Here’s a number to remember:

2.2%

I’ll come back to that later – it’s a very important number. And now back to our story:

A paper by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff has been floating around, supporting the idea that austerity (aka: cut, cut, cut) is the only way to ensure growth when the debt is high.

This paper has been promoted all around the world as the holy grail of budgeting truth. It’s being touted by all the “serious people” inside and outside of the Washington, DC beltway. It’s being used in budget discussions at all levels of government, from the smallest towns to the largest nations. It’s being used to convince the people all over the planet that cuts are the necessary bitter medicine for their own future good – a bit of pain now to prevent more pain later.

It is also 100% wrong.

That is the reason NO ONE has been able to reproduce their results.

There isn’t one fatal flaw, there are three. And they are whoppers. More below the fold…

First off, the researchers made a major error in their Excel spreadsheet’s formula: they skipped 5 rows of data. Oops.

Second, they inexplicably (or maybe intentionally – no explanation has been presented) excluded post-WWII data for countries whose growth was positive while debt was above 90% of GDP from the spreadsheet.

Third, if a country had positive growth for multiple years while debt was above 90% of GDP, they averaged all those positive years together into a single number, then gave the multi-year aggregate result the exact same weight as a single year from a country that had negative growth.

The flawed (faked?) study concluded that economic growth in countries with debt greater than 90% of GDP is always negative at -0.1%.

But if you include the data that was left out of the spreadsheet, add in the rows of data that were skipped, and give each year’s data the same weight, the actual historic growth rate when the debt exceeds 90% of GDP is 2.2%.

Remember that number: 2.2%

What that number means is that harming people in order to “fix” the debt is nothing more than pointless cruelty.

For a more in-depth numbers-wonk breakdown, see this story.

(Well stated. It would behoove those debating the budget in Montpelier to read this. – promoted by simplify)

One of the most important lessons I’ve gained in life is that when you have a problem, you have to figure out what’s causing it and get down to the root of the matter. Governor Shumlin’s proposals to cap Reach Up and limit the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) are a clear example of misunderstanding the problem and therefore calling for a solution that won’t fix it.

The things I hear coming from Montpelier and some newspapers these days don’t ring true with what I’ve faced. I’m a single mom of two children, born and raised in Brattleboro. I’m also proud to have attended college and received two degrees. I work full time and volunteer in my community that I have invested in and value so much. Yet, like many members of my community, I sometimes struggle to meet my family’s needs, such as healthcare, higher education, childcare, transportation, housing, healthy food and dignified work.

For the last 18 years, I raised my children on under $23,000 a year. I’ve shuttled between many different social services, including Reach Up, to sustain my family. I worked up to three jobs at once, yet still continued to live in poverty. Even between a day job, an afternoon job and a night job, I never made more than $17,000 a year. My current job is my first with benefits. It is pretty clear to me that we suffer from a poverty economy that just does not create enough jobs with livable wages.

Meanwhile, in Montpelier, the story goes that we have a budget deficit and our only option is for “everyone” to tighten their belts and take more cuts. I’m asking people across Vermont to compare this story with our reality. We are not in a budget crisis; we are in a revenue crisis. We live in a system that doesn’t make sure everyone contributes equitably. Poor and low-income people pay a greater proportion of their income to taxes, compared to businesses and the wealthy. Yet each year, poor and low-income people are expected to bear the brunt of cuts to public services.

The heart of Vermont’s problem is a system that puts corporate profits before people and families. We need to change this system. We need a People’s Budget. This means first looking at the human needs in Vermont, then raising the money in an equitable way so that we all give what we can and get what we need.

Our budget reflects our values. It ought to reflect our desire to create the kind of caring communities where we would never leave anyone behind. Every one of us has the right to live in dignity and meet our full human potential. The Governor’s proposal to cap Reach Up and slash the EITC is an attack on all our state’s residents – particularly women – who struggle to meet their fundamental needs in a system that makes people poor and keeps them poor.

