September, 09 2008, 06:00pm EDT
Congress Poised to Cut Conservation Funds That Aided Farm Bill's Passage
More Than 40,000 Farmers Denied Funds to Reduce Pollution From Their Farms
WASHINGTON
September 9, 2008. Behind the thin green gloss Congressional leaders
spread across the subsidy-laden 2008 farm bill, the Democratic Congress
is now hacking away at pledges to expand conservation and other
environmental programs. Data analyzed by the Environmental Working
Group show that Congress is trying to roll back funding increases in
critical conservation and environmental programs, funding pledged in
the farm law passed just weeks ago.
Today, Craig Cox, EWG Midwest Vice-President, released the report: Congress Poised to Cut Conservation Funds that Aided Farm Bill's Passage, from EWG's new Midwest office in Ames, IA.
When the farm bill became law on June 18, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
boasted that it would represent "historic new investments" in programs
to protect water quality and wildlife. Those investments helped mute
the opposition of many in Congress and some interest groups, who
objected to the bill's continuation of hefty subsidies to large,
wealthy farm operators now earning record incomes in the ongoing
commodity boom.
But within weeks of the farm bill's passage, the Senate
appropriations committee sent to the Senate floor a spending bill
(S.3289) that would slash conservation measures by $331 million in
fiscal year 2009.
Commodity subsidies that provide billions to the richest farmers each year remained untouched.
For every $10,000 in crop subsidies Congress sends to the most
heavily polluting counties in the Corn Belt, just one dollar is spent
on conservation. In the 124 counties that cause 40% of spring nitrate
fertilizer pollution, the ratio between subsidies and conservation
spending is 500 to one.
"With cuts like this year after year, it's no wonder that
agriculture is the number one source of water pollution in the nation.
Democrats in Congress are using bait and switch tactics with
conservation funding. This practice mirrors a longstanding Republican
tradition of broken promises where pledges to increase money for
environmental programs are followed by systematic and dramatic cuts
that have left conservation programs billions short over the past
decade," said Craig Cox, EWG Midwest Vice-President.
Go to https://www.ewg.org/reports/conservationcuts for the full report.
The Environmental Working Group is a community 30 million strong, working to protect our environmental health by changing industry standards.
(202) 667-6982LATEST NEWS
US, UK, Fiji, and Hungary Only Nations to Defend Israeli Occupation at ICJ
One analyst argued that opponents of Israel's occupation "demolished" the arguments of its few supporters.
Feb 27, 2024
In what one policy expert said was a "stunning" display of Israel and its allies' isolation on the world stage, six days of International Court of Justice hearings on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories wrapped up on Monday with just four countries defending Israel's practices in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem over the past 57 years.
The United States—the world's biggest funder of Israel's government and military—was joined by the United Kingdom, Hungary, and Fiji in speaking in favor of Israel's illegal occupation, while 45 countries and three organizations testified against the Israeli government.
The hearings took place against the backdrop of Israel's relentless bombardment of Gaza, which has killed at least 29,878 Palestinians, and an announcement by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich that the country plans to build 3,300 new homes in settlements in the West Bank.
While U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said last week that the settlement expansion is "inconsistent with international law," reversing a Trump-era policy, human rights attorney Noura Erakat noted that in the ICJ hearing, the U.S. "framed compliance with international law as an impediment to [the] political process."
Richard Visek, the State Department's acting legal adviser, invoked the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on October 7 as he argued before the court that it "should not find that Israel is legally obligated to immediately and unconditionally withdraw from occupied territory."
"Any movement towards Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza requires consideration of Israel's very real security needs," said Visek. "We were all reminded of those security needs on October 7, and they persist."
But the vast majority of states present for the hearings rebuked Visek's claim, with Turkey's deputy minister of foreign affairs, Ahmet Yildiz, arguing that "the real obstacle to peace is obvious—the deepening occupation by Israel of the Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, and failure to implement the two-state vision, Israel and Palestine living side by side."
Representing the African Union, Ohio State University law professor Mohamed Helal provided the court with an overview of the Palestinian territories' history of occupation to answer the question, "Does Israel have title over the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem?"
