Wednesday, November 3, 2010

David Cay Johnston on non-Reporting of Income shifts

 

 


Scary New Wage Data

David Cay Johnston | Oct. 25, 2010 04:35 AM EDT
Now for some really scary breaking news, from the latest payroll tax data.

Every 34th wage earner in America in 2008 went all of 2009 without earning a single dollar, new data from the Social Security Administration show. Total wages, median wages, and average wages all declined, but at the very top, salaries grew more than fivefold.

Not a single news organization reported this data when it was released October 15, searches of Google and the Nexis databases show. Nor did any blog, so the citizen journalists and professional economists did no better than the newsroom pros in reporting this basic information about our economy.

The new data hold important lessons for economic growth and tax policy and take on added meaning when examined in light of tax return data back to 1950.

The story the numbers tell is one of a strengthening economic base with income growing fastest at the bottom until, in 1981, we made an abrupt change in tax and economic policy. Since then the base has fared poorly while huge economic gains piled up at the very top, along with much lower tax burdens.

Read Rest here:

Link to a Graph on median and average income, 1999-2009, in 2009 dollars

Those wishing to hide income disparity tend to use average income, whereas those to whom income distribution matters use median income.

I highly recommend his latest book  Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and StickYou with the Bill)  . The book starts with the Bandon Dunes as the poster case for what is wrong with the incentive structure, and how it snares even those with a high regard for building community and fixing incentive structures elsewhere.

****

Update:  Nov. 6, 2011

Checking  into this a bit further, I find this:

In the midst of electoral chaos yesterday, I did not get around to noting a striking screw-up at the Social Security Administration — you know, the folks with which we’re supposed to entrust our retirements. I’ll get to that in a minute, but first, a Bob Herbert column sent along by a friend, on rising income inequality and a new book on the subject by two political scientists:

          <snip>

        The SSA data Johnston (and Herbert) rely on is completely bogus — the result of a massive error. Check it:
The Social Security Administration asked its inspector general to investigate how a $32.3 billion mistake skewed its statistics on 2009 wages in the U.S.
Two people were found to have filed multiple W-2 forms that made them into multibillionaires, an agency official said yesterday. Those reports threw statistical wage tables out of whack and, in figures released Oct. 15, made it appear that top U.S. earners had seen their pay quintuple in 2009 to an average of $519 million.

 <snip>


         
UPDATE: Mr. Johnston writes me:
Your final point about me in your post is dead wrong.
The Social Security Administration discovered its mistake BECAUSE my column in Tax Notes drew attention to the figures, which I accurately reported. Gosh, but for my accurate reporting this mistake would have stayed permanently in the record and forever given us a false impression of wage income in 2009!

The whole post is worth a read;  it is here



Another book on the topic of income inequality is Paul Pierson and Jacob Hacker,

Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class  much of which can be read online.

 It is discussed by the two authors at a New American Foundation event, video archived here.



Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Military Economics in the News

Cross posted at http://lessmilitary.blogspot.com/





Posted on November 2, 2010 by Matthew Leatherman

This piece originally appeared in the Raleigh News & Observer.
Lt. Gen. John Mulholland, chief of the Army’s Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, believes his soldiers are “our nation’s most relevant force” and said as much in a Raleigh press conference recently. Ordinarily this claim could be dismissed as the type of chest-thumping any commander does to boost morale back at the unit. The difference is that Mulholland is right – at least for now. The future, however, may be quite different.
                   REST HERE

Survey: Officers favor ‘soft power’


By Andrew Tilghman - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Sep 27, 2010 10:30:10 EDT
A majority of military officers — especially the mid-career officers in the O-4 and O-5 paygrades — support giving more money and strategic emphasis to nonmilitary initiatives such as diplomacy and economic development in order to advance U.S. security interests, according to a recent poll.
Some 83 percent of officers think that nonmilitary tools such as diplomacy, food assistance, health care support, education and economic development are either very important or fairly important for achieving national security goals, according to the poll conducted by a Washington-based education and lobbying group.N.M.
Labs Likely To Gain From Treaty Push
By John Fleck
Journal Staff Writer
          The price tag for maintaining U.S. nuclear weapons could be headed up again.
        After a 10 percent budget increase in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, and a plan to push for more increases in future years, the Obama administration is telegraphing its intentions to up the ante.