It’s also important that our public dialogue reflects the highest values our community aspires to have. It is shocking and heartbreaking how quickly this debate has encouraged stereotypes and resentment to come out of the woodwork in our communities, criticizing poor mothers and families who are trying to get by. We must remember that raising a child can be very hard for anyone, and all families need support at different times.

Today’s budget and revenue process tries to pit us against one another in competition over a slice of the state budget. But our communities can do better than that. We have the power to recognize that there is enough to go around, if we create a Vermont in which the people – our fundamental needs and our human rights – are the top priority.

-Shela Linton, Brattleboro

April 16, 2013

Howard Dean is making a (much needed) splash on the chained CPI artifice the President is using to cut Social Security.

From the Governor 

 

If this is true, I may have to become an independent.

If Business Week is correct it means the Prez proposed cutting SS to get a deal to increase Defense spending. No real Democrat will do it.

The “If this is true” statement refers to President Obama's call to cut Social Security and massively de-value the trillions of dollars that the Federal Government took from millions of workers and placed their wages into the so-called “Social Security Trust Fund.” This is a call-out from the person who most prominently represents the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

The Governor's tweets contain the appropriate “ifs,” but it is hard to look past the article to which he is referring. 

 Obama’s new budget, released today, makes this clear. Although the White House doesn’t advertise this fact in the six-page budget overview it put out this morning, the new budget eliminates nearly all of the cuts that sequestration imposes on the Pentagon. Instead of $500 billion in cuts, Obama proposes only $100 billion, and you have to look closely to spot it (“$200 billion in additional discretionary savings, with equal amounts from defense and nondefense programs”).

Along with the well-advertised cuts to Medicare and Social Security benefits, this is something that should appeal to the GOP. “It’s another one of the peace offerings in Obama’s package to Republicans,” Robert Litan, the director of research for Bloomberg Government and a former official of the Office of Management and   Budget, told me.

Business Week Translation:  President Obama will not allow sequestration of billions of wasted Pentagon dollars while he sacrifices one of the most important programs that allows the United States to maintain a middle class.

Governor Dean's comments are fodder for all types of analysis and discusssion regarding the state of today's Democratic Party.  It calls into question the leadership style of a center-right Presidency and the impact of chipping away at safety net programs that are critical to an ever shrinking and downsliding middle class.

This is also fodder for the question of what is a “real Democrat” or “what does it mean, today, to be a “real Democrat” or “real elected Democrat.”

Please comment on any of the issues this raises.  The floor is open.  More to follow.

Last week, the House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy held several hearings on wind energy. Two bills were the primary subjects: S.30, the former “wind moratorium bill” that was virtually defanged before final passage in the Senate; and H.245, a moratorium bill essentially similar to the original S.30. I attended one day’s worth of hearings (hey, I’ve got a life, y’know).

Earlier, I posted reports on the committee’s quick dismissal of H.322, which called for a study of the already-studied prospects for wind turbines in Lake Champlain; and on the discussion (in and out of committee) on the issue of curtailment.  Here’s my report on the committee’s work on S.30 and H.245.

It was a shadow play of sorts. House leadership opposes a moratorium, as does Governor Shumlin, as does committee chair Tony Klein (D-East Montpelier). The outcome was never in doubt — some sort of legislation may emerge, but it won’t include a moratorium or any other significant roadblocks to ridgeline wind — but Klein offered his opponents a polite hearing, barely bothering to counter their arguments, even when he had the evidence on his side. Give ’em enough rope…  

The Windies were represented by Rep. Mark Higley (R-Lowell), lead sponsor of H.245. He began by jumping on the “curtailment” bandwagon, which I addressed in an earlier diary. And then he moved on to a rather curious argument: that what we need is good, solid, unbiased information:

A developer comes in with big plans and offers and its perception of impact, and the “anti” groups come in with their own information. Extreme points of view. What I’m looking for, if there can be some piece the towns can hang onto, information not coming from developers or anti’s, but down the middle.

