A friend sent this to me....I don't know where she finds this stuff but she will send to someone (and a few others just to share the fun) a picture she has found of a person that "looks" like the person she is sending it to. I pointed out to Liz that my hair is not white and I NEVER wear FANNY PACKS!!!!!
NORTON META TAG
28 July 2013
A PICTURE OF ME? I DON'T THINK SO MISS LIZ!!!!!
27 July 2013
34 Social Security Secrets You Need to Know Now 3JUL12
I have some family and friends who are retired, some who are close to retirement, and some, like me, who have 11 years to go to be able to collect my full social security benefits. This is from The Business Desk of the PBS NewsHour and there is a link to e mail them with any questions on Social Security you may have. Hope you will share this with others....
Treasury employee Linda Tarkenton of Philadelphia holds a blank U.S.
Treasury check before it's run through a printer at the U.S. Treasury
printing facility. Photo by William Thomas Cain/Getty Images.
Update: | Laurence Kotlikoff has agreed to answer your questions about Social Security and retirement. Read his first set of responses here and submit your queries in the comments below.
FOM$* (and sometime tennis sparring partner) Larry Kotlikoff of Boston University is a noted economist, prolific author and frequent contributor to Bloomberg and Forbes.com, among other venues. We've featured him on this page before and will again. Today, we post a recent essay of his: "34 Social Security 'Secrets' All Baby Boomers and Millions of Current Recipients Need to Know."
Be forewarned that Larry is sometimes wrong but rarely in doubt. Know, however, that he has worked for many years to fine-tune retirement software -- ESPlanner -- that is widely considered the gold standard in the online world. We've long linked to the basic free version of ESPlanner from this page. Know also that Larry is my own personal social security advisor. His advice to apply for a dependent spousal benefit while my wife and I put off full retirement benefits until age 70 has been a boon, and so impressed the woman with whom I spoke at Social Security, that she thanked me for informing her of it and said she'd advise callers about this option henceforth. Note that many of Larry's "secrets" involve the dependent spouse benefit. Be advised that the folks at Social Security with whom I've dealt have been uniformly courteous, responsive and efficient.
Editor's Note | A version of this post originally ran July 3, 2012, on Forbes.com.
The Social Security Handbook has 2,728 separate rules governing its benefits. And it has thousands upon thousands of explanations of those rules in its Program Operating Manual System, called the POMS, which provides guidance on implementing the 2,728 rules. Talk about a user's nightmare!
As a young economist, I did a fair amount of academic research on saving and insurance adequacy. At the time, I thought I had a very good handle on the rules. Then I started a financial planning software company, which makes suggestions about what benefits to take from Social Security and when to take them to get the best overall deal. (See, in this regard, www.maximizemysocialsecurity.com and www.esplanner.com.)
At that point, I realized I needed to quadruple check my understanding of Social Security's provisions. To do this, I established contacts with experts at Social Security's Office of the Actuary. I also hired a specialist whose only job is to audit my company's Social Security, Medicare premium, and federal and state income tax code.
The problem with this strategy is you can only check on things you know about. Over the years, I discovered things I had never heard of. I would then check with the Social Security actuaries who would say, "Oh yes, that's covered in the POMS section GN 03101.073!"
Mind you, a large share of the rules in the Social Security Handbook are indecipherable to mortal men, and the POMS is often worse. But thanks to patience on the part of the actuaries, I've learned things that almost no current or prospective Social Security recipient knows, but which almost all should know.
The reason is that taking the right Social Security benefits at the right time can make a huge difference to a retiree's living standard.
Unfortunately, Social Security has some very nasty "gottcha" provisions, so if you take the wrong benefits at the wrong time, you can end up getting the wrong, as in smaller, benefits forever.
Also, the folks at the local Social Security offices routinely tell people things that aren't correct, including about what benefits they can and can't receive and when they can receive them. Taking Social Security benefits -- the right ones at the right time -- is one of the biggest financial decisions you'll ever make, so you need to get it right.
Getting it right on your own, however, is neigh impossible. One of my engineers and I calculated that for an age-62 couple there are over 100 million combinations of months for each of the two spouses to take retirement benefits, spousal benefits and decided whether or not to file and suspend one's retirement benefits. There are also start-stop-start strategies to consider. Each combination needs to be considered to figure out what choices will produce the highest benefits when valued in the present (measured in present value). For some couples who are very different in age, survivor benefits also come into play. In that case, the number of combinations can exceed 10 billion!
Fortunately, www.maximizemysocialsecurity.com can help you find the right answer generally within a matter of seconds. It does exhaustive searches of all combinations of months in which you can take actions, but thanks to modern computing power and careful programming, our Maximize My Social Security program can run through millions upon millions of combinations of decisions incredibly fast.
Whether or not you use our software, it's important to have as full a handle on Social Security's provisions as possible. Listed below are 34 things I've learned over the years that you may not fully know. (The list started at 25, but I've been learning some new secrets and recalling some others.)
This entry is cross-posted on the Rundown- NewsHour's blog of news and insight.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2012/07/social-security-secrets-you-ne.html
Update: | Laurence Kotlikoff has agreed to answer your questions about Social Security and retirement. Read his first set of responses here and submit your queries in the comments below.
FOM$* (and sometime tennis sparring partner) Larry Kotlikoff of Boston University is a noted economist, prolific author and frequent contributor to Bloomberg and Forbes.com, among other venues. We've featured him on this page before and will again. Today, we post a recent essay of his: "34 Social Security 'Secrets' All Baby Boomers and Millions of Current Recipients Need to Know."
Be forewarned that Larry is sometimes wrong but rarely in doubt. Know, however, that he has worked for many years to fine-tune retirement software -- ESPlanner -- that is widely considered the gold standard in the online world. We've long linked to the basic free version of ESPlanner from this page. Know also that Larry is my own personal social security advisor. His advice to apply for a dependent spousal benefit while my wife and I put off full retirement benefits until age 70 has been a boon, and so impressed the woman with whom I spoke at Social Security, that she thanked me for informing her of it and said she'd advise callers about this option henceforth. Note that many of Larry's "secrets" involve the dependent spouse benefit. Be advised that the folks at Social Security with whom I've dealt have been uniformly courteous, responsive and efficient.
Editor's Note | A version of this post originally ran July 3, 2012, on Forbes.com.
34 Social Security 'Secrets' All Baby Boomers and Millions of Current Recipients Need to Know
By Laurence KotlikoffThe Social Security Handbook has 2,728 separate rules governing its benefits. And it has thousands upon thousands of explanations of those rules in its Program Operating Manual System, called the POMS, which provides guidance on implementing the 2,728 rules. Talk about a user's nightmare!
As a young economist, I did a fair amount of academic research on saving and insurance adequacy. At the time, I thought I had a very good handle on the rules. Then I started a financial planning software company, which makes suggestions about what benefits to take from Social Security and when to take them to get the best overall deal. (See, in this regard, www.maximizemysocialsecurity.com and www.esplanner.com.)
At that point, I realized I needed to quadruple check my understanding of Social Security's provisions. To do this, I established contacts with experts at Social Security's Office of the Actuary. I also hired a specialist whose only job is to audit my company's Social Security, Medicare premium, and federal and state income tax code.
The problem with this strategy is you can only check on things you know about. Over the years, I discovered things I had never heard of. I would then check with the Social Security actuaries who would say, "Oh yes, that's covered in the POMS section GN 03101.073!"
Mind you, a large share of the rules in the Social Security Handbook are indecipherable to mortal men, and the POMS is often worse. But thanks to patience on the part of the actuaries, I've learned things that almost no current or prospective Social Security recipient knows, but which almost all should know.
The reason is that taking the right Social Security benefits at the right time can make a huge difference to a retiree's living standard.
Unfortunately, Social Security has some very nasty "gottcha" provisions, so if you take the wrong benefits at the wrong time, you can end up getting the wrong, as in smaller, benefits forever.
Also, the folks at the local Social Security offices routinely tell people things that aren't correct, including about what benefits they can and can't receive and when they can receive them. Taking Social Security benefits -- the right ones at the right time -- is one of the biggest financial decisions you'll ever make, so you need to get it right.
Getting it right on your own, however, is neigh impossible. One of my engineers and I calculated that for an age-62 couple there are over 100 million combinations of months for each of the two spouses to take retirement benefits, spousal benefits and decided whether or not to file and suspend one's retirement benefits. There are also start-stop-start strategies to consider. Each combination needs to be considered to figure out what choices will produce the highest benefits when valued in the present (measured in present value). For some couples who are very different in age, survivor benefits also come into play. In that case, the number of combinations can exceed 10 billion!
Fortunately, www.maximizemysocialsecurity.com can help you find the right answer generally within a matter of seconds. It does exhaustive searches of all combinations of months in which you can take actions, but thanks to modern computing power and careful programming, our Maximize My Social Security program can run through millions upon millions of combinations of decisions incredibly fast.
Whether or not you use our software, it's important to have as full a handle on Social Security's provisions as possible. Listed below are 34 things I've learned over the years that you may not fully know. (The list started at 25, but I've been learning some new secrets and recalling some others.)
-* Friend of Making Sen$e.
- If you are already collecting your retirement benefit and are at or over full retirement age, you can tell Social Security you want to suspend further benefits and then ask them to restart your benefits at a later date, say age 70. Social Security will then apply its Delayed Retirement Credit to your existing benefit once you start collecting again. Hence, this is a means by which current Social Security recipients who aren't yet 70 can collect higher benefits, albeit at the cost of giving up their check for a while. But this trade off will, on net, often be very advantageous. For example, if you started collecting at 62 and are now at your full retirement age, i.e., 66, you can suspend benefits until 70 and then start collecting 32 percent higher benefits for the rest of your life. This benefit collection strategy can be called Start Stop Start. We are in the process of rolling out a new update of www.maximizemysocialsecurity.com, which incorporates Start Stop Start.
- If you aren't now collecting and wait until 70 to collect your retirement benefit, your retirement benefit starting at 70 can be as much as 76 percent higher than your age-62 retirement benefit, adjusted for inflation. The reason is that your benefit is not reduced due to Social Security's Early Retirement Reduction; moreover, it's increased due to Social Security's Delayed Retirement Credit. For many people, the increase in the retirement benefit can be even higher if they continue to earn money after age 62 thanks to Social Security's Re-computation of Benefits.
- But if you are married or divorced, waiting to collect your retirement benefit may be the wrong move. If you are the low-earning spouse, it may be better to take your retirement benefit starting at age 62 and then switch to the spousal benefit you can collect on your current or ex-spouse's account starting at your full retirement age. But beware of the Gottcha in item 5.
- If you're married, you or your spouse, but not both, can receive spousal benefits after reaching full retirement age while deferring taking your retirement benefits and, thereby, letting them grow. This may require having one spouse file for retirement benefits, but suspend their collection. This is called the File and Suspend strategy.
- Be careful! If you take your own retirement benefit early and are below full retirement age, you will be forced to take your spousal benefit early and at a permanently reduced level if your spouse collects his/her his/her retirement benefit before or in the month in which you apply to collect your retirement benefit. If your spouse is not collecting a retirement benefit when you apply for an early retirement benefit, you will not be deemed to be applying for your spousal benefit. Hence, you can start collecting your spousal benefit later. (See item 33)
- Start Stop Start may also make sense for married workers who aren't already collecting and whose age differences are such they they can't take advantage of File and Suspend. Take, for example, a 62 year-old high earner, named Sally, with a 66-year old low earner spouse, named Joe. By starting retirement benefits early, Sally permits Joe to start collecting a spousal benefit immediately. The reason is that spouses aren't eligible to collect spousal benefits unless the worker is either collecting a retirement benefit or has filed for a retirement benefit, but suspended its collection. If Sally starts her retirement benefit at 62, Joe can apply just for his spousal benefit at 66 and then wait until 70 to collect his own retirement benefit, which will be at its highest possible value thanks to Social Security's Delayed Retirement Credit. As for Sally, she can suspend her retirement benefit at 66, when she reaches full retirement, and then restart it at 70, at which point her benefits will be 32 percent higher than what she was collecting. Even singles workers may opt for Start Stop Start to help with their cash flow problems.
- If your primary insurance amount (your retirement benefit available if you wait until full retirement) is less than half that of your spouse and you take your own retirement benefit early, but are able to wait until full retirement age to collect your spousal benefit, your total check, for the rest of your life, will be less than one half of your spouse's primary insurance amount. Nonetheless, this may still be the best strategy. This reflects another Gotcha explained in 8.