        The new money is part of the administration's efforts to win Senate approval of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty...

[Snip]

The underlying need for the money - whether it is genuinely needed, or is being used to solve a political problem - has been little discussed. Within the government, there have been no significant public voices questioning the spending.
        Outside government there are skeptics, even within the weapons community.
        One of the most visible has been Bob Peurifoy, a retired Sandia Labs vice president and respected weapons program veteran. He argues the new spending is unnecessary for the actual job of maintaining the nuclear arsenal.
        "I suggest that some have trouble distinguishing between 'must have' and 'fun to have' facilities," Peurifoy said in a recent e-mail to a group of prominent nuclear weapons experts.
                             REST HERE

  • PRESS RELEASE

    For Immediate Release
    Monday, November 1, 2010                               
    http://conejoscountycleanwater.org/
    http://slvec.org/
    http://nuclearactive.org/


    CONEJOS COUNTY CLEAN WATER, INC., SAN LUIS VALLEY ECOSYSTEM COUNCIL, AND CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR NUCLEAR SAFETY file suit against the Department of Energy

    Antonito, Colo. – Conejos County Clean Water, Inc., a citizen’s group based in Antonito, Colorado, San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, a group based in Alamosa, Colorado, and Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, a non-governmental organization based in Santa Fe, New Mexico, announced today that they have filed suit in federal court to compel the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process that analyzes the impacts of transporting radioactive, hazardous and toxic waste from Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) through the state of Colorado via a storage and truck-to-rail transfer site in Conejos County.

    In November 2009, Conejos County officials and citizens of Antonito discovered the active transfer of LANL wastes by crane from flat-bed trucks to rail gondolas less than a quarter mile from the town and within 100 yards of a headwaters tributary to the Rio Grande.  The waste was contained in soft sacks which can hold 24,000 pounds of waste. Neither the local governments nor residents were notified of any plans of the DOE, LANL, San Luis and Rio Grande Railroad, and EnergySolutions (a private Utah-based corporation which operates a radioactive and hazardous waste dump 75 miles west of Salt Lake City) to transport and transfer radioactive, hazardous and toxic waste in Conejos County. The County halted the activities pending compliance with local land use laws.

    “This is a case of the DOE and their contractors trying to impose their will on local communities without providing notice and without any opportunity for a fair impact review,” said Andrea Guajardo, member of the board of directors of Conejos County Clean Water, Inc. “That DOE would attempt to force these impacts on Conejos County, the poorest county in Colorado, without engaging the public in a meaningful way is inexcusable – and illegal,” Ms. Guajardo added.

    In 2005, LANL and DOE signed a consent decree with the New Mexico Environment Department agreeing to clean up certain waste dumps at the LANL facility by 2015.  The waste that was shipped is part of a “cleanup campaign” funded by stimulus funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

    “We have a moral obligation to protect the headwaters of the Rio Grande,” San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council director Christine Canaly said, “it’s imperative the public be engaged in this process.”

    DOE officials recently stated that waste from other DOE sites, including Sandia National Laboratory, located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the Pantex Site, located north of Amarillo, Texas, could also be transferred at the Antonito location, once it is established as a transfer site for toxic, hazardous, and radioactive wastes.

    “DOE will continue to generate radioactive, toxic, and hazardous wastes and EnergySolutions is looking for ways to take a larger cut of the DOE waste for its dump,” stated Joni Arends, director of Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety.  “The community efforts to protect the San Luis Valley and the headwaters of the Rio Grande are absolutely necessary for now and in the future.  If the transfer site in Antonito is opened, DOE will utilize it to the fullest extent and the people of the Valley could expect more and more shipments from other DOE sites.”

    Colorado-based attorney Jeff Parsons, along with the non-profit law firm Energy Minerals Law Center, through attorney Travis Stills, represent the groups.

    CONTACTS
    Andrea Guajardo, board member, CCCW, 720-939-9948
    Joni Arends, executive director, CCNS, 505-986-1973
    Christine Canaly, director, SLVEC, 719-256-4758
    Jeff Parsons, attorney, 720-203-2871
    Travis Stills, attorney, Energy Minerals Law Center, 970-375-9231

    The complaint may be viewed at:  http://www.slvec.org/
    <http://www.slvec.org/>
     

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Model Resolution to Use to Force DOE, NNSA, and LANL Compliance With the Law


I have decided to post a draft resolution to those who recognize that “something is not quite right here”, when DOE, NNSA, and LANL insists that the “CMRR is needed”, despite a tenfold increase in cost. No business man would stay in business if he did not reevaluate his investment strategy when the price of his preferred investment had increased tenfold. To give a scale to what is at stake here,  the  Sunday, Oct 17, 2010 Parade insert that accompanies most NM papers had a picture of Hoover Dam on its cover. That lead story reported:
At a cost of $108 million (or $1.7 billion in today’s dollars), the Hoover Dam was a mammoth construction project. Some 6 million cubic yard of rock were dug up, and 3.25 million cubic yards of concrete poured….
Current estimates of concrete for the CMRR (mostly to mitigate the problem of building a plutonium facility on top of a seismic fault) are for 10% of that concrete; dollar costs are more than double, and already approaching three times the cost of Hoover Dam. If the current rate of cost increases continue, the facility will cost thirty times what Hoover dam costs. 

At what point does the public, DOE, NNSA, and LANL say ENOUGH. This project is absurd?

While there is evidence that even Secretary Chu recognizes the absurdity of “continuing construction” w/o such an evaluation, it is not clear whether the DOE intent is to follow the law. We have a procedure in place to protect the American Public from major waste by requiring an Environmental Impact Statement that mandates honestly defining the purpose of an investment, making the effort to list and study all reasonable alternatives – including BOTH what would happen if the project was not enacted as well as at least one alternative that is outside of the “jurisdiction of the lead agency”.

So until I hear that Secretary Chu acknowledges that this project is too different (the tenfold increase in costs, by itself, is enough to be too different) I will not be convinced that effort is not continuing to feather the nuclear weapons industries nest, rather than do what’s best, as the law mandates.  So Secretary Chu, what is it –“Follow the law and do what the law requires”, or “Look for loopholes to continue to protect the nuclear weapons industry”, as the late Stewart Udall warned us about.

So here is a draft resolution, to use as a model for each governmental or business organization to pass, to stop this hemorrhaging of funds that makes us poorer and less secure.

RESOLUTION

The ______________________ hereby supports halting any and all work on the proposed CMRR Nuclear Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory until a new and full Environmental Impact Statement with scoping is completed by the Department of Energy.
WHEREAS, our community is within the impact area of the proposed $4 to $6 billion dollar plutonium processing plant (known as the CMRR Nuclear Facility) at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) we therefore have serious concerns regarding adverse effects on the quality of our air, soil, water and the health, welfare,  and economic well-being of our citizenry; and
WHEREAS, a serious accident during operation, or spill during transportation of nuclear material or waste associated with the proposed plutonium plant could affect our community very adversely, including in ways for which our first responders  and hospitals are not trained or equipped to respond.
WHEREAS, Economic impact studies have not been done on the effects of said plutonium plant on tourism, which is a critical source of income for our community, and on the real estate market; and
WHEREAS, NEPA requires public notice and comment of proposed plutonium processing plant, and recognizing  no such due process has been given to the pueblos or any of the communities of Northern New Mexico ; and
WHEREAS, The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) states that an EIS is to serve as an important contribution to the selection of the best alternative, and “will not be used to justify decisions already made”;
WHEREAS, the cost of the CMRR has increased at least ten-fold and the scale and impacts of the project have greatly expanded as well;
WHEREAS, prudent fiscal management and NEPA mandates that cost and economic well being must be considered in designing and selecting alternatives, and a more than ten-fold cost increase makes it highly unlikely that the current alternative is still the most cost effective one,
WHEREAS, only a full and complete new Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would provide the public with enough information about the current proposal, one which only marginally resembles the proposal under which a 2003 EIS was undertaken, 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE __________ THAT ___________ BELIEVES 

1) THAT A NEW ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FULLY COMPLYING WITH NEPA MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE ANY FURTHER FUNDS ARE SPENT, CONTRACTS LET, OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ALLOWED THAT IS RELATED TO THE CMRR NUCLEAR FACILITY AND   
2) THAT THE NATURE OF CHANGES TO THE PROJECT PRECLUDE, AS INSUFFICIENT AND INAPPLICABLE, A MERELY SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.

Just checked the National Environmental Policy ACT



It uses "needs" only ONCE, in relation to "cultural needs".

I can forgive sociologists and anthropologists using "needs", but not economists, engineers, or "hard" scientists. "Purpose" on the other hand, appears NINE times.

The Council of Environmental Quality, the agency writing the implementing regulations for an Environmental Impact Statement [EIS], unfortunately does use the word "need" seven times, but mostly (all but twice) in conjunction with "purpose and need" .

So could we please talk about "purpose" rather than "need"?

And follow NEPA in defining purpose broadly enough, so that NOT ONLY nuclear weapons, or weapons in general, are options for addressing the broader purpose (security?) as the act MANDATES?

Sec. 1502.14 (c)  Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.

This clause was inserted to avoid "feathering one's own nest only", precisely what appears to me the intent of DOE, NNSA, and LANL in trying to avoid doing an EIS by proposing an SEIS suffice.

After all


This section is the heart of the environmental impact statement. Based on the information and analysis presented in the sections on the Affected Environment (Sec. 1502.15) and the Environmental Consequences (Sec. 1502.16), it should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decisionmaker and the public.

Chu Asks for New Review of Lab

Possible good news:

John Fleck at the Albuquerque Journal reports:

Chu Asks for New Review of Lab 

The head of the Energy Department has launched another review of a proposed multibillion dollar plutonium lab, along with a similar project in Tennessee, amid concerns about the projects' costs.
        Energy Secretary Steven Chu has asked for an independent committee of experts with "no stake in the outcome" to review the need for the two projects, according to an agency statement.
        The proposed Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement building at Los Alamos would replace a 50-year-old lab that works with plutonium. Federal officials have repeatedly argued that the building is vital for the lab's nuclear weapons work. It is years behind schedule, and its current price tag of at least $4 billion is already far over its original budget, despite the fact that design work has not yet been completed.

Read more here.

I am pursuing how sincere and objective this effort is and will report back when (and if ) I learn more about whether this truly is an " independent committee " with " "no stake in the outcome".

We have been arguing long and hard of the desirability of reviewing "the need" for the CMRR.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I must report that I did my graduate work in economics at UCLA under Armen Alchian.  If one learns nothing else from Armen, one realizes that "needs" is a term that has value only if one does not wish to discuss the merits of a sale, but tries to frame the discussion in such a way as to preclude other options from being considered.

So...... until DOE Secretary Chu stops using the term "needs", paint me more than dubious.

I should also disclose that my late father worked in weapons design for most of his career, including various stints at RAND "studying nuclear weapons effectiveness."