"The answer is unequivocally no," said Helal. "Since 1967, Israel has exercised belligerent occupation over the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. The African Union also submits that Israel's 57-year occupation of the Palestinian territories is unlawful and must be brought to an end."
Legal experts including Helal spent six days testifying on the occupation Israel has maintained over the territories since the Six-Day War in 1967, including its construction of settlements inhabited by 700,000 settlers in the West Bank, its annexation of East Jerusalem, its blockade of goods in Gaza, and its restriction of Palestinians' movement.
Speaking for the League of Arab States on the closing day of the hearings on Monday, international law expert Ralph Wilde of University College London delivered what observers called "a legal masterpiece," explaining to the ICJ the illegality of Israel's occupation.
According to Israel and its allies, said Wilde, the desire for Israel to protect its security "somehow supersedes the rules of international law determining whether the occupation is existentially lawful. Instead, we have a new rule justifying the occupation until there is a peace agreement meeting Israeli security needs."
"This is the law as these states would like it to be, not not the law as it is," he continued, saying the occupation has no basis in U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which called on Israel to withdraw its troops from the occupied territories in 1967, or the 1993 Oslo Accords.
"Actually," he told the court, "you are being invited to do away with the very operation of some of the fundamental... laws of international law itself."
Al Jazeera political analyst Marwan Bishara said the evidence presented by opponents of the occupation "demolished British and American arguments" in the hearings.
"I'm going to say something I will regret, but I'll say it anyway—I feel sorry for the United States and the United Kingdom," said Bishara after watching the proceedings. In the first days of the hearing, he said, "it was clear to someone like me, a student of this issue, that the Americans and the British wanted to sound clever... That they were disingenuous and selective, and rather, to my mind, illogical."
The U.S. and U.K. led Israel's supporters at the hearing in falsely claiming that the conflict in Israel and Palestine is merely a "dispute," said Bishara, that should be left up to the two sides, despite the fact that the two countries provide Israel with aid.
"This is an aggression," he said. "As the African Union, as the Arab League, as well as the Islamic conference have argued, this has been going on for 75 years. There is a process, there is a pattern by Israel to annex, to occupy, to settle, and to take over Palestinian territory, denying the Palestinians the right of self-determination."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Norfolk Southern CEO Got a Pay Boost After Toxic East Palestine Crash
"We need full compensation for the families and workers affected by the East Palestine train derailment—not a $3.6 million raise for its CEO," wrote Sen. Ed Markey.
Feb 27, 2024
Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw got a large raise last year after the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio that devastated that community. Shaw's total compensation rose by 37% in 2023, which put it at over $13 million for the year.
The train derailment occurred in February of last year and exposed the community to toxic chemicals that caused a large fire. Though there were no human fatalities, the wreck sparked grave public health concerns andthe company has faced major criticisms for what have been described as lax safety practices. Jonathon Long, general chairman of the American Rail System Federation (ARSF) of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (BMWED), wrote about the problems with the rail company in a letter last year.
"I am writing to share with you the level of disregard that Norfolk Southern has for the safety of the railroad's workers, its track structure, and East Palestine and other American communities where NS operates," he wrote. “They gamble with your money, and you hold all the risk if they lose by putting a toxic train in the ditch in your community.”
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) criticized Shaw's compensation raise in a tweet on Monday.
A year later Norfolk Southern is still more focused on its bottom line than the safety of the communities it serves. We need full compensation for the families& workers affected by the East Palestine train derailment—not a $3.6 million raise for its CEO. https://t.co/1h74XgSvBh
— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) February 27, 2024
Shaw's compensation increase last year came despite the fact the company's net income decreased by 44% in 2023. The company also increased its spending on lobbying by 30% last year. A group of shareholders from the firm Ancora Holdings is trying to replace Shaw and other members of the company's management with new leadership, because it doesn't feel Shaw is leading the company in the right direction.
"It's alarming that the board rewarded Mr. Shaw with a massive raise and total compensation of $13.4 million during the same year he presided over industry-worst operating results, sustained underperformance, and a tone-deaf response to the derailment in East Palestine," the group told CNN in a statement. "This failure of corporate governance … reinforces the need for sweeping changes to Norfolk Southern’s well-paid board."