I say “rather curious” because, on a bookshelf in the hearing room, there were two big thick binders full of unbiased information: 29 reports on wind power written over the past 15 years by various state agencies and commissions, addressing the whole gamut of wind issues: environmental and health impacts, noise, potential for power generation, siting… anything you could think of has been studied “down the middle.” (Photo: Klein brandishing his binders.)

Of course, the Windies reject all those studies because, I guess, the state is in the pocket of Iberdrola or something. Which begs the question, where does Mr. Higley think we’re going to get unbiased information? And how does he define “down the middle,” since he implicitly rejects the state’s own body of work?

“So you’re not opposed to wind?” queried Rep. Klein. “You’re just interested in transparency and access? Are you opposed to wind?”

Higley ducked the question. “It’s more in regard to information for towns to make informed decisions, and alleviate the controversy as much as you can.”

Klein tried again: “If the issue is ridgelines, let’s agree on a certain height — nothing is permitted above that height. Not a ski area, a hotel, a house, a transmission line, a communication tower. I’m serious. If that is the issue, I support that 100%. What I have a problem is, ‘We want a ban on this, but not that.'”

Higley dodged, inartfully: “For whatever reason, these wind turbines cause problems.”

To sum up, he’s open to any high-elevation development except wind turbines. All he wants is unbiased information, but he doesn’t accept any of the information already available. And he’s unwilling to define the circumstances under which he would accept more wind development.  

Glad we’ve got that cleared up.

The committee then heard from Sen. Diane Snelling, who formally presented S.30 by — wouldn’t you know — professing her search for “a reasonable middle ground.” She portrayed herself as working to remove anti-wind provisions from S.30 and focus on “the decision making process.”

Klein didn’t try to rebut her arguments, and instead focused his attention on a section in S.30 banning development on state lands. “When I first read the public lands piece, my reading was they’re not going to be able to harvest any timber. [Parks Commissioner] Mike Snyder agreed.”

“I’m distressed to hear that,” replied Snelling. “I’ll have to speak with Commissioner Snyder.”

Committee Vice-Chair Margaret Cheney chimed in. “Mike Snyder testified that there are many unintended consequences. State policy is ‘active management.’ This bill would basically shut down the state parks.”

Snelling: “The [Senate Natural Resources] Committee’s intent was to protect state lands without disrupting the operation of state parks.”

And when you look at the Senate-approved version of S.30, you see the fruits of that intent — and the cause for Snyder’s concerns. The bill prohibits “Construction for any commercial purpose, including the generation of electric power” in state parks or forests. It then provides six exceptions, including visitor centers, public safety measures, telecommunications facilities (hmm), hydroelectric power (double hmm), maple syrup harvesting, and “a structure, road, or landing for forestry purposes.”

But there’s no exception for actual forestry work. And controlled timber harvesting is a primary revenue source for the state parks system.

The final version of S.30 was drafted in a hurry, as supporters softened the bill in an effort to convince a few undecided senators. Seems they didn’t iron out all the bugs.

Not that it really matters. S.30 and H.245 are going nowhere in the House. Klein did indicate he wants to move some kind of energy bill to address issues brought up in this year’s debate. He talked of requiring potential developers “to find out if there are any curtailment issues.” And he promised that “We will get something out of this committee that will further the discussion.”

Although Klein is pro-wind, he realizes the need for a process that will help “calm the waters.” Given the complete intransigence of the Windies, it’s hard to see how he can realize that goal.

More testimony is scheduled this week, and Klein is hoping to get a bill out of committee by Friday.  

It’s the hot new topic in the wind-power debate. Opponents of ridgeline wind — the Windies, I call ’em — have seized upon it as a new argument for postponing or banning new wind farm development.

So what is curtailment?