ON BUNKER BUSTERS - NEW AND OLD NEWS

 


by Walter Pincus  Tuesday, October 19, 2010; A13 

Outside of the nuclear weapons communities, little notice was paid last week to the announcement that authorization had finally come through to begin dismantling the last of the minivan-size B-53s, the most powerful thermonuclear bombs ever deployed in the active U.S. stockpile.
A terror weapon if there ever was one, the 10,000-pound B-53 was designed to deliver an explosion of nine megatons. That is the equivalent of 9 million pounds* of TNT, or 600 times the power of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.
Believe it or not, the last 50 B-53s were not retired from the active stockpile until 1997, and even then some were held as a "hedge" in case a new threat emerged.

*The equivalence was 9 million tons, not 9 million pounds. Note the corrrection at top of article

Rest here    B-53 at Wikipedia    My comments to Walter’s article are here:

Fact sheet on Pantex Plant from Nukewatch New Mexico   Pantex Plant at LASG.org

The B53 also played a prominent role in Project Chariot, and the book “The Fire Cracker Boys”.  In reading what Wikipedia had to say about the book, I need to state That I read the 1995 version,  the Wikipedia entry  asserts was been reissued in  2007  as The Firecracker Boys: H-Bombs, Inupiat Eskimos, and the Roots of the Environmental Movement). [ I just ordered the 2007 version]
Project Chariot was an attempt by Ed Teller to find a use for his pet project – the second generation thermonuclear high yield weapon, built over the objections of many including J. Robert Oppenheimer to build harbors, settling on “a site at the mouth of the Ogotoruk Creek near Cape Thompson, approximately 30 miles southeast of the Inupiat Eskimo village of Point Hope.”

A large thermonuclear Bomb was to blast the core depression, followed by three small bombs to excavate the entrance channel.  There were two reasons for this proposal: one to find a peaceful use for this device under the Plowshare Program – atoms for peace, and two, to circumvent an expected ban on nuclear testing – to find a way to continue testing by claiming “we are not testing, we are building harbors”. That fooled no one but the American public.

Project Chariot is important as it gave rise to NEPA, and the work done by the few University of Alaska scientists who opposed this ( all four were fired, but much later three were awarded honorary doctorates – one died in a very mysterious way during the height of the opposition), an event not attended the then President Wood) is considered by many to ne the very first Environmental Impact Statement ever performed, although it was not called as such.

The book itself actually started in 1987 from a grant to a movie for public television, but the worry that it “would antagonize … university president Wood”- and restrict U.S. government grants caused “the station to try to find a way to withdraw funding”.  The result was the book. I can highly recommend it as a window into the mindset of the various factions during the late 1950’s to 1960’s.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Steve Clemons & Ali Jalali Discuss Afghanistan, Iran & US on PBS NewsHour

Steve Clemons & Ali Jalali Discuss Afghanistan, Iran & US on PBS NewsHour

from Steve Clemon's Blog at TWN.:

I had the opportunity tonight to chat with PBS NewsHour Chief Anchor Jim Lehrer and former Afghanistan Interior Minister and National Defense University professor Ali Jalali about the solvency of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai given the acknowledgment that he is accepting "bags of cash" from Iran. Interestingly, at a press conference Karzai also acknowledged that his government was getting similar bags of cash from the United States -- which White House spokesman Robert Gibbs denied.
I thought that this was a very good exchange -- and was able to surface some of the key themes from the recently released Afghanistan Study Group Report.
Here is the transcript from the exchange as well.
-- Steve Clemons
Nice job Steve.   There is also a video clip for those (like me) who missed it live,

Until I figure out how to embed a direct video link, i'll have to redirect, in this case here:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2010/10/steve_clemons_a/

Hmm.  Folks remember the bags of cash, the biggest cash withdrawal in the Feds history, in three planeloads, to Iraq?  I once calculated the equivalence of 10 dumptruck of shrink wrap bricks of  $100 bills, each brick $160,00 to $1.6M went to Kirkuk. When the distributing agent was asked who picked it up, he could not remember either the name or what he looked like. He was not even certain that it did not go to those we were fighting.

Remember my letter to then Sen. Bingaman on that one, Steve?







 

   m