The Department of Justice sued Norfolk Southern for violating the Clean Air Act last year, and the Supreme Court ruled in June of last year that a former Norfolk Southern employee who alleged he developed colon cancer after being exposed to hazardous chemicals could proceed with a lawsuit.
It remains to be seen how long Shaw will be in charge of Norfolk Southern, but the company has certainly had a tumultuous year since the disaster in East Palestine, and it doesn't seem he's yet paid a major price for what's happened under his leadership.
“Mr. Shaw and his boardroom allies have no credible plan and no viable record to run on,” the investors from Ancora told CNN.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Global 'War on Fair Taxation' Has Slashed Taxes for Richest 1% by a Third
Years of tax cuts and elites' "war on democracy" have fueled inequality and harmed G20 nations' ability to fund basic public services, according to a new Oxfam analysis.
Feb 27, 2024
An analysis released Tuesday by Oxfam estimates that the richest 1% in G20 countries have seen their top income tax rates plummet by around a third in recent decades, a trend that the group attributed to political and economic elites' yearslong "war on fair taxation."
Oxfam's analysis was published as G20 finance ministers and central bank governors convened in São Paulo, Brazil for their first meeting of 2024.
The humanitarian and anti-poverty group noted that in Brazil, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy, the mega-rich pay a lower effective tax rate than the average worker following years of regressive cuts across the G20, which is home to most of the world's billionaires.
In 1980, Oxfam said Tuesday, the average top marginal tax rate across G20 nations was 59.5%. By 2022, the top rate had been cut to 40.4%—a 32% drop. In the U.S., tax cuts under the Bush and Trump administrations cut the top marginal rate for wealthy Americans and added roughly $10 trillion to the national debt.
The richest 1% in G20 countries collectively brought in more than $18 trillion in income in 2022.
"Countries are putting more and more money and power into the hands of a tiny, inequality-fueling elite," Katy Chakrabortty, Oxfam's head of policy and advocacy, said in a statement Tuesday. "As the finance ministers of the world's largest economies gather this week, the focus should be agreeing on policies that close the gap between the richest and the rest—that means fairer taxation and support for everyone."
Katia Maia, executive director of Oxfam Brazil, said the global "war on fair taxation has coincided with a war on democracy, putting more money and power into the hands of a tiny, inequality-fueling elite."
"As the finance ministers of the world's largest economies gather this week, this contest takes center stage: will they reclaim their democracies by taxing the super-rich?" Maia asked.
"A fair tax system can curb inequality and foster healthier, more inclusive societies."
Ahead of this week's meetings in São Paulo, Brazilian Economy Minister Fernando Haddad said he plans to present "a proposal to tax the super-rich, based on the best studies available."
"I cannot go into specifics yet," Haddad said in an interview with the Brazilian newspaper O Globo, "but I do confirm that we will continue to defend progressive taxation as a goal in the G20."
Oxfam estimated that a 5% wealth tax targeting multimillionaires and billionaires in G20 countries could raise around $1.5 trillion a year in revenue, which the group said would be "enough to end global hunger, help low- and middle-income countries adapt to climate change, and bring the world back on track to meeting the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)—and still leave more than $546 billion to invest in inequality-busting public services and climate action in G20 countries."
Currently, according to Oxfam, just eight cents in every dollar in tax revenue raised in G20 nations comes from levies on wealth.
A recent survey conducted on behalf of the Patriotic Millionaires, a U.S.-based advocacy group that supports progressive taxation, found that 74% of millionaires in G20 countries approve of higher taxes on wealth. The poll also showed that 70% of respondents view extreme concentrations of wealth as harmful to democracy.
"A fair tax system can curb inequality and foster healthier, more inclusive societies," Maia said Tuesday. "Higher taxes for the super-rich means being able to invest in working families, protecting the climate, and making important public services like education and healthcare available to all. It also means being able to repair holes in social safety nets, to soften the blow of future crises."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular