior government doctor in the Khyber tribal agency, and is believed to have set up the CIA vaccination programme in Abbottabad earlier this year. Since the attack on Bin Laden, the ISI has cracked down on international aid agencies working in Pakistan, with officials trying to find out if any aid workers are secretly moonlighting for intelligence agencies. The aid agency Save the Children has suffered the most severe repercussions , with senior expatriate staff forced to evacuate the country for two weeks in July following a warning from US officials. Afridi appears to have used Save the Children as cover for his work, telling his wife that he working on a project for them when he was in fact working for the CIA, according to a senior western official. Save the Children has vehemently denied any links with the fake vaccination programme but says it may have been unfairly targeted because Afridi twice attended training courses run by the aid agency. The CIA has rejected criticism by aid workers that its vaccination programme was unethical. “It was conducted by genuine medical professionals who planned to provide everyone with the full course of treatments,” a senior US official with knowledge of the programme told the Guardian. “No one should be threatening or harassing or rounding up medical personnel on the ground in Pakistan. The damage here was caused by locals reacting to the mistaken idea that this was a fake public health effort.” Health workers in Abbottabad say the CIA programme had in many cases administered just one vaccination shot out of three to local children before it was closed down. The US official said: “The reality, also, is that this program was part of an effort to pinpoint the location of a man who was himself a menace to public health worldwide.” The Pakistani commission directed that Bin Laden’s house in Abbottabad should be handed over to the local civil administration “for disposal in accordance with relevant law”. Just what that means in practice is unclear. Speculation has swirled around the house for months; some analysts believe it may ultimately be razed. Pakistan CIA Osama bin Laden United States Declan Walsh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Defence secretary joined by Adam Werrity despite claiming he had never accompanied him on government business Liam Fox was joined by a close personal friend and self-styled adviser when he met senior Sri Lankan ministers during an official visit this summer despite claiming that Adam Werritty had never accompanied him on government business. Fox has insisted that Werritty, who has distributed business cards describing himself as an adviser to the defence secretary, is not part of his political entourage, but these fresh disclosures are likely to raise further questions about the nature of his role in the defence secretary’s inner circle. The Guardian has already revealed that Werritty, who was Fox’s best man, visited the defence secretary on 14 occasions in little over a year at the MoD’s HQ in Whitehall, prompting Labour to demand an inquiry into whether there had been any potential breaches of national security. Fox said he had now asked his permanent secretary to investigate what he called “baseless allegations”. The defence secretary was under pressure to explain his involvement with Werritty after it emerged he had brokered a meeting in Dubai in June that may lead to Fox being called to give evidence in a blackmail trial in the US. Despite the furore over that episode, Fox met Werritty again in Sri Lanka a month later when the defence secretary was on an official visit to give a lecture. Though the MoD insists Werritty was not part of Fox’s party, it confirmed that Werritty did meet Fox during the visit. A photograph of Fox arriving to give the address on 9 July shows Werritty in the background, following closely behind Sri Lankan government ministers and the British high commissioner, John Rankin. During the visit, which enraged the Tamil community – who accuse the Sri Lankan government of war crimes – Fox also met President Mahinda Rajapaksa, foreign minister Rohitha Bogollagama and economic development minister Basil Rajapaksa. A video of Fox meeting the president appears to show Werritty also present. Two associates of Werritty have identified him in the grainy video. However, the MoD has denied that Werritty was there and insisted he did not accompany Fox during any official meetings. Werritty, who hands out business cards embossed with a House of Commons portcullis logo that describe him as an “adviser to Rt Hon Dr Fox MP”, has visited Fox at the MoD headquarters in Whitehall 14 times in 16 months. After details emerged of Werritty’s links with Fox dating back 14 years he said in a parliamentary answer earlier this year: “Mr Werritty is not an employee of the MoD and has, therefore, not travelled with me on any official overseas visits. ” Fox’s spokesman added: “He is a friend of the secretary of state.” However, the MoD backtracked last night. It said: “Adam Werritty was not part of Dr Fox’s delegation and he did not attend any official meetings though he was present at the memorial lecture [in Sri Lanka], which was a public event at which the defence secretary spoke.” The Guardian has been told Fox met Werritty “for a quick drink” after the lecture, which was to honour the late Sri Lankan politician Lakshman Kadirgamar. “Adam Werritty was not there in any official capacity,” an official said. “The trip to Sri Lanka was sanctioned by the Foreign Office. Werritty was not part of the official delegation. Dr Fox has a long-standing interest in Sri Lanka going back to the 1990s when he helped to broker a peace accord.” The revelation of the meeting will increase the pressure on Fox, 50, who has been accused of putting national security at risk by offering Werritty regular access to his office. Questions have also been raised about whether Werritty has sought to profit financially from the relationship. Werritty ran a defence company while Fox was shadow defence secretary, and he was involved in a health company while Fox was shadow health secretary. Werritty, 34, has accompanied Fox on several trips to Sri Lanka, including one in 2009 when the pair reportedly met the president, prime minister and foreign minister. He lived with Fox in a flat near Tower Bridge before the defence secretary married Jesme Baird in 2005. Werritty was a guest at Fox’s 50th birthday party at his official Whitehall residence last month. Last night Fox launched an investigation to clear his name. In a statement, he said: “A number of baseless accusations have been made in recent days. For the sake of clarity I have asked my permanent secretary to establish whether there has been any breach of national security or the ministerial code. She will report back in due course.” Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, said: “This gets murkier and murkier. People will be shocked Liam Fox is unable to provide straight answers to straight questions. We have previously raised serious concerns about his insistence on visiting a Sri Lankan government failing to produce an independent and transparent investigation into allegations of war crimes. We need a full explanation for his visit as well as clarification of the role of Adam Werritty. Mr Werritty’s role is unclear and is now becoming a real concern. We need to know precisely why he was on the visit, why this was denied and especially if he benefitted personally or professionally from the visit.” Fox was initially scheduled to visit Sri Lanka last December but was forced to abandon his plans following a row with the foreign secretary, William Hague, who feared the speech would upset Britain’s carefully balanced relations with Colombo. Fox rescheduled the visit for July despite leaked US embassy cables providing fresh allegations of the Sri Lankan government’s complicity with paramilitary groups in its offensive against the Tamil Tigers. Liam Fox Defence policy Rupert Neate Nick Hopkins guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
In the months leading up to our wedding some 13 years ago, my husband and I had a series of meetings with the priest and the rabbi who were to preside jointly over our ceremony. These weren’t exactly pre-cana classes — more like a series of “getting-to-know” you sessions — but they were thought-provoking all the same. We got a lot of good advice from our respective officiants. The Rabbi leaned in and told us that the secret to a good wedding wasn’t the food, but the music. He then proceeded to recommend a band from the South Side of Chicago called The Gentlemen of Leisure which he assured us would rock the house. The priest, for his part, counseled us that we should never go to go to bed angry. Both kernels of wisdom turned out to be true. But something else the priest said has also stuck with me through the years: “In my opinion, it’s far too easy to get married in this country and far too difficult to get divorced.” That comment came back to me last week when I read that the major left wing political party in Mexico has proposed a change to the civil code that would issue temporary marriage licenses. The minimum marriage contract would be for two years and could be renewed if the couple stayed happy. The contracts would also include provisions on how children and property would be handled if the couple splits. Having lived in Mexico for a bit of time, I’m fairly certain that this bill won’t pass muster in the heavily Catholic country. But it’s certainly an idea worth taking on board, in Mexico and elsewhere. I consider myself to be a happily married person. But I also know that I’m a minority. Many of my close friends and family members have split from their partners, some bitterly so. And many of the couples I know who have stayed together clearly regret that decision. As I’ve stated before, I’m not pro-divorce. But the statistics speak for themselves. While divorce rates have been dropping over the past 20 years in the U.S., for the average couple marrying for the first time, the lifetime probability of divorce or separation remains between 40 and 50 percent. These days, researchers speak of a “three year glitch” (as opposed to the “seven year itch”) in estimating the average time before a couple begins to grow sick of one another. And still — curiously, almost blindly — we continue to idealize marriage. To be sure, some interesting alternatives to marriage are surfacing on the horizon. Cohabitation has doubled in the U.S. in the last 15 years among 30-44 year olds. In Canada, the new buzzword is LATS, which refers to people who live apart but remain in long-term, committed relationships. According to the 2001 census, one in twelve Canadians falls into this category. Alongside these innovations — and for the old-fashioned amongst us — we could also make marriage, like so many other contracts we enter into, fixed-term and renewable. In today’s world, that seems not only practical, but desirable. Any takers? Please respond with “I do.”
Continue reading …
Sarah Palin will not run for president in the next election cycle, according to multiple reports. “After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for president of the United States,” said Palin in a statement on her decision.” As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order.” During a radio interview on the “Mark Levin Show” after the news broke, Palin was asked if she’s considering running for president as an independent candidate. In response to the question she said, “I would assume that a third party would just guarantee Obama’s reelection, and that’s the last thing the Republican party can afford. So the consideration for a third party is not there, no.” News of Palin’s decision comes after months of speculation swirling around Palin’s political ambitions. The former governor made headlines by embarking on a bus tour of the eastern United States in May. More recently, she captured attention with an appearance in Iowa that coincided with the Ames Straw Poll — a table-setter for next year’s Iowa caucuses. “My decision is based upon a review of what common sense conservatives and independents have accomplished, especially over the last year,” Palin explained. “I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office — from the nation’s governors to congressional seats and the presidency.” The former governor added, “Know that by working together we can bring this country back — and as I’ve always said, one doesn’t need a title to help do it.” On the “Mark Levin Show” she elaborated, “Not being a candidate really you’re unshackled and you’re allowed to be even more active.” The announcement from Palin comes just days after New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signaled that he will not pursue the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Despite recent buzz on the possibility a contender could make a late entry into the race, the GOP primary field appears to be solidifying. Until recently, the Republican race appeared to be shaping up as primarily a contest between former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Texas Governor Rick Perry. The latest polls out on the primary; however, show former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain finding a surge in support and the Perry’s numbers on the decline. Perry released a statement on Palin’s decision on Wednesday. He said, “Sarah Palin is a good friend, a great American and a true patriot. I respect her decision and know she will continue to be a strong voice for conservative values and needed change in Washington.” As for what’s next for Palin, the former governor said on Wednesday, “In the coming weeks I will help coordinate strategies to assist in replacing the president, re-taking the Senate, and maintaining the House.” Below, full text of the statement released by Palin on her decision. October 5, 2011 Wasilla, Alaska After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States. As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order. My decision is based upon a review of what common sense Conservatives and Independents have accomplished, especially over the last year. I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office – from the nation’s governors to Congressional seats and the Presidency. We need to continue to actively and aggressively help those who will stop the “fundamental transformation” of our nation and instead seek the restoration of our greatness, our goodness and our constitutional republic based on the rule of law. From the bottom of my heart I thank those who have supported me and defended my record throughout the years, and encouraged me to run for President. Know that by working together we can bring this country back – and as I’ve always said, one doesn’t need a title to help do it. I will continue driving the discussion for freedom and free markets, including in the race for President where our candidates must embrace immediate action toward energy independence through domestic resource developments of conventional energy sources, along with renewables. We must reduce tax burdens and onerous regulations that kill American industry, and our candidates must always push to minimize government to strengthen the economy and allow the private sector to create jobs. Those will be our priorities so Americans can be confident that a smaller, smarter government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people can better serve this most exceptional nation. In the coming weeks I will help coordinate strategies to assist in replacing the President, re-taking the Senate, and maintaining the House. Thank you again for all your support. Let’s unite to restore this country! God bless America. – Sarah Palin
Continue reading …PA Gov. Tom Corbett Proposes To Charge One-Time Fee On Fracking Shale Wells
October 5, 2011 No CommentWhat a joke. A one-time fee no matter how much revenue produced, or how much damage caused by each well? Chump change. A mere $120 million in a year? I suppose the Koch boys wrote this “compromise” for Governor Corbett: Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett proposed a fee on natural-gas drilling of as much as $160,000 a well in an effort to find a middle ground between public support for assessing drillers in the booming Marcellus Shale basin and a campaign pledge not to impose taxes. If passed by the state legislature, the recommendation would generate an estimated $120 million in the first year, most of which would be kept at the local level to help pay the cost to regulate drilling and to repair roads and bridges. Every other gas-drilling state already imposes a fee on wells or a tax on the value of gas that is extracted. The governor’s proposal also includes new requirements that would keep wells farther from streams and water wells. Environmentalists are concerned that the process of extracting shale gas, which involves pumping water and chemicals underground at high pressure, could contaminate surface and drinking water. “As the number of wells grows, so will the revenue,” said Mr. Corbett, a Republican, who linked the industry’s growth to the state’s economic future. “We are going to do this safely, and we’re going to do it right, because energy equals jobs.” Under the governor’s plan, about one-quarter of the well fees would go to state agencies like the Department of Environmental Protection and the rest to local communities. Some state lawmakers suggested they may push for higher fees or for more of the money to go to the state. Democrat Jay Costa, the state Senate minority leader, said the governor’s recommendations “fall woefully short” in terms of revenue and the amount that is going to the state. Some Republicans, who have a majority in both the Senate and House, are also pushing for more drilling revenue. GOP state Rep. Thomas Murt plans to introduce a bill Tuesday that includes a 4.9% tax on the gross value of the gas at the wellhead, rather than a fee. His bill would dedicate 29% of revenue to local governments, 27% to state environmental programs and 44% to state programs including drug rehabilitation .
Continue reading …Rep. Slaughter Calls for ‘Retroactive Recusal’ of Justice Thomas to Overturn Citizens United
October 5, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Rep. Louis Slaughter (D-NY) told Current TV’s Keith Olbermann Tuesday that a “retroactive recusal” of Justice Clarence Thomas could result in overturning the Citizens United case. Earlier this year, the liberal group Common Cause argued that both Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia should have recused themselves from the Citizens United case because they attended events organized billionaire Charles Koch. In addition, Thomas’ wife, Virginia Thomas, may have received financial benefit from the Citizens United ruling, something that was never disclosed by the justice. Twenty House Democrats Thursday called on the U.S. Judicial Conference to formally request that the U.S. Department of Justice investigate Justice Clarence Thomas’s non-compliance with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Justice Thomas indicated on his annual financial disclosure forms that his wife had received no income since he joined the bench in 1991, despite the fact that his wife had in fact earned nearly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation from 2003 to 2007. “What I’m very interested here is the votes that he has cast that may be in conflict,” Slaughter explained to Olbermann. “Of course, his wife can work. But the fact is there are only nine justice on that Supreme Court and it certainly should be a given that a family member of any of those people lucky enough to be a Supreme Court justice should not in any way involve themselves in matters that will go before that court. Now, we all know that she worked very hard for the Citizens United case, which I think is one of the most egregious things that have ever happened in the United States Supreme Court.” She added: “There is such a thing as a retroactive recusal. We’re looking into that. That case, if you remember, was decided 5-4. If we could take away his vote, we could wipe that out. It would lose. How ’bout that?” “That’s only the future of the democracy there, isn’t it?” Olbermann asked. “Yes, indeed. And we are — you know, the judiciary is the last place for all of us to go. We’re only as good — all of us — as the courts are, only as safe as the courts are good. Their interpretations are really what give us the freedoms when you come down to it. They have enormous power.”
Continue reading …
enlarge Credit: Ocala.com Here’s how Florida’s prisons were nearly privatized without anyone knowing about it. In a rather arrogant and high-handed move, Republican lawmakers tucked a secret provision into the budget right at the end of the frenzied 2011 legislative session requiring private companies to take over 29 prisons by January 1st. Of course, it was all intended to union-bust and replace nearly 3800 union employees with minimum-wage private company replacements. Tallahassee.com : Turner and Johnson said Sen. JD Alexander, a Lake Wales Republican and budget chairman, placed the privatization language in the budget after the prisons portion had cleared earlier committees that would have opposed the move. Assistant Attorney General Jon Glogau argued that legislators have wide authority to tell departments how to use appropriated funds. He said the Legislature didn’t have to pass a stand-alone statute to privatize prisons because the state has had a law for 20 years allowing the DOC to outsource some prison operations. How many, and where those prisons will be, is up to the Legislature, Glogau said. He said every budget item embodies some form of policy choice and that House and Senate appropriations committees and subcommittees held many public hearings on all phases of the budget, including the final product. “Slippery-slope arguments are hyperbole, at best,” Glogau said. He said agencies have executive authority to organize, operate and staff their offices most efficiently. “Privatization of prisons is a unilateral right of the employer,” said Glogau. “I don’t want to make light of the fact that people are losing their jobs but, under the facts and the case law, it is the unilateral right of the public employer to do this.” That sneaky Senator. After the prison portions cleared committees who might have noticed, much less have agreed to it, he slipped it in there. Despite all the false bravado, there seems to be at least a small concern that it might not be one hundred percent on the level, since the good Governor Scott pressured former Florida Corrections overseer Ed Buss not to testify or give a deposition before the case was heard. Fortunately the unions were paying attention, and took it to court. Last Friday, Judge Jackie Fulford ruled the scheme unconstitutional. There is a cynical, criminal aspect to this whole scheme, in much the same way that Governor Walker rammed through his “reforms” in Wisconsin. TampaBay.com : Leon County Circuit Judge Jackie Fulford found that a plan to privatize 29 state prisons in South Florida is unconstitutional because lawmakers wrote the change into the state budget instead of passing separate legislation. Governors from both political parties and legislatures controlled by either Republicans and Democrats similarly have been overruled by the courts over the past 40 years for using the state budget to slip in significant changes to state law. That often happens when those policy changes can’t stand up to public scrutiny or don’t have enough support among rank-and-file lawmakers to be approved on their own merits. In this case, Scott and influential legislators such as Senate budget chief J.D. Alexander of Lake Wales were determined to pursue one of the nation’s largest privatization efforts no matter what. In the Senate, Alexander quietly stuck language into the budget to privatize prisons — to the surprise of the chairman of the committee that oversees criminal justice spending, Sen. Mike Fasano of New Port Richey. And Scott fired his Department of Corrections secretary after he questioned the wisdom of the privatization effort and supported the lawsuit filed by the union that represents state prison guards. It’s probably just a coincidence that the Boca Raton company expected to win the new prison contract, GEO Group, had 16 lobbyists in Tallahassee, donated $25,000 to Scott’s inaugural celebration and once employed Scott’s key outside budget adviser. Yeah, sure that’s coincidence. Just like it’s coincidence that CCA (Corrections Corporation of America) donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Republican Governors’ Association in 2010 so they could land the fat privatization contracts in those governors’ states. Not that it should surprise anyone, but this is standard operating procedure for these insane Republican governors. If you can’t win by legal and straightforward means, just go ahead and slip it in there where no one will notice. And if they happen to notice anyway, just stare them down and claim you’re perfectly right about screwing state employees. And if that doesn’t work, pray for a friendly judge. Rick Scott drew the short straw this time, so I expect his next move will be stacking the Florida court system with judges of his choice. What a good ole boy he is. Oh, and such good news for Florida! Tricky Ricky plans to run again in 2014 !!!!
Continue reading …