Busting the despicable propaganda about an "immigrant crime wave"

I know that for plenty of people facts really don't matter. At least when it comes to their politics and worldviews they don't. For most it's fundamentally because they were raised that way, and don't even realize it. But for the large majority overall for whom facts do matter, albeit to varying degrees, it's good to have them ready to hand.

Republican politicians and sympathetic media outlets are claiming that America is in the midst of a violent "crime wave," driven in part by undocumented immigrants. New data, however, demonstrates that there was not a spike in violent crime in 2023. Instead, across America, rates of violent crime are dropping precipitously — and the decline is especially pronounced in border states.

In January 2024, the Republican National Committee claimed that “crime continues at historic highs in Democrat-run cities.” Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) declared in February 2024 that “[i]n Joe Biden’s America you get…cities plagued with crime.” These claims, however, are not supported by facts.

The most comprehensive look at violent crime in the United States in 2023 will come when the FBI publishes its national Uniform Crime Report. But that will not happen until the fall. But, as crime analyst Jeff Asher explains in his newsletter, the FBI report is based on individual Uniform Crime Reports submitted by each state. Asher identified 14 states that have released their Uniform Crime Reports publicly. The data has not been completely finalized and could be adjusted slightly before formally submitting it to the FBI. But this data is the best early look at violent crime trends last year. - Popular Information

Big Meat buys off academics

This has been well-known for a while, but there's new documentation out there.

Due to limited public funding for academic research, industry-funded studies on food and agriculture are common. And while researchers often strive to avoid bias and funding does not always impact research quality, evidence suggests industry-funded studies are more likely to produce results that reflect well on the funder.

In the paper, Viveca Morris and Dr. Jennifer Jacquet reveal a broader pattern of how the livestock industry, which has long had close affiliations with land-grant universities, has infiltrated universities to block climate scrutiny. The researchers trace the origins, funding, and political function of the “corporate capture of academic institutions”—especially focusing on the CLEAR Center, founded in 2018, and AgNext at Colorado State University, founded in 2020. As the authors argue, these leading academic centers wield their academic credibility to “maintain the livestock industry’s social license to operate.”

“They’re conducting industry-funded public relations and communications campaigns on climate change issues that benefit their agribusiness donors,” said Morris, the executive director of the Law, Ethics & Animals Program at Yale Law School. This effort extends far beyond industry-funded research to more actively shape policy, effectively acting like a lobbyist through frequent testimonies and meetings with policymakers, among other strategies.

Even if this is legal, “having a university—without transparency, without even telling the public that an industry donor is involved—acting as a PR arm of an industry group is impossible to justify with the university’s mission,” added Morris. - Civil Eats

Congress cowers to thieving parasites on antitrust funding

This is rather appalling, though there's still time for it to be corrected.

Heading into the State of the Union address, the White House is placing a big bet on competition policy to tackle some of the biggest challenges in the economy. (On Monday), the administration announced the creation of an interagency Strike Force on Unfair and Illegal Pricing, co-chaired by Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan and Justice Department Antitrust Division head Jonathan Kanter. Together, Khan and Kanter will coordinate efforts across the government to target companies engaged in pricing activities that violate laws around fraudulent and deceptive practices, or unfair methods of competition. The goal is to reduce prices in sectors where tricks and traps are prominent, from health care to housing to financial services.

“Competition delivers real results to real people, that’s precisely what we are doing,” said Kanter on a press call on Monday. “And we’re doing it with fewer people than we had in 1979.”

That last bit was a tell, a flash of frustration at a development over the weekend, pushed by a bipartisan group of appropriators, that could lead to a dramatic cut in the Antitrust Division’s budget, precisely at the time when the Biden administration is elevating its work—relying on it, even—in advance of the election. While some members of Congress are furious about it, the White House seems to be resigned to the outcome. - The American Prospect

Insane levels of military spending are not justified by "jobs!"

Not even if those claims were legitimate.

Lest you think that Biden’s economic pitch for such aid was a one-off event, Politico reported that, in the wake of his Oval Office speech, administration officials were distributing talking points to members of Congress touting the economic benefits of such aid. Politico dubbed this approach “Bombenomics.” Lobbyists for the administration even handed out a map purporting to show how much money such assistance to Ukraine would distribute to each of the 50 states. And that, by the way, is a tactic companies like Lockheed Martin routinely use to promote the continued funding of costly, flawed weapons systems like the F-35 fighter jet. Still, it should be troubling to see the White House stooping to the same tactics.

Yes, it’s important to provide Ukraine with the necessary equipment and munitions to defend itself from Russia’s grim invasion, but the case should be made on the merits, not through exaggerated accounts about the economic impact of doing so. Otherwise, the military-industrial complex will have yet another never-ending claim on our scarce national resources. - TomDispatch

A massive shortfall for cleaning up after Big Oil

We need strong, progressive governance, or we will get stuck with these kinds of bills.