- On its website, Social Security states, "your spouse can receive a benefit equal to one-half of your full retirement benefit amount if they start receiving benefits at their full retirement age." This is true only if your spouse isn't collecting his/her own retirement benefit. If your spouse is collecting her own retirement benefit, his/her spousal benefit is calculated differently. Rather than equaling one half of your full retirement benefit, it's calculated as half of your full retirement benefit less your spouse's full retirement benefit. This difference is called the excess spousal benefit. The total benefit your spouse will receive is her retirement benefit, inclusive of any reduction, due to taking benefits early, or increment, due to taking benefits late, plus the excess spousal benefit. The excess spousal benefit can't be negative; i.e., its smallest value is zero.
Take Sue and Sam. Suppose they are both 62 and a) Sue opts to take her retirement benefit early and b) Sam opts to file and suspend at full retirement and take his retirement benefit at 70. Between ages 62 and 66 (their full retirement age), Sue collects a reduced retirement benefit, but is not forced to take her spousal benefit (which would be reduced) because Sam isn't collecting a retirement benefit during the years that Sue is 62 to 66. Now when Sue reaches age 66, she starts to collect an unreduced spousal benefit because Sam has qualified her to do so by filing and suspending for his retirement benefit. OK, but her unreduced spousal benefit is calculated as 1/2 x Sam's full retirement benefit less Sue's full retirement benefit. Sue ends up getting a total benefit equal to her own reduced retirement benefit plus her unreduced excess spousal benefit. This total is less than half of Sam's full retirement benefit. To see this note that the total equals half of Sam's full retirement benefit plus Sue's reduced retirement benefit minus Sue's full retirement benefit. The last two terms add to something negative.- Are there are two different formulas for spousal benefits depending on whether the spouse is collecting his/her own retirement benefit? It sure seems that way because when the spouse is collecting a retirement benefit, the excess spousal benefit (potentially reduced for taking spousal benefits early) comes into play. And when the spouse isn't collecting a retirement benefit, the spousal benefit equals half of the worker's full retirement benefit. (Note, the spouse has to collect a retirement benefit before full retirement age if she applies for her spousal benefit.) The answer, in fact, is no. There is only one formula. The formula for the spousal benefit is always the excess benefit formula. But here's what happens to the application of that formula if the spouse is not collecting a retirement benefit. In that case, the spouse's full retirement benefit (also called the Primary Insurance Amount) is set to zero in calculating the excess spousal benefit. The reason, according to Social Security, is that a worker's Primary Insurance does not exist (i.e., equals zero) if the worker has not applied for a retirement benefit (and either suspended its collection or started to receive it). In other words, your Primary Insurance Amount is viewed as non-existant until you apply for a retirement benefit. This construct - the primary insurance amount doesn't exist until it's triggered by a retirement benefit application -- lets Social Security claim to have one formula for spousal benefits. But there are, in effect, two spousal benefit formulas and which one you -- the person who will collect a spousal benefit -- faces will depend on whether or not you take your retirement benefit early.
- If you are divorced, both you and your ex can collect spousal benefits (on each others work histories) after full retirement age while still postponing taking your own retirement benefits until, say, age 70, when they are as high as can be. This is an advantage for divorcees. But there's also a disadvantage. A divorcee who applies for spousal benefits before full retirement age will automatically be forced to apply for retirement benefits even if her/his ex isn't collecting retirement benefits.
- There is no advantage to waiting to start collecting spousal benefits after you reach your full retirement age.
- There is no advantage to waiting to start collecting survivor benefits after you reach your full retirement age.
- If you started collecting Social Security retirement benefits within the last year and decide it wasn't the right move, you can repay all the benefits received, including spousal and child benefits, and reapply for potentially higher benefits at a future date.
- If you wait to collect your retirement benefit after you reach your full retirement age, but before you hit age 70, you have to wait until the next January to see your full delayed retirement credit show up in your monthly check.
- Millions of Baby Boomers can significantly raise their retirement benefits by continuing to work in their sixties. This may also significantly raise the spousal, child, and mother and father benefits their relatives collect.
- If you take retirement, spousal, or widow/widower benefits early and lose some or all of them because of Social Security's earnings test, Social Security will actuarially increase your benefits (under the Adjustment of Reduction Factor) starting at your full retirement age based on the number of months of benefits you forfeited. This is true whether the loss in benefits due to the earnings test reflects benefits based on your own work record or based on your spouse's work record. Consequently, you should not be too concerned about working too much and losing your benefits if you elected to take them early.
- When it comes to possibly paying federal income taxes on your Social Security benefits, withdrawals from Roth IRAs aren't counted, but withdrawals from 401(k), 403(b), regular IRAs, and other tax-deferred accounts are. So there may be a significant advantage in a) withdrawing from your tax-deferred accounts after you retire, but before you start collecting Social Security, b) using up your tax-deferred accounts before you withdraw from your Roth accounts, and c) converting your tax-deferred accounts to Roth IRA holdings after or even before you retire, but before you start collecting Social Security.
- Social Security's online benefit calculators either don't handle or don't adequately handle spousal, divorcee, child, mother, father, widow or widower benefits, or file and suspend options.
- The default assumptions used in Social Security's online retirement benefit calculators is that the economy will experience no economy-wide real wage growth and no inflation going forward. This produces benefit estimates that can, for younger people, be significantly less than what they are most likely to receive.
- Some widows/widowers may do better taking their survivor benefits starting at 60 and their retirement benefits at or after full retirement. Others may do better taking their retirement benefits starting at 62 and taking their widow/widowers benefits starting at full retirement age.
- If you're below full retirement age and are collecting a spousal benefit and your spouse is below full retirement age and is collecting a retirement benefit, your spousal benefit can be reduced if your spouse earns beyond the Earnings Test's exempt amount. And it can also be reduced if you earn beyond the Earnings Test's exempt amount.
- The Windfall Elimination Provision affects how the amount of your retirement or disability benefit is calculated if you receive a pension from work where Social Security taxes were not taken out of your pay, such as a government agency or an employer in another country, and you also worked in other jobs long enough to qualify for a Social Security retirement or disability benefit. A modified formula is used to calculate your benefit amount, resulting in a lower Social Security benefit than you otherwise would receive.
- Based on the Government Pension Offset provision, if you receive a pension from a federal, state or local government based on work where you did not pay Social Security taxes, your Social Security spouse's or widow's or widower's benefits may be reduced.
- If you have children, because you started having children late or adopted young children later in life, they can collect child benefits through and including age 17 (or age 19 if they are still in secondary school) if you or your spouse or you ex spouse are collecting retirement benefits.
- If you have children who are eligible to collect benefits because your spouse or ex spouse is collecting retirement benefits, you can collect mother or father benefits until your child reaches age 16.
- Your children can receive survivor benefits if your spouse or ex-spouse died and they are under age 18 (or age 19 if they are still in secondary school).
- You can collect mother or father benefits if you spouse or ex-spouse died and you have children of your spouse or your ex-spouse who are under age 16.
- There is a maximum family benefit that applies to the total benefits to you, your spouse, and your children that can be received on your earnings record.
- If you choose to file and suspend in order to enable your spouse to collect a spousal benefit on your earnings record while you delay taking your benefit in order to collect a higher one later, make sure you pay your Medicare Part B premiums out of your own pocket (i.e., you need to send Social Security a check each month). If you don't, Social Security will pay it for you and treat you as waving (i.e., not suspending) your benefit apart from the premium and, get this, you won't get the Delayed Retirement Credit applied to your benefit. In other words, if you don't pay the Part B premiums directly, your benefit when you ask for it in the future will be NO LARGER than when you suspended its receipt. This is a really nasty Gotcha, which I just learned, by accident, from one of Social Security's top actuaries.
- If you are collecting a disability benefit and your spouse tries to collect just his/her Social Security benefit early, she will be deemed to be filing for her spousal benefits as well. I.e., if your spouse takes his/her retirement benefit early, he/she won't be able to delay taking a spousal benefit early, which means both her retirement and spousal benefits will be permanently reduced thanks to the early retirement benefit and early spousal benefit reduction factors.
- When inflation is low, like it is now, there is a disadvantage to delaying until, say 70, collecting one's retirement benefit. The disadvantage arises with respect to Medicare Part B premiums. If you collecting benefits (actually were collecting them last year), the increase in the Medicare premium this year will be limited to the increase in your Social Security check. This is referred to as being "held harmless." Hence, when inflation is low, the increase in your check due to the cost of living adjustment will be small, meaning the increase in your Medicare Part B premium will be limited. But, if you aren't collecting a benefit because you are waiting to collect a higher benefit later, tough noogies. You're Medicare Part B premium increase won't be limited. And that increase will be locked into every future year's Medicare Part B premium that you have to pay. You can wait to join Medicare until, say, age 70, but if you aren't working for a large employer, the premiums you'll pay starting at 70 will be higher and stay higher forever. So much for helping the government limit its Medicare spending!
- Hold harmless -- the provision that your increase in Medicare Part B premium cannot exceed the increase in your Social Security check due to Social Security's Cost of Living Adjustment -- does not apply if you have high income and are paying income-related Medicare Part B premiums.
- The thresholds beyond which first 50 percent and then 85 percent of your Social Security benefits are subject to federal income taxation are explicitly NOT indexed for inflation. Hence, eventually all Social Security recipients will be tax on 85 percent of their Social Security benefits.
- If you take your retirement benefit early and your spouse takes his/her retirement benefit any time that is a month or more after you take your retirement benefit, you will NOT be deemed, at that point (when your spouse starts collecting his/her retirement benefit) to be applying for a spousal benefit. In other words, you can, in this situation, wait until your full retirement age to start collecting your unreduced excess spousal benefit. The retirement benefit collection status of your spouse in the month you file for early retirement benefits determines whether you are deemed to be also be applying for spousal benefits. This means that you should think twice about applying for retirement benefits in the same month as your spouse if one or both of you are applying early.
This entry is cross-posted on the Rundown- NewsHour's blog of news and insight.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2012/07/social-security-secrets-you-ne.html
26 July 2013
FELIZ DÍA DE CUBA REVOLUCION 2013!!! Cuba Día de la Revolución de 2013: Ceremonia de entrega se cumplen 60 años desde Cuartel Moncada Attack 26JUL13
HAPPY DAY 2013 CUBA REVOLUCION! Si
el gobierno de EE.UU. puede aprobar y fomentar el comercio con Arabia
Saudí, todas las antiguas repúblicas rusas conocidas colectivamente como
los "stans, la República Popular China, Vietnam y Bielorrusia, sólo
para nombrar algunos de los países con peor historial de derechos
humanos que Cuba pero todavía tenemos relaciones diplomáticas normales
con ENTONCES ES HORA DE PONER FIN AL BLOQUEO CONTRA CUBA Y ESTABLECER
relaciones diplomáticas normales. Sí, hay grandes problemas
en materia de derechos humanos en Cuba, pero con el gobierno
estadounidense Bradley Manning perseguir y Edward Snowden y operación de
un espionaje del gobierno y de la campaña de vigilancia de los EE.UU. a
los estadounidenses a nuestro gobierno ya no tiene la autoridad moral
para disertar el cubano gobierno en nada. Espero que las relaciones entre los EE.UU. y Cuba se normalizarán en breve. Y
realmente espero que el gobierno cubano, que ha aprobado leyes que
protegen, los ecosistemas vibrantes vitales en la isla y en sus aguas
costeras, es capaz de resistir a la corrupción que está seguro de llegar
una vez que se levante el bloqueo para que Cuba seguirá siendo un
brillo ambiental joya en el Caribe. Paz para el pueblo de Cuba, VIVA LA REVOLUCION! Desde HuffPost ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/cuba-revolution-day-2013_n_3658203.html
LA HABANA - Cuba celebra el 60 aniversario del inicio de su
Revolución viernes, con el líder comunista edad que participó en el
levantamiento inicial fallido prometiendo enfocar el futuro de las
generaciones más jóvenes que han tardado en llegar al poder.
El uso de un color verde oliva uniforme militar y un sombrero de ala ancha contra el sol, el presidente Raúl Castro habló a una multitud de miles fuera un cuartel militar todavía visiblemente marcada por la viruela con agujeros de bala del 1953 asalto que se considera el comienzo de la rebelión.
Castro tenía apenas 22 años cuando seguido su mayor ventaja el hermano de Fidel en un ataque aparentemente suicida contra el cuartel Moncada en la oriental ciudad de Santiago, junto a otros más de 100 rebeldes en su mayoría jóvenes que se oponen a la fuerte Fulgencio Batista.
"Los años han pasado, pero esto sigue siendo una revolución de los jóvenes, ya que estábamos el 26 de julio de 1953, "dijo Castro.
Moncada El ataque fue un desastre para los rebeldes, y muchos de ellos fueron torturados y asesinados. Pero ayudó a Fidel Castro en el centro de la oposición a Batista, a quien derrocó seis años más tarde después de sobrevivir a la prisión y el exilio, transformándolo en un héroe para los revolucionarios de todo el mundo.
Sin embargo, los insurgentes juveniles de 1953 y 1959, muchos de ellos ahora en de 80 años, todavía ocupan puestos clave del poder en Cuba. Mientras que Raúl Castro ha dado una serie de reformas económicas y políticas, los líderes jóvenes apenas están empezando a surgir.
A principios de este año, de 53 años de edad, Miguel Díaz-Canel fue nombrado vicepresidente y se convirtió en la primera persona no de la generación revolucionaria mantenga el puesto número 2.
"La generación histórica está dando paso a los nuevos retoños con tranquilidad y confianza serena, sobre la base de (su) demostraron la preparación y la capacidad de mantener la revolución y el socialismo", dijo Castro.
En la ceremonia del viernes, un gigante bandera que cuelga de los cuarteles con una imagen de Fidel Castro levantando un puño triunfante fue la única señal del líder jubilado. Una enfermedad intestinal casi fatal lo obligó de su cargo hace siete años, y rara vez aparece en público en estos días.
En sus discursos, los líderes aliados recordaron Moncada como un acto
que la rebelión inspirada, ambos armados y políticos, a través de las
Américas, en las décadas que siguieron.
"La historia de América Latina puede ser mejor entendida si nos marca un antes y un después del asalto a la cuarteles Moncada ", dijo el canciller ecuatoriano, Ricardo Patiño.
"Fundamentalmente se trataba de una revolución de la dignidad, de la autoestima de los latinoamericanos", dijo el presidente de Uruguay, José Mujica, quien se unió a un grupo guerrillero de izquierda armada en su país en los años 1960 y fue encarcelado durante más de una década. "Nos siembra con sueños, que nos llenó de (el espíritu de Don) Quijote."
El 26 de julio de vacaciones a veces se utiliza para hacer anuncios importantes o abordar temas de actualidad, pero Castro apenas desviado del tiempo pasado en un discurso centrado casi en su totalidad en la historia.
Él no mencionó un cargamento de armamento cubano recientemente incautado en Panamá en su camino hacia Corea del Norte. Tampoco aborda la saga de Agencia Nacional de Seguridad gotean Edward Snowden y su búsqueda de asilo fuera del alcance de la aplicación de la ley EE.UU..
Y no había ninguna palabra nueva sobre el futuro de las reformas de Castro, que se han visto cambios, como la legalización de la casa y las ventas de automóviles, las restricciones relajadas en viajes al extranjero y aberturas limitadas de las pequeñas empresas y las cooperativas independientes.
Uno de los mayores críticos del gobierno cubano, bloguera disidente Yoani Sánchez, no se dejó impresionar.
"Una nación no puede ser representado y dirigido por los hombres que tienen más recuerdos que los proyectos ", tuiteó Sánchez.
Castro también alabó los esfuerzos de recuperación tras el huracán de arena azota Santiago el año pasado, y se hizo eco de los temas de conversación comunes, como la demanda de La Habana que cuatro agentes cubanos condenados a largas penas de prisión en Estados Unidos por cargos de espionaje se devuelven.
Mientras tanto, los aliados incluyendo de Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, de Bolivia, Evo Morales, y de Nicaragua Daniel Ortega elogió a La Habana y el capitalismo bashed y Estados Unidos, despotricando contra el "imperialismo" y de 51 años de embargo de EE.UU. contra Cuba.
"Nosotros condenamos la criminal bloqueo ilegal perpetrada por la mayor potencia del mundo contra nuestro pueblo hermano ", dijo Patiño.
"El patio trasero de los Estados Unidos", dijo, "ya no está en América Latina".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/cuba-revolution-day-2013_n_3658203.html
El uso de un color verde oliva uniforme militar y un sombrero de ala ancha contra el sol, el presidente Raúl Castro habló a una multitud de miles fuera un cuartel militar todavía visiblemente marcada por la viruela con agujeros de bala del 1953 asalto que se considera el comienzo de la rebelión.
Castro tenía apenas 22 años cuando seguido su mayor ventaja el hermano de Fidel en un ataque aparentemente suicida contra el cuartel Moncada en la oriental ciudad de Santiago, junto a otros más de 100 rebeldes en su mayoría jóvenes que se oponen a la fuerte Fulgencio Batista.
"Los años han pasado, pero esto sigue siendo una revolución de los jóvenes, ya que estábamos el 26 de julio de 1953, "dijo Castro.
Moncada El ataque fue un desastre para los rebeldes, y muchos de ellos fueron torturados y asesinados. Pero ayudó a Fidel Castro en el centro de la oposición a Batista, a quien derrocó seis años más tarde después de sobrevivir a la prisión y el exilio, transformándolo en un héroe para los revolucionarios de todo el mundo.
Sin embargo, los insurgentes juveniles de 1953 y 1959, muchos de ellos ahora en de 80 años, todavía ocupan puestos clave del poder en Cuba. Mientras que Raúl Castro ha dado una serie de reformas económicas y políticas, los líderes jóvenes apenas están empezando a surgir.
A principios de este año, de 53 años de edad, Miguel Díaz-Canel fue nombrado vicepresidente y se convirtió en la primera persona no de la generación revolucionaria mantenga el puesto número 2.
"La generación histórica está dando paso a los nuevos retoños con tranquilidad y confianza serena, sobre la base de (su) demostraron la preparación y la capacidad de mantener la revolución y el socialismo", dijo Castro.
En la ceremonia del viernes, un gigante bandera que cuelga de los cuarteles con una imagen de Fidel Castro levantando un puño triunfante fue la única señal del líder jubilado. Una enfermedad intestinal casi fatal lo obligó de su cargo hace siete años, y rara vez aparece en público en estos días.
"La historia de América Latina puede ser mejor entendida si nos marca un antes y un después del asalto a la cuarteles Moncada ", dijo el canciller ecuatoriano, Ricardo Patiño.
"Fundamentalmente se trataba de una revolución de la dignidad, de la autoestima de los latinoamericanos", dijo el presidente de Uruguay, José Mujica, quien se unió a un grupo guerrillero de izquierda armada en su país en los años 1960 y fue encarcelado durante más de una década. "Nos siembra con sueños, que nos llenó de (el espíritu de Don) Quijote."
El 26 de julio de vacaciones a veces se utiliza para hacer anuncios importantes o abordar temas de actualidad, pero Castro apenas desviado del tiempo pasado en un discurso centrado casi en su totalidad en la historia.
Él no mencionó un cargamento de armamento cubano recientemente incautado en Panamá en su camino hacia Corea del Norte. Tampoco aborda la saga de Agencia Nacional de Seguridad gotean Edward Snowden y su búsqueda de asilo fuera del alcance de la aplicación de la ley EE.UU..
Y no había ninguna palabra nueva sobre el futuro de las reformas de Castro, que se han visto cambios, como la legalización de la casa y las ventas de automóviles, las restricciones relajadas en viajes al extranjero y aberturas limitadas de las pequeñas empresas y las cooperativas independientes.
Uno de los mayores críticos del gobierno cubano, bloguera disidente Yoani Sánchez, no se dejó impresionar.
"Una nación no puede ser representado y dirigido por los hombres que tienen más recuerdos que los proyectos ", tuiteó Sánchez.
Castro también alabó los esfuerzos de recuperación tras el huracán de arena azota Santiago el año pasado, y se hizo eco de los temas de conversación comunes, como la demanda de La Habana que cuatro agentes cubanos condenados a largas penas de prisión en Estados Unidos por cargos de espionaje se devuelven.
Mientras tanto, los aliados incluyendo de Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, de Bolivia, Evo Morales, y de Nicaragua Daniel Ortega elogió a La Habana y el capitalismo bashed y Estados Unidos, despotricando contra el "imperialismo" y de 51 años de embargo de EE.UU. contra Cuba.
"Nosotros condenamos la criminal bloqueo ilegal perpetrada por la mayor potencia del mundo contra nuestro pueblo hermano ", dijo Patiño.
"El patio trasero de los Estados Unidos", dijo, "ya no está en América Latina".
Getty Images
HAPPY CUBA REVOLUTION DAY 2013!!!!! Cuba Revolution Day 2013: Ceremony Marks 60 Years Since Moncada Barracks Attack 26JUL13
HAPPY CUBA REVOLUTION DAY 2013! If the U.S. government can approve and encourage trade with saudi arabia, all of the former Russian republics known collectively as the 'stans, the prc, Vietnam, and Belarus, just to name a few of the countries that have worse human rights records than Cuba but we still have normal diplomatic relations with THEN IT IS TIME TO END THE EMBARGO AGAINST CUBA AND ESTABLISH NORMAL DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS. Yes, there are huge issues concerning human rights in Cuba, but with the American government persecuting Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden as well as operating a government spying and surveillance campaign in the U.S. on Americans our government no longer has the moral authority to lecture the Cuban government on anything. I hope relations between the U.S. and Cuba are normalized soon. And I really hope the Cuban government, which has passed laws protecting vital, vibrant ecosystems on the island and in it's coastal waters, is able to resist the corruption that is sure to come once the blockade is lifted so that Cuba will remain an environmental shinning jewel in the Caribbean. Peace to the people of Cuba, VIVA LA REVOLUCION! From HuffPost...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/cuba-revolution-day-2013_n_3658203.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/cuba-revolution-day-2013_n_3658203.html
HAVANA — Cuba celebrated the 60th anniversary of the onset
of its revolution Friday, with the aging Communist leader who took part
in the initial failed uprising vowing to focus the future on younger
generations that have been slow to come to power.
Wearing an olive-green military uniform and a broad-brimmed hat against the sun, President Raul Castro spoke to a crowd of thousands outside a military barracks still visibly pockmarked with bullet holes from the 1953 assault that is considered the beginning of the rebellion.
Castro was just 22 when he followed his older brother Fidel's lead in a seemingly suicidal attack on the Moncada barracks in the eastern city of Santiago, along with more than 100 other mostly youthful rebels opposed to strongman Fulgencio Batista.
"The years have passed, but this continues to be a revolution of young people, as we were on July 26, 1953," Castro said.
The Moncada raid was a disaster for the rebels, and many of them were tortured and killed. But it helped make Fidel Castro the focus of opposition to Batista, whom he overthrew six years later after surviving prison and exile, transforming him into a hero for revolutionaries around the globe.
Yet the youthful insurgents of 1953 and 1959, many of them now in their 80s, still hold key positions of power in Cuba. While Raul Castro has led a series of economic and political reforms, young leaders are just now beginning to emerge.
Earlier this year, 53-year-old Miguel Diaz-Canel was named vice president and became the first person not of the revolutionary generation to hold the No. 2 spot.
"The historic generation is giving way to the new saplings with tranquility and serene confidence, based on (their) demonstrated preparation and capacity for maintaining the revolution and socialism," Castro said.
At Friday's ceremony, a giant banner hanging from the barracks with an image of Fidel Castro raising a triumphant fist was the only sign of the retired leader. A near-fatal intestinal illness forced him from office seven years ago, and he rarely appears in public these days.
In
speeches, allied leaders recalled Moncada as an act that inspired
rebellion, both armed and political, across the Americas in the decades
that followed.
"The history of Latin America can best be understood if we mark a before and an after the assault on the Moncada barracks," said Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino.
"Fundamentally this was a revolution of dignity, of self-esteem for Latin Americans," said Uruguayan President Jose Mujica, who joined an armed leftist guerrilla group in his own country in the 1960s and was imprisoned for more than a decade. "It seeded us with dreams, it filled us with (the spirit of Don) Quixote."
The July 26 holiday is sometimes used to make major announcements or address current affairs, but Castro hardly strayed from the past tense in a speech almost entirely focused on history.
He did not mention a shipment of Cuban weaponry recently seized in Panama on its way to North Korea. Nor did he address the ongoing saga of National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden and his quest for asylum beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement.
And there was no new word about the future of Castro's reforms, which have seen changes such as the legalization of home and car sales, relaxed restrictions on foreign travel and limited openings for independent small businesses and cooperatives.
One of the Cuban government's most outspoken critics, dissident blogger Yoani Sanchez, was unimpressed.
"A nation cannot be represented and led by men who have more memories than projects," Sanchez tweeted.
Castro also extolled recovery efforts after Hurricane Sandy walloped Santiago last year, and echoed common talking points such as Havana's demand that four Cuban agents sentenced to long prison terms in the United States on spy charges be returned.
Meanwhile allies including Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro, Bolivia's Evo Morales and Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega heaped praise on Havana and bashed capitalism and the United States, railing against "imperialism" and the 51-year-old U.S. embargo against Cuba.
"We condemn the criminal, illegal blockade perpetrated by the world's biggest power against our brother people," Patino said.
"The backyard of the United States," he said, "is no longer in Latin America."
Wearing an olive-green military uniform and a broad-brimmed hat against the sun, President Raul Castro spoke to a crowd of thousands outside a military barracks still visibly pockmarked with bullet holes from the 1953 assault that is considered the beginning of the rebellion.
Castro was just 22 when he followed his older brother Fidel's lead in a seemingly suicidal attack on the Moncada barracks in the eastern city of Santiago, along with more than 100 other mostly youthful rebels opposed to strongman Fulgencio Batista.
"The years have passed, but this continues to be a revolution of young people, as we were on July 26, 1953," Castro said.
The Moncada raid was a disaster for the rebels, and many of them were tortured and killed. But it helped make Fidel Castro the focus of opposition to Batista, whom he overthrew six years later after surviving prison and exile, transforming him into a hero for revolutionaries around the globe.
Yet the youthful insurgents of 1953 and 1959, many of them now in their 80s, still hold key positions of power in Cuba. While Raul Castro has led a series of economic and political reforms, young leaders are just now beginning to emerge.
Earlier this year, 53-year-old Miguel Diaz-Canel was named vice president and became the first person not of the revolutionary generation to hold the No. 2 spot.
"The historic generation is giving way to the new saplings with tranquility and serene confidence, based on (their) demonstrated preparation and capacity for maintaining the revolution and socialism," Castro said.
At Friday's ceremony, a giant banner hanging from the barracks with an image of Fidel Castro raising a triumphant fist was the only sign of the retired leader. A near-fatal intestinal illness forced him from office seven years ago, and he rarely appears in public these days.
"The history of Latin America can best be understood if we mark a before and an after the assault on the Moncada barracks," said Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino.
"Fundamentally this was a revolution of dignity, of self-esteem for Latin Americans," said Uruguayan President Jose Mujica, who joined an armed leftist guerrilla group in his own country in the 1960s and was imprisoned for more than a decade. "It seeded us with dreams, it filled us with (the spirit of Don) Quixote."
The July 26 holiday is sometimes used to make major announcements or address current affairs, but Castro hardly strayed from the past tense in a speech almost entirely focused on history.
He did not mention a shipment of Cuban weaponry recently seized in Panama on its way to North Korea. Nor did he address the ongoing saga of National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden and his quest for asylum beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement.
And there was no new word about the future of Castro's reforms, which have seen changes such as the legalization of home and car sales, relaxed restrictions on foreign travel and limited openings for independent small businesses and cooperatives.
One of the Cuban government's most outspoken critics, dissident blogger Yoani Sanchez, was unimpressed.
"A nation cannot be represented and led by men who have more memories than projects," Sanchez tweeted.
Castro also extolled recovery efforts after Hurricane Sandy walloped Santiago last year, and echoed common talking points such as Havana's demand that four Cuban agents sentenced to long prison terms in the United States on spy charges be returned.
Meanwhile allies including Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro, Bolivia's Evo Morales and Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega heaped praise on Havana and bashed capitalism and the United States, railing against "imperialism" and the 51-year-old U.S. embargo against Cuba.
"We condemn the criminal, illegal blockade perpetrated by the world's biggest power against our brother people," Patino said.
"The backyard of the United States," he said, "is no longer in Latin America."
Getty Images
WONKBOOK ROUNDUP FOR THE WEEK & VIDEO OF RAHM EMANUEL DANCING 26JUL13
WONKBOOK roundup for the week, covering the Fed Reserve Chair, Obamacare, NSA, economic mobility in America, solar power and this hysterical video of the mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel dancing....
http://youtu.be/Qgyn5DpVeak
Welcome to Wonkbook, Ezra Klein and Evan Soltas’s morning policy news primer. Send comments, criticism, or ideas to Wonkbook at Gmail dot com. To read more by Ezra and his team, go to Wonkblog.
A few thoughts on the state of play at the Federal Reserve.
- Are the chances of a dark horse rising? There’s a chance that the increasingly acrimonious fight between supporters of Larry Summers and supporters of Janet Yellen will render both candidates too toxic to pick.
Summers’s critics are manifold. The latest — and most significant — salvo comes in the form of a letter signed by about a third of Senate Democrats endorsing Janet Yellen for chair. The letter doesn’t mention Summers. But the idea that there are even a dozen Senate Democrats with strong, pro-Yellen opinions strains credulity. It’s an anti-Summers letter, and everyone knows it.
But if Summers ends up sunk, there’s a chance that Yellen’s critics in the administration won’t want to pick her, either. They’ll have dug in too deeply during this process, and her supporters will have just dealt them a painful defeat. The ferocity of the backlash to Summers could end up helping an alternative candidate like Roger Ferguson.
- The Volcker rule backlash. The antipathy towards Summers isn’t so much about monetary policy, where the famously loquacious economist has actually been quite tight-lipped, as it is about financial deregulation.
The White House sees much of this as unfair: Summers was a deregulator in the 1990s, sure, but he and everyone else has learned a lot since then. But the Hill Democrats say that they’re not hung up on the 1990s. It’s 2010 that they’re thinking about, when Summers staunchly opposed the Volcker rule. Summers’s reasoning was that the Volcker rule would be too difficult to enforce, would be watered down in the regulatory process, and would quickly be evaded by Wall Street. But the fight left many Hill Democrats convinced that Summers remains reflexively skeptical of financial regulation.
- Yellen and FinReg. To be fair, Yellen’s Hill supporters admit they have no idea whether she’ll be any better at regulating banks than Summers. They’re more or less just hoping she will be.
- The administration’s gender problem. The White House doesn’t take kindly to being told they have a gender problem on their economic team, even though only there’s never been a moment during the administration when more than one of the four economic principals (five, if you count the chair of the Federal Reserve) was a woman. They pride themselves on picking the best person for the job, even if that’s a man, and even if that means they take a bit of heat.
But that misses the way in which “picking the best man for the job” means men get picked for future jobs, too. You can see this clearly in Annie Lowrey and Binya Appelbaum’s deeply reported dive into the “gender undertones” of the Fed race (full disclosure: Lowrey and I are married). It was Laura Tyson, they report, who first recommended Yellen for a role in the Clinton administration, and who gave Lael Brainard — now the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs — a crucial promotion. It was Christina Romer who recommended Jan Eberly to serve as the top economist at the Treasury Department. More women in the top jobs tends to mean more women getting picked for positions that lead to future top jobs.
- Revenge of the Clinton years. Much of the anger at Summers goes back to his actions — both political and personal — during the Clinton years. Some of the internal skepticism of Yellen goes back to her clashes with, among others, Gene Sperling back when she chaired Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers. With the exception of Obama and perhaps Bernanke, pretty much everyone seriously involved in this decision held a major economic position in the Clinton White House. The stickiness of those players, and of the conflicts of that era, is striking.
Wonkbook’s Number of the Day: 2 percent. That’s how much college enrollment fell this school year. It’s the first big decline since the 1990s, and it’s likely to continue.
Wonkbook’s Quotation of the Day: "At some point, you're going to open the federal government back up, and Barack Obama is going to be president,” said Sen. Richard Burr, urging his Republican colleagues not to seek to defund Obamacare in the Affordable Care Act, which would likely lead to a federal shutdown.
Wonkblog’s Graphs of the Day: The notional total value of derivatives contracts (relevant to Summers).
Wonkbook’s Top 5 Stories: 1) Larry Summers and the Fed; 2) Obama’s Jacksonville speech; 3) defunding Obamacare; 4) Amash and the NSA; and 5) solar’s time to shine.
1) Top story: Is Larry Summers a Fed chair for all seasons?
At the Fed, it’s the California girls vs. the Rubin boys. “President Obama's choice of a replacement for the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, is coming down to a battle between the California girls and the Rubin boys…But the choice also is roiling Washington because it is reviving longstanding and sensitive questions about the insularity of the Obama White House and the dearth of women in its top economic policy positions.” Binyamin Appelbaum and Annie Lowrey in The New York Times.
Some Senate Democrats write to Obama — pick Yellen. “The letter has been signed by roughly a third of the 54 Democratic and allied senators, Senate aides said. While the full list of signatories couldn’t be learned, it appeared largely to represent the liberal wing of the Democratic caucus…Some Democrats said they signed because of concerns about Mr. Summers’s views on financial regulation, rather than on monetary policy.” Corey Boles, Janet Hook and Kristina Peterson in The Wall Street Journal.
@frankrichny: The fallout from a Larry Summers resurrection will obliterate Obama’s welcome middle-class economic push in about 10 seconds.
Summers dismissed QE effectiveness. “Lawrence Summers made dismissive remarks about the effectiveness of quantitative easing at a conference in April, raising the possibility of a big shift in US monetary policy if he becomes chairman of the Federal Reserve. "QE in my view is less efficacious for the real economy than most people suppose," said Mr Summers according to an official summary of his remarks at a conference organised in Santa Monica by Drobny Global, obtained by the Financial Times.” Robin Harding in The Financial Times.
@jbarro: I like Larry Summers, but I’m for Yellen at the Fed: she’d produce way less drama, which would likely mean better policy outcomes.
Larry Summers isn't popular in the blogosphere. But he's got friends in high places. “The result is that if you're just reading the economics blogosphere, you're getting a skewed picture. The dominant thinking seems to be, How could the White House possibly name this guy that nobody likes? The key thing to remember here is there are other zones of influence too, and some of the most important ones are much, much friendlier to Summers. The world of economic and Wall Street heavyweights who've worked or fundraised at high levels in Democratic administrations tend to be very pro-Summers.” Ezra Klein in The Washington Post.
@petersuderman: I don’t have a strong personal preference in the Yellen/Summers contest. But the WH is not making the pro-Summers case well.
Yellen or Summers, it will be Obama’s Fed. “[T]he chair isn’t the only appointment President Barack Obama will make to the Fed’s Board of Governors next year. In fact, he may have to fill as many as five seats, counting the top one…For the first time in his presidency, every member of the board will be an Obama appointee…That’s about as clean a slate as one could have, and it suggests a different perspective on the race for Fed president: It won’t be the Larry Summers Fed or the Janet Yellen Fed. It will be the Barack Obama Fed — no matter who gets the top job. Here’s something else we’ve missed: Every woman now on the board may be leaving…Commentators have zeroed in on a Yellen-vs.-Summers personality contest. That’s a big mistake. Obama has the chance to set U.S. monetary policy on a fresh course in the next decade. Seize the day.” Evan Soltas in Bloomberg.
Yellen vs. Summers: Who would be a better Fed chair? “Yellen is one of the key engineers of the Fed's current strategy of pairing monthly bond purchases with "forward guidance" to explain to markets the future path of policy. Summers has been largely quiet about his views on the proper direction of monetary policy in recent years, no doubt in part to maintain viability as a possible nominee for Fed chair…Add it all up, and we just don't know in advance how a Summers Fed might differ from the Bernanke Fed, though we do know that Yellen is almost certain to maintain continuity with the strategy she helped put in place.” Neil Irwin in The Washington Post.
@mattyglesias: Summers seem to have clearly stated views on every significant economic policy question except ... the stuff the Fed does.
@JoshZumbrun: If the goal of floating Summers was to broaden the range of organizations that pay attention to Fed coverage then Mission Accomplished.
Up for debate at the Fed: a sharper message. “At their July 30-31 meeting, Fed officials are likely to discuss whether to refine or revise “forward guidance,” the words they use to describe their intentions for the next few years…One [step] would be to match its publicly set upper bound for inflation with a new lower bound. The central bank has said it will raise short-term rates if inflation is seen as rising above the 2.5% target. It hasn’t said what it would do if inflation drops much below the Fed’s 2% medium-term objective. One option is to say that short-term rates won’t rise if inflation falls below some threshold, perhaps 1.5%.” Jon Hilsenrath in The Wall Street Journal.
In recovering economy, declining college enrollment. “The long enrollment boom that swelled American colleges -- and helped drive up their prices -- is over, with grim implications for many schools. College enrollment fell 2 percent in 2012-13, the first significant decline since the 1990s, but nearly all of that drop hit for-profit and community colleges; now, signs point to 2013-14 being the year when traditional four-year, nonprofit colleges begin a contraction that will last for several years…Hardest hit are likely to be colleges that do not rank among the wealthiest or most prestigious, and are heavily dependent on tuition revenue, raising questions about their financial health -- even their survival.” Richard Perez-Pena in The New York Times.
Business spending lifts durable goods orders. “The Commerce Department said on Thursday that orders for durable goods increased 4.2 percent last month. That followed a 5.2 percent gain in May, which was revised higher…Orders that signal planned business investment, which exclude volatile transportation and military orders, increased in June for the fourth straight month. The 0.7 percent gain last month was buoyed by more machinery demand. And orders in May were much stronger than previously reported.” The Associated Press.
The complex story of race and upward mobility. “[T]he economists who did the study do not list race as one of the main factors that explains the variation in upward-mobility rates across regions…The simplest way to explain their conclusion may be to point out that upward mobility tends to be rare for both blacks and whites, as well as for Latinos, in low-mobility areas. In Charlotte, Atlanta and Indianapolis, low-income white children have also tended to grow up to be low-income adults…Whatever the differences are between high-mobility and low-mobility regions, they seem to apply to residents of every race.” David Leonhardt in The New York Times.
KONCZAL: Say no to Summers. “The first, and most urgent, [priority for a new Fed chair] is to determine how to navigate our economy out of the current doldrums. The second is to decide how aggressively to enforce the new set of financial reform rules that emerged from the financial crisis. And the third, crucially, is to find a way to rebuild monetary policy and the Fed so that the United States won't see a repeat of the current crisis. Yellen is clearly the superior candidate on all three counts.” Mike Konczal in Politico.
SCHEIBER: The new Summers looks a lot like the old Summers. “On the other hand, in Summers' case, this doesn't really translate into populism on the subject of financial reform--in general, he's about as far from a populist as you can get. I'm especially mystified by the idea that Summers would doggedly implement Dodd-Frank. In 2009 and early 2010, Summers was the most vocal internal opponent of the so-called Volcker Rule…As for the other key criticism of Summers--that he doesn't play well with others, something that's central to making the Fed work--the White House suggestion that it, too, is "outdated" strikes me as delusional or willfully ignorant. Unless Summers served in a high-ranking government job that I'm not aware of after leaving the White House in 2010, the critique seems rather perfectly up to date.” Noam Scheiber in The New Republic.
O’BRIEN: Summers is misinformed. “It’s not that Summers isn’t a brilliant economist — he most certainly is — but rather that he doesn’t have, well, any of Yellen’s central banking expertise…[T]he few things he has said aren’t encouraging…[H]e thinks the Fed pushing down real interest rates might only push companies to make bad investments they otherwise wouldn’t make. It’s a very Austrian view of things — the idea that pushing interest rates “artificially” low makes businesses make mistakes.” Matthew O’Brien in The Atlantic.
JOHNSON: Banking reform’s fear factor. “Nearly five years after the worst financial crisis since the 1930's, and three years after the enactment of the Dodd-Frank financial reforms in the United States, one question is on everyone's mind: Why have we made so little progress?…There are three possible explanations for what has gone wrong. One is that financial reform is inherently complicated…The second explanation focuses on conflict among agencies with overlapping jurisdictions, both within and across countries…That leaves the final explanation: those in charge of financial reform really did not want to make rapid progress.” Simon Johnson in Project Syndicate.
Music recommendations interlude: Tycho, “A Walk,” 2011.
Top op-eds
KLEIN: There’s no such thing as ‘the center.’ “It's not the center of public opinion. It's more a reference to an amorphous Washington consensus. Insofar as that concept ever made sense, the idea was that it's the legislative center, the zone of compromise where things can actually get done. But even that concept has begun to break down in recent years…When you're judging policy, "good" and "bad" are descriptions that make sense. So are "popular" and "unpopular," and "likely to pass" and "no chance." But "the center"? It's time to retire that one, or at least come up with a more rigorous definition of what we mean when we use it.” Ezra Klein in The Washington Post.
KRUGMAN: Republican health care panic. “[E]ven as Republican politicians seem ready to go on the offensive, there's a palpable sense of anxiety, even despair, among conservative pundits and analysts. Better-informed people on the right seem, finally, to be facing up to a horrible truth: Health care reform, President Obama's signature policy achievement, is probably going to work.” Paul Krugman in The New York Times.
COHN: The right’s latest scheme to sabotage Obamacare. “[Y]ou might be wondering if this is the way opposition parties and movements typically act when a law they don’t like is about to take effect. The answer is no…We can debate honestly, and constructively, whether Obamacare gets the prices and penalties for this responsiblity right--and, if not, whether those should be adjusted. But the basic idea that Republican leaders are protesting so intensely is one that you would expect the defenders of “personal responsiblity” to support--and one, until recently, many of them did support. It’s enough to make you wonder how much of this opposition is about Obamacare, and how much is about the guy who signed it into law.” Jonathan Cohn in The New Republic.
Cheap shots interlude: A video of Rahm Emanuel dancing.
2) Obama’s Jacksonville speech
Obama vows to bypass Congress on infrastructure projects. “President Obama vowed on Thursday to use his executive powers to bypass bottlenecks in Congress and accelerate infrastructure projects to bolster growth and add jobs…Last July, Mr. Obama signed an executive order that helped expedite federal review and permitting on seven infrastructure projects.” Michael D. Shear in The New York Times.
Video: Watch President Obama's economic speech in Jacksonville. Matt DeLong in The Washington Post.
White House hardens stance on budget cuts ahead of showdown with Republicans. “Senior White House officials are discussing a budget strategy that could lead to a government shutdown if Republicans continue to demand deeper spending cuts, lawmakers and Democrats familiar with the administration's thinking said Thursday…White House officials also are discussing a potential strategy to try to stop the sequestration cuts from continuing, the lawmakers and Democrats said. Under this scenario, the president might refuse to sign a new funding measure that did not roll back the sequester. No decision has been made.” Zachary A. Goldfarb and Paul Kane in The Washington Post.
…But mostly, he just hopes Congress will just stay out of the way. “What's different this time - what will make this series of speeches over the next two months more politically convincing than those he delivered during the "recovery summer" and "Main Street" jobs tour - is the relatively modest request at the heart of Obama's list of issues and ideas. More than adopting his activist vision of government, Obama wants Congress, specifically a recalcitrant group of House Republicans, to get out of the way. There is a lot Obama wants from Congress, little of which is likely achievable in the current political circumstances. For Obama, looking to put his second term on a more focused course, preserving the status quo might be a victory in itself.” Scott Wilson in The Washington Post.
Obama says the typical family income 'barely budged' between 1979 and 2007. It grew at least 15 percent. “According to the Current Population Survey's Annual Social Economic Supplements (ASEC) -- a Census Bureau publication tracking income, health coverage, and poverty -- the real median American family income increased by 17.7 percent between 1979 and 2007, and the real median household income (which includes people living alone and unrelated roommates) grew by 14.7 percent.” Dylan Matthews in The Washington Post.
House appropriations bill would cut defense spending but prohibit 2014 furloughs. “The House approved a defense appropriations bill Wednesday that would cut $5 billion from the Pentagon's non-war budget while prohibiting sequester-related furloughs. The measure, which passed by a vote of 315 to 108, provides $28 billion above current non-war spending under the government-wide spending cuts that took effect in March.” Josh Hicks in The Washington Post.
Budget cuts force scale back of health-care fraud investigations. “Facing major budget and staff cuts, federal officials are scaling back several high-profile health-care fraud and abuse investigations, including an audit of the state insurance exchanges that are set to open later this year as a key provision of the Affordable Care Act. The Department of Health and Human Services's Office of Inspector General, which investigates Medicare and Medicaid waste, fraud and abuse, is in the process of losing 400 staffers, about 20 percent of its workforce from its peak strength of 1,800 last year.” Fred Schulte in The Washington Post.
In tax talks, would Democrats accept no new tax increases. “A sizable bloc of the 16 Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee is contemplating agreeing to Republican demands that any tax overhaul not include tax increases, bucking their party on what has become a signature issue…It would be a coup for Republicans to win even one Democratic vote when the still-unreleased legislation comes before the panel.” Brian Faller in Politico.
Cantor: House won’t vote on clean debt limit extension in September. “Cantor was asked by Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) whether that would happen, and made it clear it would not. “I would say ... the answer to that last question is ‘no,’ ” Cantor said. Cantor later clarified that he was only closing the door on a clean debt ceiling vote by September.” Pete Kasperowicz in The Hill.
As ye shall sow so shall ye reap interlude: Young immigrants deliver cantaloupes to Rep. King’s office on Capitol Hill.
3) GOP raises the ante on defunding Obamacare
Congressional Republicans are now organizing to defund Obamacare in the continuing resolution. “More than 60 Republicans have signed a letter urging Speaker John Boehner to defund Obamacare when Congress funds the government in September. The letter, being circulated by the office of freshman Rep. Mark Meadows, doesn't explicitly say that supporters will vote against a government funding bill if it does not strip funding for Obamacare.” Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan in Politico.
…But they’re feuding over the tactics. “A growing number of Republicans are rejecting calls from leading conservatives, including Sens. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, to defund the president's health care law in the resolution to keep the government running past Sept. 30…The debate is happening behind closed doors and over Senate lunches, as well as during a frank meeting Wednesday with House leaders in Speaker John Boehner's suite where fresh concerns were aired about the party's strategy. On Thursday, the dispute began to spill into public view, most notably when three Senate Republicans -- including Minority Whip John Cornyn -- withdrew their signatures from a conservative letter demanding defunding Obamacare as a condition for supporting the government funding measure.” Manu Raju and Jake Sherman in Politico.
Watch out, Republicans! You’re helping Obamacare succeed. “[T]here's something else Republicans have been doing that, in a weird way, will likely help the Affordable Care Act. Namely, they have predicted the law's complete and utter implosion when it launches on Oct. 1…Republicans have set Obamacare expectations so incredibly low that, if Godzilla doesn't march in on Oct. 1 and gobble up our health insurance coverage and legions of IRS agents fail to microchip the masses, that could plausibly look like a success.” Sarah Kliff in The Washington Post.
Republicans had a plan to replace Obamacare. It looked a lot like Obamacare. “Four years ago, however, they did. It was called the Patients' Choice Act, it was proposed by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), two of the most influential Congressional Republicans on the issue, and it was a credible way of covering almost all Americans…There are plenty of differences, of course. Obamacare expands Medicaid; the Patients' Choice Act restricts it to low-income disabled people, moving the rest of its beneficiaries onto private insurance. Obamacare cuts Medicare provider payments; the Patients' Choice Act mean-tests premiums and does competitive bidding for private Medicare Advantage plans. Obamacare has individual and employer mandates; the Patients' Choice Act instead auto-enrolls people.” Dylan Matthews in The Washington Post.
KLEIN: Will Obamacare kickstart a healthcare revolution? “[I]n a cavernous room in New York's SoHo district, a group of entrepreneurs is working to render the entire Washington conversation over Obamacare obsolete. There, Obamacare is no longer a political controversy: It's a business opportunity. And a trio of young technologists have raised $40 million to take advantage of it…Sign into your Oscar insurance account online and you'll see a few carefully chosen options on a page that's otherwise white and clean. At the top, you can type in your symptoms and be taken immediately to a guided set of options, including a button that lets you talk to a doctor.” Ezra Klein in Bloomberg.
Writing interlude: The best first lines of books, as selected by authors.
4) Amash goes to war
Justin Amash almost beat the NSA. Next time, he might do it. “Last night's remarkably close House vote on the NSA's bulk surveillance program can be read one of two ways. You could say it was a symbolic win for the agency's critics. Or you could say the House rejected an attempt to weaken the program. Which side you fall on this morning depends mostly on whether you think symbolism carries any weight in this debate.” Brian Fung in The Washington Post.
NSA snooping is hurting U.S. tech companies' bottom line. “[N]ow it's starting to look like the snooping is hitting U.S.-based cloud providers where it really hurts: Their pocketbooks…[A] recent Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) survey found 10 percent of 207 officials at non-U.S. companies canceled contracts with U.S. providers after the leaks, and 56 percent of non-U.S. respondents are now hesitant to work with U.S.-based cloud operators.” Andrea Peterson in The Washington Post.
Attention Tyler Cowen, there is no great stagnation interlude: Innovation in bottle openers.
5) Solar’s time to shine
World’s largest solar plant ready to shine. “More than six years in the making, the Ivanpah plant is now slated to begin generating power before summer’s end. It was designed by BrightSource Energy to use more than 170,000 mirrors to focus sunlight onto boilers positioned atop three towers, which reach nearly 500 feet (150 meters) into the dry desert air. The reflected sunlight heats water in the boilers to make steam, which turns turbines to generate electricity--enough to power more than 140,000 homes…At 377 megawatts (MW), Ivanpah’s capacity is more than double that of the Andusol, Solnava, or Extresol power stations in southern Spain, which previously were the largest in the world.” Josie Garthwaite in National Geographic.
Where is all of the water going? “[N]uclear or fossil fuel power plants, which require 190 billion gallons of water per day, or 39% of all U.S. freshwater withdrawals.” Kate Zerrenner for the Environmental Defense Fund website.
White House to focus comprehensive energy review on infrastructure. “The White House will focus its first four-year, interagency review of the U.S. energy landscape on infrastructure, Energy Department counsel Melanie Kenderdine said Thursday. Two of the Quadrennial Energy Review’s chief goals are to bolster defenses against climate change and to strengthen energy security, Kenderdine said, noting the U.S. energy sector has some work ahead to match the resiliency of other nations’ systems.” Zack Colman in The Hill.
Federal report: World energy consumption to grow 56 percent by 2040. “Those are some of the conclusions in federal Energy Information Administration's (EIA) big new "International Energy Outlook," which examines estimated supply, consumption and emissions trends over the next three decades. China and India will together account for half the increase in global energy use, according to the EIA, which is the Energy Department's independent statistical arm, and more broadly, the developing world will largely drive vast bulk of the increase.” Ben German in The Hill.
Reading material interlude: The best sentences Wonkblog read today.
Wonkblog Roundup
Can an international agreement stop the global taxation shell game? Lydia DePIllis.
Here's how hackers could crash your car. Timothy B. Lee.
There's no such thing as 'the center'. Ezra Klein.
Larry Summers isn't popular in the blogosphere. But he's got friends in high places. Ezra Klein.
Yellen vs. Summers: Who would be a better Fed chair? Neil Irwin.
Republicans had a plan to replace Obamacare. It looked a lot like Obamacare. Dylan Matthews.
Don't you wish this 'Daria' trailer was for a real movie? Sarah Kliff.
NSA snooping is hurting U.S. tech companies' bottom line. Andrea Peterson.
Obama says the typical family income 'barely budged' between 1979 and 2007. It grew at least 15 percent. Dylan Matthews.
Watch out, Republicans! You're helping Obamacare succeed. Sarah Kliff.
Today's hearing on innovation and copyright is short on innovators. Andrea Peterson.
Et Cetera
Gay spouses have same rights as straight couples, FEC rules. Matea Gold in The Washington Post.
Congress could fill longstanding IG vacancies under Senate proposal. Josh Hicks in The Washington Post.
Got tips, additions, or comments? E-mail me.
Wonkbook is produced with help from Michelle Williams.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#inbox/1401afac25015990
Welcome to Wonkbook, Ezra Klein and Evan Soltas’s morning policy news primer. Send comments, criticism, or ideas to Wonkbook at Gmail dot com. To read more by Ezra and his team, go to Wonkblog.
A few thoughts on the state of play at the Federal Reserve.
- Are the chances of a dark horse rising? There’s a chance that the increasingly acrimonious fight between supporters of Larry Summers and supporters of Janet Yellen will render both candidates too toxic to pick.
Summers’s critics are manifold. The latest — and most significant — salvo comes in the form of a letter signed by about a third of Senate Democrats endorsing Janet Yellen for chair. The letter doesn’t mention Summers. But the idea that there are even a dozen Senate Democrats with strong, pro-Yellen opinions strains credulity. It’s an anti-Summers letter, and everyone knows it.
But if Summers ends up sunk, there’s a chance that Yellen’s critics in the administration won’t want to pick her, either. They’ll have dug in too deeply during this process, and her supporters will have just dealt them a painful defeat. The ferocity of the backlash to Summers could end up helping an alternative candidate like Roger Ferguson.
- The Volcker rule backlash. The antipathy towards Summers isn’t so much about monetary policy, where the famously loquacious economist has actually been quite tight-lipped, as it is about financial deregulation.
The White House sees much of this as unfair: Summers was a deregulator in the 1990s, sure, but he and everyone else has learned a lot since then. But the Hill Democrats say that they’re not hung up on the 1990s. It’s 2010 that they’re thinking about, when Summers staunchly opposed the Volcker rule. Summers’s reasoning was that the Volcker rule would be too difficult to enforce, would be watered down in the regulatory process, and would quickly be evaded by Wall Street. But the fight left many Hill Democrats convinced that Summers remains reflexively skeptical of financial regulation.
- Yellen and FinReg. To be fair, Yellen’s Hill supporters admit they have no idea whether she’ll be any better at regulating banks than Summers. They’re more or less just hoping she will be.
- The administration’s gender problem. The White House doesn’t take kindly to being told they have a gender problem on their economic team, even though only there’s never been a moment during the administration when more than one of the four economic principals (five, if you count the chair of the Federal Reserve) was a woman. They pride themselves on picking the best person for the job, even if that’s a man, and even if that means they take a bit of heat.
But that misses the way in which “picking the best man for the job” means men get picked for future jobs, too. You can see this clearly in Annie Lowrey and Binya Appelbaum’s deeply reported dive into the “gender undertones” of the Fed race (full disclosure: Lowrey and I are married). It was Laura Tyson, they report, who first recommended Yellen for a role in the Clinton administration, and who gave Lael Brainard — now the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs — a crucial promotion. It was Christina Romer who recommended Jan Eberly to serve as the top economist at the Treasury Department. More women in the top jobs tends to mean more women getting picked for positions that lead to future top jobs.
- Revenge of the Clinton years. Much of the anger at Summers goes back to his actions — both political and personal — during the Clinton years. Some of the internal skepticism of Yellen goes back to her clashes with, among others, Gene Sperling back when she chaired Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers. With the exception of Obama and perhaps Bernanke, pretty much everyone seriously involved in this decision held a major economic position in the Clinton White House. The stickiness of those players, and of the conflicts of that era, is striking.
Wonkbook’s Number of the Day: 2 percent. That’s how much college enrollment fell this school year. It’s the first big decline since the 1990s, and it’s likely to continue.
Wonkbook’s Quotation of the Day: "At some point, you're going to open the federal government back up, and Barack Obama is going to be president,” said Sen. Richard Burr, urging his Republican colleagues not to seek to defund Obamacare in the Affordable Care Act, which would likely lead to a federal shutdown.
Wonkblog’s Graphs of the Day: The notional total value of derivatives contracts (relevant to Summers).
Wonkbook’s Top 5 Stories: 1) Larry Summers and the Fed; 2) Obama’s Jacksonville speech; 3) defunding Obamacare; 4) Amash and the NSA; and 5) solar’s time to shine.
1) Top story: Is Larry Summers a Fed chair for all seasons?
At the Fed, it’s the California girls vs. the Rubin boys. “President Obama's choice of a replacement for the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, is coming down to a battle between the California girls and the Rubin boys…But the choice also is roiling Washington because it is reviving longstanding and sensitive questions about the insularity of the Obama White House and the dearth of women in its top economic policy positions.” Binyamin Appelbaum and Annie Lowrey in The New York Times.
Some Senate Democrats write to Obama — pick Yellen. “The letter has been signed by roughly a third of the 54 Democratic and allied senators, Senate aides said. While the full list of signatories couldn’t be learned, it appeared largely to represent the liberal wing of the Democratic caucus…Some Democrats said they signed because of concerns about Mr. Summers’s views on financial regulation, rather than on monetary policy.” Corey Boles, Janet Hook and Kristina Peterson in The Wall Street Journal.
@frankrichny: The fallout from a Larry Summers resurrection will obliterate Obama’s welcome middle-class economic push in about 10 seconds.
Summers dismissed QE effectiveness. “Lawrence Summers made dismissive remarks about the effectiveness of quantitative easing at a conference in April, raising the possibility of a big shift in US monetary policy if he becomes chairman of the Federal Reserve. "QE in my view is less efficacious for the real economy than most people suppose," said Mr Summers according to an official summary of his remarks at a conference organised in Santa Monica by Drobny Global, obtained by the Financial Times.” Robin Harding in The Financial Times.
@jbarro: I like Larry Summers, but I’m for Yellen at the Fed: she’d produce way less drama, which would likely mean better policy outcomes.
Larry Summers isn't popular in the blogosphere. But he's got friends in high places. “The result is that if you're just reading the economics blogosphere, you're getting a skewed picture. The dominant thinking seems to be, How could the White House possibly name this guy that nobody likes? The key thing to remember here is there are other zones of influence too, and some of the most important ones are much, much friendlier to Summers. The world of economic and Wall Street heavyweights who've worked or fundraised at high levels in Democratic administrations tend to be very pro-Summers.” Ezra Klein in The Washington Post.
@petersuderman: I don’t have a strong personal preference in the Yellen/Summers contest. But the WH is not making the pro-Summers case well.
Yellen or Summers, it will be Obama’s Fed. “[T]he chair isn’t the only appointment President Barack Obama will make to the Fed’s Board of Governors next year. In fact, he may have to fill as many as five seats, counting the top one…For the first time in his presidency, every member of the board will be an Obama appointee…That’s about as clean a slate as one could have, and it suggests a different perspective on the race for Fed president: It won’t be the Larry Summers Fed or the Janet Yellen Fed. It will be the Barack Obama Fed — no matter who gets the top job. Here’s something else we’ve missed: Every woman now on the board may be leaving…Commentators have zeroed in on a Yellen-vs.-Summers personality contest. That’s a big mistake. Obama has the chance to set U.S. monetary policy on a fresh course in the next decade. Seize the day.” Evan Soltas in Bloomberg.
Yellen vs. Summers: Who would be a better Fed chair? “Yellen is one of the key engineers of the Fed's current strategy of pairing monthly bond purchases with "forward guidance" to explain to markets the future path of policy. Summers has been largely quiet about his views on the proper direction of monetary policy in recent years, no doubt in part to maintain viability as a possible nominee for Fed chair…Add it all up, and we just don't know in advance how a Summers Fed might differ from the Bernanke Fed, though we do know that Yellen is almost certain to maintain continuity with the strategy she helped put in place.” Neil Irwin in The Washington Post.
@mattyglesias: Summers seem to have clearly stated views on every significant economic policy question except ... the stuff the Fed does.
@JoshZumbrun: If the goal of floating Summers was to broaden the range of organizations that pay attention to Fed coverage then Mission Accomplished.
Up for debate at the Fed: a sharper message. “At their July 30-31 meeting, Fed officials are likely to discuss whether to refine or revise “forward guidance,” the words they use to describe their intentions for the next few years…One [step] would be to match its publicly set upper bound for inflation with a new lower bound. The central bank has said it will raise short-term rates if inflation is seen as rising above the 2.5% target. It hasn’t said what it would do if inflation drops much below the Fed’s 2% medium-term objective. One option is to say that short-term rates won’t rise if inflation falls below some threshold, perhaps 1.5%.” Jon Hilsenrath in The Wall Street Journal.
In recovering economy, declining college enrollment. “The long enrollment boom that swelled American colleges -- and helped drive up their prices -- is over, with grim implications for many schools. College enrollment fell 2 percent in 2012-13, the first significant decline since the 1990s, but nearly all of that drop hit for-profit and community colleges; now, signs point to 2013-14 being the year when traditional four-year, nonprofit colleges begin a contraction that will last for several years…Hardest hit are likely to be colleges that do not rank among the wealthiest or most prestigious, and are heavily dependent on tuition revenue, raising questions about their financial health -- even their survival.” Richard Perez-Pena in The New York Times.
Business spending lifts durable goods orders. “The Commerce Department said on Thursday that orders for durable goods increased 4.2 percent last month. That followed a 5.2 percent gain in May, which was revised higher…Orders that signal planned business investment, which exclude volatile transportation and military orders, increased in June for the fourth straight month. The 0.7 percent gain last month was buoyed by more machinery demand. And orders in May were much stronger than previously reported.” The Associated Press.
The complex story of race and upward mobility. “[T]he economists who did the study do not list race as one of the main factors that explains the variation in upward-mobility rates across regions…The simplest way to explain their conclusion may be to point out that upward mobility tends to be rare for both blacks and whites, as well as for Latinos, in low-mobility areas. In Charlotte, Atlanta and Indianapolis, low-income white children have also tended to grow up to be low-income adults…Whatever the differences are between high-mobility and low-mobility regions, they seem to apply to residents of every race.” David Leonhardt in The New York Times.
KONCZAL: Say no to Summers. “The first, and most urgent, [priority for a new Fed chair] is to determine how to navigate our economy out of the current doldrums. The second is to decide how aggressively to enforce the new set of financial reform rules that emerged from the financial crisis. And the third, crucially, is to find a way to rebuild monetary policy and the Fed so that the United States won't see a repeat of the current crisis. Yellen is clearly the superior candidate on all three counts.” Mike Konczal in Politico.
SCHEIBER: The new Summers looks a lot like the old Summers. “On the other hand, in Summers' case, this doesn't really translate into populism on the subject of financial reform--in general, he's about as far from a populist as you can get. I'm especially mystified by the idea that Summers would doggedly implement Dodd-Frank. In 2009 and early 2010, Summers was the most vocal internal opponent of the so-called Volcker Rule…As for the other key criticism of Summers--that he doesn't play well with others, something that's central to making the Fed work--the White House suggestion that it, too, is "outdated" strikes me as delusional or willfully ignorant. Unless Summers served in a high-ranking government job that I'm not aware of after leaving the White House in 2010, the critique seems rather perfectly up to date.” Noam Scheiber in The New Republic.
O’BRIEN: Summers is misinformed. “It’s not that Summers isn’t a brilliant economist — he most certainly is — but rather that he doesn’t have, well, any of Yellen’s central banking expertise…[T]he few things he has said aren’t encouraging…[H]e thinks the Fed pushing down real interest rates might only push companies to make bad investments they otherwise wouldn’t make. It’s a very Austrian view of things — the idea that pushing interest rates “artificially” low makes businesses make mistakes.” Matthew O’Brien in The Atlantic.
JOHNSON: Banking reform’s fear factor. “Nearly five years after the worst financial crisis since the 1930's, and three years after the enactment of the Dodd-Frank financial reforms in the United States, one question is on everyone's mind: Why have we made so little progress?…There are three possible explanations for what has gone wrong. One is that financial reform is inherently complicated…The second explanation focuses on conflict among agencies with overlapping jurisdictions, both within and across countries…That leaves the final explanation: those in charge of financial reform really did not want to make rapid progress.” Simon Johnson in Project Syndicate.
Music recommendations interlude: Tycho, “A Walk,” 2011.
Top op-eds
KLEIN: There’s no such thing as ‘the center.’ “It's not the center of public opinion. It's more a reference to an amorphous Washington consensus. Insofar as that concept ever made sense, the idea was that it's the legislative center, the zone of compromise where things can actually get done. But even that concept has begun to break down in recent years…When you're judging policy, "good" and "bad" are descriptions that make sense. So are "popular" and "unpopular," and "likely to pass" and "no chance." But "the center"? It's time to retire that one, or at least come up with a more rigorous definition of what we mean when we use it.” Ezra Klein in The Washington Post.
KRUGMAN: Republican health care panic. “[E]ven as Republican politicians seem ready to go on the offensive, there's a palpable sense of anxiety, even despair, among conservative pundits and analysts. Better-informed people on the right seem, finally, to be facing up to a horrible truth: Health care reform, President Obama's signature policy achievement, is probably going to work.” Paul Krugman in The New York Times.
COHN: The right’s latest scheme to sabotage Obamacare. “[Y]ou might be wondering if this is the way opposition parties and movements typically act when a law they don’t like is about to take effect. The answer is no…We can debate honestly, and constructively, whether Obamacare gets the prices and penalties for this responsiblity right--and, if not, whether those should be adjusted. But the basic idea that Republican leaders are protesting so intensely is one that you would expect the defenders of “personal responsiblity” to support--and one, until recently, many of them did support. It’s enough to make you wonder how much of this opposition is about Obamacare, and how much is about the guy who signed it into law.” Jonathan Cohn in The New Republic.
Cheap shots interlude: A video of Rahm Emanuel dancing.
2) Obama’s Jacksonville speech
Obama vows to bypass Congress on infrastructure projects. “President Obama vowed on Thursday to use his executive powers to bypass bottlenecks in Congress and accelerate infrastructure projects to bolster growth and add jobs…Last July, Mr. Obama signed an executive order that helped expedite federal review and permitting on seven infrastructure projects.” Michael D. Shear in The New York Times.
Video: Watch President Obama's economic speech in Jacksonville. Matt DeLong in The Washington Post.
White House hardens stance on budget cuts ahead of showdown with Republicans. “Senior White House officials are discussing a budget strategy that could lead to a government shutdown if Republicans continue to demand deeper spending cuts, lawmakers and Democrats familiar with the administration's thinking said Thursday…White House officials also are discussing a potential strategy to try to stop the sequestration cuts from continuing, the lawmakers and Democrats said. Under this scenario, the president might refuse to sign a new funding measure that did not roll back the sequester. No decision has been made.” Zachary A. Goldfarb and Paul Kane in The Washington Post.
…But mostly, he just hopes Congress will just stay out of the way. “What's different this time - what will make this series of speeches over the next two months more politically convincing than those he delivered during the "recovery summer" and "Main Street" jobs tour - is the relatively modest request at the heart of Obama's list of issues and ideas. More than adopting his activist vision of government, Obama wants Congress, specifically a recalcitrant group of House Republicans, to get out of the way. There is a lot Obama wants from Congress, little of which is likely achievable in the current political circumstances. For Obama, looking to put his second term on a more focused course, preserving the status quo might be a victory in itself.” Scott Wilson in The Washington Post.
Obama says the typical family income 'barely budged' between 1979 and 2007. It grew at least 15 percent. “According to the Current Population Survey's Annual Social Economic Supplements (ASEC) -- a Census Bureau publication tracking income, health coverage, and poverty -- the real median American family income increased by 17.7 percent between 1979 and 2007, and the real median household income (which includes people living alone and unrelated roommates) grew by 14.7 percent.” Dylan Matthews in The Washington Post.
House appropriations bill would cut defense spending but prohibit 2014 furloughs. “The House approved a defense appropriations bill Wednesday that would cut $5 billion from the Pentagon's non-war budget while prohibiting sequester-related furloughs. The measure, which passed by a vote of 315 to 108, provides $28 billion above current non-war spending under the government-wide spending cuts that took effect in March.” Josh Hicks in The Washington Post.
Budget cuts force scale back of health-care fraud investigations. “Facing major budget and staff cuts, federal officials are scaling back several high-profile health-care fraud and abuse investigations, including an audit of the state insurance exchanges that are set to open later this year as a key provision of the Affordable Care Act. The Department of Health and Human Services's Office of Inspector General, which investigates Medicare and Medicaid waste, fraud and abuse, is in the process of losing 400 staffers, about 20 percent of its workforce from its peak strength of 1,800 last year.” Fred Schulte in The Washington Post.
In tax talks, would Democrats accept no new tax increases. “A sizable bloc of the 16 Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee is contemplating agreeing to Republican demands that any tax overhaul not include tax increases, bucking their party on what has become a signature issue…It would be a coup for Republicans to win even one Democratic vote when the still-unreleased legislation comes before the panel.” Brian Faller in Politico.
Cantor: House won’t vote on clean debt limit extension in September. “Cantor was asked by Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) whether that would happen, and made it clear it would not. “I would say ... the answer to that last question is ‘no,’ ” Cantor said. Cantor later clarified that he was only closing the door on a clean debt ceiling vote by September.” Pete Kasperowicz in The Hill.
As ye shall sow so shall ye reap interlude: Young immigrants deliver cantaloupes to Rep. King’s office on Capitol Hill.
3) GOP raises the ante on defunding Obamacare
Congressional Republicans are now organizing to defund Obamacare in the continuing resolution. “More than 60 Republicans have signed a letter urging Speaker John Boehner to defund Obamacare when Congress funds the government in September. The letter, being circulated by the office of freshman Rep. Mark Meadows, doesn't explicitly say that supporters will vote against a government funding bill if it does not strip funding for Obamacare.” Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan in Politico.
…But they’re feuding over the tactics. “A growing number of Republicans are rejecting calls from leading conservatives, including Sens. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, to defund the president's health care law in the resolution to keep the government running past Sept. 30…The debate is happening behind closed doors and over Senate lunches, as well as during a frank meeting Wednesday with House leaders in Speaker John Boehner's suite where fresh concerns were aired about the party's strategy. On Thursday, the dispute began to spill into public view, most notably when three Senate Republicans -- including Minority Whip John Cornyn -- withdrew their signatures from a conservative letter demanding defunding Obamacare as a condition for supporting the government funding measure.” Manu Raju and Jake Sherman in Politico.
Watch out, Republicans! You’re helping Obamacare succeed. “[T]here's something else Republicans have been doing that, in a weird way, will likely help the Affordable Care Act. Namely, they have predicted the law's complete and utter implosion when it launches on Oct. 1…Republicans have set Obamacare expectations so incredibly low that, if Godzilla doesn't march in on Oct. 1 and gobble up our health insurance coverage and legions of IRS agents fail to microchip the masses, that could plausibly look like a success.” Sarah Kliff in The Washington Post.
Republicans had a plan to replace Obamacare. It looked a lot like Obamacare. “Four years ago, however, they did. It was called the Patients' Choice Act, it was proposed by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), two of the most influential Congressional Republicans on the issue, and it was a credible way of covering almost all Americans…There are plenty of differences, of course. Obamacare expands Medicaid; the Patients' Choice Act restricts it to low-income disabled people, moving the rest of its beneficiaries onto private insurance. Obamacare cuts Medicare provider payments; the Patients' Choice Act mean-tests premiums and does competitive bidding for private Medicare Advantage plans. Obamacare has individual and employer mandates; the Patients' Choice Act instead auto-enrolls people.” Dylan Matthews in The Washington Post.
KLEIN: Will Obamacare kickstart a healthcare revolution? “[I]n a cavernous room in New York's SoHo district, a group of entrepreneurs is working to render the entire Washington conversation over Obamacare obsolete. There, Obamacare is no longer a political controversy: It's a business opportunity. And a trio of young technologists have raised $40 million to take advantage of it…Sign into your Oscar insurance account online and you'll see a few carefully chosen options on a page that's otherwise white and clean. At the top, you can type in your symptoms and be taken immediately to a guided set of options, including a button that lets you talk to a doctor.” Ezra Klein in Bloomberg.
Writing interlude: The best first lines of books, as selected by authors.
4) Amash goes to war
Justin Amash almost beat the NSA. Next time, he might do it. “Last night's remarkably close House vote on the NSA's bulk surveillance program can be read one of two ways. You could say it was a symbolic win for the agency's critics. Or you could say the House rejected an attempt to weaken the program. Which side you fall on this morning depends mostly on whether you think symbolism carries any weight in this debate.” Brian Fung in The Washington Post.
NSA snooping is hurting U.S. tech companies' bottom line. “[N]ow it's starting to look like the snooping is hitting U.S.-based cloud providers where it really hurts: Their pocketbooks…[A] recent Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) survey found 10 percent of 207 officials at non-U.S. companies canceled contracts with U.S. providers after the leaks, and 56 percent of non-U.S. respondents are now hesitant to work with U.S.-based cloud operators.” Andrea Peterson in The Washington Post.
Attention Tyler Cowen, there is no great stagnation interlude: Innovation in bottle openers.
5) Solar’s time to shine
World’s largest solar plant ready to shine. “More than six years in the making, the Ivanpah plant is now slated to begin generating power before summer’s end. It was designed by BrightSource Energy to use more than 170,000 mirrors to focus sunlight onto boilers positioned atop three towers, which reach nearly 500 feet (150 meters) into the dry desert air. The reflected sunlight heats water in the boilers to make steam, which turns turbines to generate electricity--enough to power more than 140,000 homes…At 377 megawatts (MW), Ivanpah’s capacity is more than double that of the Andusol, Solnava, or Extresol power stations in southern Spain, which previously were the largest in the world.” Josie Garthwaite in National Geographic.
Where is all of the water going? “[N]uclear or fossil fuel power plants, which require 190 billion gallons of water per day, or 39% of all U.S. freshwater withdrawals.” Kate Zerrenner for the Environmental Defense Fund website.
White House to focus comprehensive energy review on infrastructure. “The White House will focus its first four-year, interagency review of the U.S. energy landscape on infrastructure, Energy Department counsel Melanie Kenderdine said Thursday. Two of the Quadrennial Energy Review’s chief goals are to bolster defenses against climate change and to strengthen energy security, Kenderdine said, noting the U.S. energy sector has some work ahead to match the resiliency of other nations’ systems.” Zack Colman in The Hill.
Federal report: World energy consumption to grow 56 percent by 2040. “Those are some of the conclusions in federal Energy Information Administration's (EIA) big new "International Energy Outlook," which examines estimated supply, consumption and emissions trends over the next three decades. China and India will together account for half the increase in global energy use, according to the EIA, which is the Energy Department's independent statistical arm, and more broadly, the developing world will largely drive vast bulk of the increase.” Ben German in The Hill.
Reading material interlude: The best sentences Wonkblog read today.
Wonkblog Roundup
Can an international agreement stop the global taxation shell game? Lydia DePIllis.
Here's how hackers could crash your car. Timothy B. Lee.
There's no such thing as 'the center'. Ezra Klein.
Larry Summers isn't popular in the blogosphere. But he's got friends in high places. Ezra Klein.
Yellen vs. Summers: Who would be a better Fed chair? Neil Irwin.
Republicans had a plan to replace Obamacare. It looked a lot like Obamacare. Dylan Matthews.
Don't you wish this 'Daria' trailer was for a real movie? Sarah Kliff.
NSA snooping is hurting U.S. tech companies' bottom line. Andrea Peterson.
Obama says the typical family income 'barely budged' between 1979 and 2007. It grew at least 15 percent. Dylan Matthews.
Watch out, Republicans! You're helping Obamacare succeed. Sarah Kliff.
Today's hearing on innovation and copyright is short on innovators. Andrea Peterson.
Et Cetera
Gay spouses have same rights as straight couples, FEC rules. Matea Gold in The Washington Post.
Congress could fill longstanding IG vacancies under Senate proposal. Josh Hicks in The Washington Post.
Got tips, additions, or comments? E-mail me.
Wonkbook is produced with help from Michelle Williams.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#inbox/1401afac25015990
Court: Chevron Can Seize Americans' Email Data 22JUL13
WITHOUT Edward Snowden's disclosures of the US government's on line spying program known as Prism we wouldn't be aware of the government's collusion with chevron, allowing the oil and gas giant accesses to the e mail accounts of Americans who oppose cheveron's agenda, especially those concerning the court cases against them involving the Ecuadorian rainforest tribes. It is extremely disturbing that a federal judge would actually allow an international corporation total access to the private e mail accounts of Americans, or anyone involved in supporting the Ecuadorian plaintiffs in their court cases against chevron, court cases the company continues to loose, and that the US Supreme Court has refused to hear, rejecting chevron's appeal. For some background on what this is all about watch the video Crude (this is the first project I backed on Kickstarter http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/crudefund/crude-fight-for-the-first-amendment ), and check out my earlier post on this Berlinger
Wins "Stay" of Footage Turnover Order! Full Hearing on Appeal Slated
for July! HUGE THANKS TO OUR KICKSTARTER SUPPORTERS!!!!! http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/berlinger-wins-stay-of-footage-turnover.html
and
Chevron Must Pay $8 Billion For Despoiling Amazon in Ecuador 14FEB11
http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/chevron-must-pay-8-billion-for.html
This from Mother Jones....
Last month, a federal court granted Chevron access to nine years of email metadata—which includes names, time stamps, and detailed location data and login info, but not content—belonging to activists, lawyers, and journalists who criticized the company for drilling in Ecuador and leaving behind a trail of toxic sludge and leaky pipelines. Since 1993, when the litigation began, Chevron has lost multiple appeals and has been ordered to pay plaintiffs from native communities about $19 billion to cover the cost of environmental damage. Chevron alleges that it is the victim of a mass extortion conspiracy, which is why the company is asking Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, which owns Hotmail, to cough up the email data. When Lewis Kaplan, a federal judge in New York, granted the Microsoft subpoena last month, he ruled it didn't violate the First Amendment because Americans weren't among the people targeted.
Now Mother Jones has learned that the targeted accounts do include Americans—a revelation that calls the validity of the subpoena into question. The First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously, and in cases involving Americans, courts have often quashed subpoenas seeking to discover the identities and locations of anonymous internet users. Earlier this year, a different federal judge quashed Chevron's attempts to seize documents from Amazon Watch, one of the company's most vocal critics. That judge said the subpoena was a violation of the group's First Amendment rights. In this case, though, that same protection has not been extended to activists, journalists, and lawyers' email metadata.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) represents 40 of the targeted users—some of whom are members of the legal teams who represented the plaintiffs—and Nate Cardozo, an attorney for EFF, says that of the three targeted Hotmail users, at least one is American. Cardozo says that of the Yahoo and Gmail users, "many" are American.
"It's appalling to me that the First Amendment has no bearing in this case, and that the judge simply assumed that all of the targets aren't US citizens—when in fact, I am," says a human rights activist from New York who has been advocating on behalf of the indigenous community, doing both volunteer and paid work, since 2005. He has never been sued by Chevron, nor been deposed. He wishes to remain anonymous—because his legal fight against the subpoena is still pending. The activist received a notice of the subpoena from Google last year (it has not been granted yet.) Chevron is seeking information including, but not limited to, the name associated with the account and where a user was every time he logged in—for the past nine years.
"Chevron is trying to crush, silence, and chill activism on behalf of the people they screwed over," the activist argues. Michelle Harrison, an attorney for EarthRights International, tells Mother Jones that her clients aren't comfortable going on record about the subpoenas they've received, because "Chevron's dogged pursuit of anyone that dares speak out against them is regrettably having precisely the chilling effect we warned the court it would."
Advocates for the plaintiffs in the Chevron case say that subpoenaing the email records is the company's latest nuclear tactic to win a lawsuit it keeps losing. Chevron was ordered to pay $9 billion in damages in 2011 and to issue a public apology. After the company refused, a judge ordered the damages to double. The Supreme Court has declined to hear Chevron's appeal. The extortion case is set to go to trial on October 15, after Kaplan—whom the Ecuadorean plaintiffs once asked to be removed from the case—refused to delay it.
Cardozo says there are 101 email addresses listed in the subpoenas to the three tech companies, but EFF has found only two that are owned by actual defendants in the lawsuit. "Subpoenas of nonparties are generally quite routine," says Eugene Volokh, a professor at the University of California-Los Angeles School of Law. But Karl Manheim, a professor at the Loyola School of Law in Los Angeles, notes, "The parties seeking the info have to establish its relevance to the case; you can't just go on a 'fishing expedition' or on a hunch."
Julian Sanchez, a research fellow at CATO, says that "even assuming the account holders aren't citizens, it doesn't automatically follow that the First Amendment is irrelevant." But he notes that while anonymous speech made by Americans is protected under the Constitution, "courts have been inconsistent in applying that protection against civil subpoenas aimed at identifying anonymous internet users." In the case Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, for example, an appellate court held that a company was not allowed to unmask users who had criticized the company on a Yahoo message board.
Manheim says the judge's invocation of citizenship is "wrong" in this case and the users should appeal. "The US Constitution applies to all persons (even foreign nationals) within US borders and to US persons abroad. While the targets of the subpoenas are outside of US jurisdiction, the subpoena itself is operative within the US. So the Constitution should apply." (Chevron did not respond to request for comment.)
"I think if the NSA scandal has taught us anything, anyone who says that 'it's just metadata' doesn't know what metadata is—if I want to spend the night at my friend's house and use his computer, that's my business," Cardozo says. "And if Judge Kaplan thinks seizing metadata is routine, he doesn't know how powerful it can be." The activist adds, "It's a slippery slope. Once one thing is granted, it will only be easier to ask for more."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/chevron-ecuador-american-email-legal-activists-journalists
and
Chevron Must Pay $8 Billion For Despoiling Amazon in Ecuador 14FEB11
http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/chevron-must-pay-8-billion-for.html
This from Mother Jones....
Court: Chevron Can Seize Americans' Email Data
In an almost unprecedented decision, a federal judge has allowed Chevron to subpoena Americans' private email data—and said the First Amendment doesn't apply.
—By Dana Liebelson
| Mon Jul. 22, 2013 3:00 AM PDT
Rainforest Action Network/Flickr
Thanks to disclosures
made by Edward Snowden, Americans have learned that their email records
are not necessarily safe from the National Security Agency—but a new
ruling shows that they're not safe from big oil companies, either.Last month, a federal court granted Chevron access to nine years of email metadata—which includes names, time stamps, and detailed location data and login info, but not content—belonging to activists, lawyers, and journalists who criticized the company for drilling in Ecuador and leaving behind a trail of toxic sludge and leaky pipelines. Since 1993, when the litigation began, Chevron has lost multiple appeals and has been ordered to pay plaintiffs from native communities about $19 billion to cover the cost of environmental damage. Chevron alleges that it is the victim of a mass extortion conspiracy, which is why the company is asking Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, which owns Hotmail, to cough up the email data. When Lewis Kaplan, a federal judge in New York, granted the Microsoft subpoena last month, he ruled it didn't violate the First Amendment because Americans weren't among the people targeted.
Now Mother Jones has learned that the targeted accounts do include Americans—a revelation that calls the validity of the subpoena into question. The First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously, and in cases involving Americans, courts have often quashed subpoenas seeking to discover the identities and locations of anonymous internet users. Earlier this year, a different federal judge quashed Chevron's attempts to seize documents from Amazon Watch, one of the company's most vocal critics. That judge said the subpoena was a violation of the group's First Amendment rights. In this case, though, that same protection has not been extended to activists, journalists, and lawyers' email metadata.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) represents 40 of the targeted users—some of whom are members of the legal teams who represented the plaintiffs—and Nate Cardozo, an attorney for EFF, says that of the three targeted Hotmail users, at least one is American. Cardozo says that of the Yahoo and Gmail users, "many" are American.
"It's appalling to me that the First Amendment has no bearing in this case, and that the judge simply assumed that all of the targets aren't US citizens—when in fact, I am," says a human rights activist from New York who has been advocating on behalf of the indigenous community, doing both volunteer and paid work, since 2005. He has never been sued by Chevron, nor been deposed. He wishes to remain anonymous—because his legal fight against the subpoena is still pending. The activist received a notice of the subpoena from Google last year (it has not been granted yet.) Chevron is seeking information including, but not limited to, the name associated with the account and where a user was every time he logged in—for the past nine years.
"Chevron is trying to crush, silence, and chill activism on behalf of the people they screwed over," the activist argues. Michelle Harrison, an attorney for EarthRights International, tells Mother Jones that her clients aren't comfortable going on record about the subpoenas they've received, because "Chevron's dogged pursuit of anyone that dares speak out against them is regrettably having precisely the chilling effect we warned the court it would."
Advocates for the plaintiffs in the Chevron case say that subpoenaing the email records is the company's latest nuclear tactic to win a lawsuit it keeps losing. Chevron was ordered to pay $9 billion in damages in 2011 and to issue a public apology. After the company refused, a judge ordered the damages to double. The Supreme Court has declined to hear Chevron's appeal. The extortion case is set to go to trial on October 15, after Kaplan—whom the Ecuadorean plaintiffs once asked to be removed from the case—refused to delay it.
Cardozo says there are 101 email addresses listed in the subpoenas to the three tech companies, but EFF has found only two that are owned by actual defendants in the lawsuit. "Subpoenas of nonparties are generally quite routine," says Eugene Volokh, a professor at the University of California-Los Angeles School of Law. But Karl Manheim, a professor at the Loyola School of Law in Los Angeles, notes, "The parties seeking the info have to establish its relevance to the case; you can't just go on a 'fishing expedition' or on a hunch."
Julian Sanchez, a research fellow at CATO, says that "even assuming the account holders aren't citizens, it doesn't automatically follow that the First Amendment is irrelevant." But he notes that while anonymous speech made by Americans is protected under the Constitution, "courts have been inconsistent in applying that protection against civil subpoenas aimed at identifying anonymous internet users." In the case Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, for example, an appellate court held that a company was not allowed to unmask users who had criticized the company on a Yahoo message board.
Manheim says the judge's invocation of citizenship is "wrong" in this case and the users should appeal. "The US Constitution applies to all persons (even foreign nationals) within US borders and to US persons abroad. While the targets of the subpoenas are outside of US jurisdiction, the subpoena itself is operative within the US. So the Constitution should apply." (Chevron did not respond to request for comment.)
"I think if the NSA scandal has taught us anything, anyone who says that 'it's just metadata' doesn't know what metadata is—if I want to spend the night at my friend's house and use his computer, that's my business," Cardozo says. "And if Judge Kaplan thinks seizing metadata is routine, he doesn't know how powerful it can be." The activist adds, "It's a slippery slope. Once one thing is granted, it will only be easier to ask for more."
Dana Liebelson
Reporter
Dana Liebelson is a reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. Her work has also appeared in The Week, TIME's Battleland, Truthout, OtherWords and Yahoo! News.
If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...
How Much Email Metadata Does NSA Collect?
Chevron Subpoenas Google and Others for Private Email Info
The oil giant goes fishing for private data on activists, attorneys, and journalists connected to its famous Ecuador lawsuit.WikiLeaks: Chevron Sought US Help in Ecuador
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)