The northeastern power grid is operated by ISO New England. Its job is to maintain a robust transmission system that delivers electricity at all times to all locations. ISO is an extremely cautious organization that has conniptions at the mere notion of instability in the grid. And “intermittent” power sources, such as wind and solar, as well as net metering, raise concerns about instability.

Which has led ISO to occasionally curtail the output of Kingdom Community Wind in Lowell. And there’s the rub. The Vermont Electric Co-op has come out in favor of a moratorium, citing curtailment as a primary reason:

Wind farm turbines are not being allowed to operate at capacity, Hallquist said. “The more we put on, the more trouble we are going to have.”

… Hallquist said they are counting on every dollar Lowell wind can generate to make it cost effective. “We want every megawatt out of there,” he said.

And in testimony to the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee last week, Rep. Mark Higley, lead sponsor of a wind-moratorium bill, asserted that “the reason I sponsored the bill has to do with curtailment.” To which he later added a laundry list of Windy concerns, such as noise and property values. But that’s a subject for another diary.

The questions, then: is curtailment a reason to put the brakes on wind development? And why is ISO such a buzzkill? Shouldn’t it be welcoming our shiny new renewable future?

Let’s take ISO first. “ISO is being extremely conservative,” says Dorothy Schnure, chief spokesflack for Green Mountain Power, which operates Kingdom Wind.

“In 2009 we did a system impact study and found that there would be no impact from Kingdom Community Wind,” she continues. “We thought everything was fine. Then ISO did its own study and reported that there would be a few select times when Kingdom Wind could destabilize the grid.”

Hence, curtailments. Lost power and lost revenues, and questions about the immediate feasibility of wind farms.  But GMP negotiated with ISO, and agreed to install a big-ass piece of equipment called a synchronous condenser, which will even out the flow of voltage and will greatly reduce curtailments when it’s installed later this year.

Problem solved. Mostly, at least.  

And that seems to be the point. There are problems. ISO isn’t the most renewable-friendly organization. It’s overly conservative, which causes problems in the dawning new age of broadly distributed and intermittent power. Kerrick Johnson of VELCO, which operates Vermont’s transmission network, told the House committee: “The new steady state for the electricity industry is dynamism. Things are changing fast. There’s an explosion in large and small renewables that’s changing power supply dramatically.”

And that’s the larger point: ISO is adjusting to a new reality, and will have no choice but to keep doing so. The problems will be fixed. And trouble with ISO is no reason to stop building wind farms or other renewables.  

I support Gina McCarthy to be the next Environmental Protection Agency administrator. When her Senate confirmation hearing was held on Thursday, the debate among senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee wasn’t really about her qualifications. It was about global warming. It was about whether or not we are going to listen to the leading scientists of this country who tell us we’re facing a planetary crisis.

It was clear at the hearing that Senator John Barrasso, from coal-producing Wyoming, does not want the EPA to address the global warming crisis. What he wants is for us to continue doing as little as possible as we see extreme weather disturbances: super storms, floods and heat waves all over the world.

It was clear at the hearing that Senator Jim Inhofe, from oil-producing Oklahoma, does not want the EPA to curb climate change. What Senator Inhofe has written and talked about is his belief that global warming is one of the major hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people. He blames Al Gore, the United Nations, and the Hollywood elite. He didn’t dispute that at the hearing. In fact, when I asked him about it, his conspiracy theory thickened. “I would add to that list MoveOn.org, George Soros, Michael Moore, and a few others,” he said.

So that is the issue. Do we agree with Senator Inhofe that global warming is a “hoax” and that we do not want the EPA, the Department of Energy or any other agency of the federal government to address that issue? Or do we agree with the overwhelming majority of scientists who tell us that that we must act boldly and aggressively to protect the future of this planet?

That’s the real issue at stake in this debate and that’s the reason I’m supporting Gina McCarthy. That is why I want the EPA to be vigorous in protecting our children and future generations from the horrendous crisis that we face from global warming. That is why I have introduced legislation to tax carbon and methane greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.

According to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012 was the warmest year ever recorded for the continental United States. More than 24,000 new record highs were set in the U.S. alone. It was the hottest year in recorded history in New York; Washington, DC; Louisville, Kentucky; even my home city of Burlington, Vt., and other cities across the country.

Last year’s drought – affecting two-thirds of the United States – was the worst in half a century, contributing to extraordinary wildfires burning more than 9 million acres of land, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.

Heat waves and droughts are not limited to the U.S. Australia, for instance, experienced a four-month heat wave with severe wildfires, record temperatures, and torrential rains and floods causing $2.4 billion in damages, according to The New York Times.

Global warming is also resulting in extreme weather disturbances of all kinds. NOAA’s Climate Extremes Index tracks extreme temperatures, drought, precipitation and tropical storms. It reported that 2012 set yet another distressing record for the most extreme climate conditions recorded.

Ronald Prinn, director of MIT’s Center for Global Change Science, concluded that what we have heard recently from scientists is that their earlier projections regarding global warming were wrong. That in fact they underestimated the problem and that the conditions that they were worried about will likely be worse than what they had originally thought. “There is significantly more risk than we previously estimated … [which] increases the urgency for significant policy action.”

Global warming is real. It is not a hoax. It is a planetary crisis but one that we have the knowledge and technology to address.

Watch video here: http://youtu.be/E13uELuWQi0

I came across this chart in a couple places online showing the impact of chained CPI on Social Security recipients and the impact of Obama’s tax increases on couples making over $500,000 a year.

 It makes an excellent bookend to this quote Digby had from an Obama 2011 press conference about his idea of shared sacrifice and balanced deficit reduction.

The least I can do is to say that people who are making a million dollars or more have to do something as well.  And that’s the kind of tradeoff, that’s the kind of balanced approach and shared sacrifice that I think most Americans agree needs to happen.

  The relationship between VTel and Vermont Telecom Authority (VTA), the state entity in charge of expanding internet and cell service is experiencing a lack of clarity, some static, and maybe a dropped connection. VtDigger.com has the play by play about it and a $5 million grant now at stake that was previously thought settled.

The grant’s status was thrown into uncertainty after a subgroup of the state’s Vermont Telecommunications Authority (VTA) failed to reach agreement with Springfield-based VTel on a final contract on Thursday.

And in the it-can-happen-to-anybody department, the problems include an recent awkward “pocket dial” incident in which a current VTA member was overheard by a VTel executive complaining about frustration with the company. This shouldn’t be confused with an earlier phone exchange involving a VTel executive and a state telecom official.  

At a ceremony in December, Governor Shumlin announced that VTel had received a state grant of $5 million dollars for broadband/cell expansion. Now it turns out the grant was never finalized and is still under negotiation between the state and VTel. According to Vermont Telecom Authority head Chris Campbell, this situation is not unusual.

“It’s not final until you actually sign on the dotted line” [of a contract]

In January, shortly after that grant announcement, the state’s in-house telecom Czar Karen Marshall left her job in the Governor’s office  to work for VTel. Marshall had worked extensively with VTel during grant negotiations.  

The principals involved are pledging that it will all work out in the end and Vermont will ultimately get its high speed broadband. But the limits of this public /private relationship are being laid bare. They are characterized perfectly by Lawrence Miller, the state’s economic secretary:

“All the contracting, all the installation, all of the work is in the hands of private companies,” said Miller. “The state has created a set of incentives, and granted out funds for some work, and we’re working to make sure that permitting and access to state land is done … But yeah, in the end, it’s up to the private providers to meet the challenge.”

Was that a shrug? Hello,did I hear shrug, you’re breaking up! Oops, we’ve been cut off. But it sounds as if Secretary Miller thinks all the state can do is “grant out funds” and hope the private providers meet the challenge. In the end it’s our tax dollars at work, five million of them, and  “it’s up to the private providers to meet the challenge”?

The very definition of laissez faire government, and a serious disconnect.

The House Natural Resources and Energy Committee has spent much of this week taking testimony on issues related to wind energy. Most of its attention has been focused on S. 30, The Bill Formerly Known As The Moratorium Bill, which passed the Senate with most of its original teeth extracted. (I’ll have more reports about these hearings in the next day or two.)

But the Committee took a brief timeout to administer last rites to an astoundingly ill-conceived bit of legislation known as H.322. The bill, introduced by Republican Bob Helm of Fair Haven and cosponsor by three other GOPers*, called for a study of siting wind turbines in Lake Champlain.

*Steve Beyor, Chuck Pearce, Philip Winters.

Helm came equipped with photos of wind turbine construction from the Joe Benning Collection of Ridgeline Porn, and a lovely picture of turbines in a large body of water. “Which looks better to you?” he asked the committee.

Oh, there’s just one little problem. The feasibility of wind turbines in Lake Champlain has ALREADY BEEN STUDIED by the state and by wind developers. And even though it often “feels windy” along the lake, the winds just aren’t anywhere near strong enough. Helm was informed of this fact, and the hearing quickly ended.

If Helm, Beyor, Pearce or Winters had bothered to do five minutes of research — or even simply asked the Legislative Council’s office to do the same — they would have realized their bill was a waste of time. If I were any one of them, I’d be embarrassed.  

So here’s a thing that happened just up the road a piece.

I was held by Vermont border guards for two hours in the middle of the night on my way to visit Nashville. They searched my bags at least five times. I could not help but notice how often my lingerie and “sexy underwear” were mentioned, how often the condoms they found were looked upon scathingly, and how most of the four male officers’ questions pertained to both. I was baffled as to why this was any of their business and unsure of what their objective was, other than fondling lady’s undergarments. In the end, having nothing to go on, they gave me a limited stay visa of two weeks and let me go – at 3 am in the middle of nowhere.

The above account is from a 24-year-old Canadian woman, writing under the alias “Clay Nikiforuk.”  And her lengthy detention and abandonment by Our Sainted Protectors wasn’t the end of her troubles; she would later find out that she’d been flagged as a suspected prostitute.  

That discovery came the next time she tried to cross into the US — this time on a flight from Montreal to Miami. Unfortunately for her, she was on her way to a vacation in Aruba with a married man. And here’s where our Border Patrol turned into the Sex Cops.

Righteous, the officer demanded what exactly I was doing in a bed with a married man.

“That’s actually none of your business.”

I had kicked the hornet’s nest. Inflamed, he raised his voice at me that it was his business and that adultery was a crime in America — a crime that he could deny me entry for.

…The next thing I knew he was searching my bags, pulling out condoms and waving them in my face. “I could have you charged with being a working girl! The proof is right here!”

All I could do is shake my head. This can’t be real.

“This is absurd,” I murmured. But he was on a roll.

“You want me to call his wife? I’ll tell her!”

I raised an eyebrow at him.

“She knows.”

Eventually, the blueshirt had to admit his power was limited to slut-shaming, and let her pass — with an admonition to change her wicked ways.  

He could also, of course, add some fresh detail to her ICE profile. Which became clear at the US Customs office in the Aruban airport, on her way back home.

I was detained, yelled at, patted down, fingerprinted, interrogated, searched, moved from room to room and person to person without food, water or being told what was going on for what seemed like forever. Just as I thought they were tiring of me and going to refuse me entry but at least let me back into Aruba, a ‘Bad Cop’ type took me to a distant, isolated office and yelled at me that I was full of shit. He had found information online that in the last couple of years I had been modelling and acting. This, he concluded, was special code for sex work, and I was never going to enter the U.S.A. ever again.

She ended up booking a direct flight from Aruba to Canada, bypassing the nightmare of our occasionally unhinged security bureaucracy. She’s actually been banned from the US for five years — presumably enough time to shape up, settle down, and marry a nice fella.

I feel so much safer, knowing our borders are protected from foreign hussies.