There are more than 2 million unplugged oil and gas wells that will need to be cleaned up, and the current production boom and windfall profits for industry giants have obscured the bill’s imminent arrival. More than 90% of the country’s unplugged wells either produce little oil and gas or are already dormant.

By law, companies are responsible for plugging and cleaning up wells. Oil drillers set aside funds called bonds, similar to the security deposit on a rental property, that are refunded once they decommission their wells or, if they walk away without doing that work, are taken by the government to cover the cost.

But an analysis by ProPublica and Capital & Main has found that the money set aside for this cleanup work in the 15 states accounting for nearly all the nation’s oil and gas production covers less than 2% of the projected cost. That shortfall puts taxpayers at risk of picking up the rest of the massive tab to avoid the environmental, economic and public health consequences of aging oil fields. - ProPublica

Big Oil suddenly has issues with methane emissions penalties

This article gets into the complications. I personally don't see a need to back off on anything when it comes to holding Big Energy accountable.

The Inflation Reduction Act, the 2021 U.S. climate law abbreviated IRA, primarily reduces emissions through financial incentives, rather than binding rules. But in addition to all its well-known carrots, lawmakers quietly included a smaller number of sticks — particularly when it comes to the potent greenhouse gas methane, which has proven to be a pesky source of increasing climate pollution with each passing year. New research suggests that those sticks could soon batter the oil and gas industry, which is responsible for a third of all methane emissions in the U.S.

An IRA provision directs the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, to charge $900 for every metric ton of methane above a certain threshold released into the atmosphere in 2024. The issue is particularly challenging to tackle in oil and gas fields because methane is the primary component in natural gas, and it leaks from hundreds of thousands of devices scattered across the country. In 2022, oil and gas facilities emitted more than 2.5 million metric tons of methane. - Grist

Another methane greenwashing scheme

I hadn't known about this one, which has apparently been around for a while.

Certified natural gas – or methane gas that is purportedly produced in a low-emissions manner – is a “dangerous greenwashing scheme”, a group of progressive senators wrote in a letter to federal regulators on Monday…

Amid increasing public concern about gas usage and the climate crisis, a new industry of third-party gas “certifiers” has cropped up. These companies develop standards that they use to proclaim that certain producers are reducing emissions from their fracking wells, pipelines and storage facilities, and therefore generating gas sustainably.

The companies can then deem certain gas “certified”, “responsibly produced” or “differentiated”, allowing producers to sell it at a premium. Utilities in New York, Vermont, New Jersey, Michigan and Virginia have purchased certified natural gas and plan to pass on the additional costs to customers, the non-profit watchdog organization Revolving Door Project found last year. - The Guardian

The SEC has given crypto a bright green light, and that's bad

A facile, fraught, and above all just plain stupid decision.

Over the past several decades, there have been rapid and fundamental changes in the finance and banking sectors. The banking reforms of the New Deal, which endured up until about 1980 and provided a relative degree of banking and financial stability, were reversed by the neoliberal counterrevolution with an eye toward increasing profits and shredding social responsibility. A new book by world-renowned progressive economist Gerald Epstein, Busting the Bankers’ Club: Finance for the Rest of Us, shows us the result: a financial system dominated by megabanks and shadow financial institutions prone to instability and crises that at the same time rely on government bailouts.

The neoliberal financial system, controlled by what Epstein calls “The Bankers’ Club,” benefits exclusively powerful people and institutions, is linked to the growing inequality of wealth and income, and is a net drain to the U.S. economy. Nonetheless, bankers not only see themselves as “essential workers,” a view that Epstein shreds into pieces, but as former Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein claimed, many think they do “God’s work.”

The latest development in the evolution of the modern financial system is the Securities and Exchange Commission’s approval of bitcoin exchange-traded funds last month, concluding a decade-long fight and marking a turning point for cryptocurrency. This may be a game changer for the global money system but could also very well lead us to another financial crisis. - Truthout

Don't count on the ultra-privileged for anything

There's still a lot of propaganda out there regarding the ultra-wealthy. Everyone should know better.

Billionaires have been minted at a dizzying pace in the last few decades — in 1987 Forbes counted 140, while in 2023 the tally was 2,640 — and we’ve now returned to the point in the cycle where enormous piles of wealth are passed on to the next generation. “This is how wealth dynasties are formed,” says Chuck Collins, director of the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the left-leaning think tank Institute for Policy Studies. The only thing that’s new in 2024 is that the piles of money are bigger than ever.

Not only are there more billionaires today, their average wealth keeps ticking up too, thanks to historic stock market returns. On top of that, heirs are receiving wealth transfers earlier in life, rather than waiting for the death or near death of a family member. All this underscores the truth that having money remains the best way to get more money. Perhaps there’s nowhere that’s truer than in the US, home to the most billionaires, despite the pervasive myth of hardscrabble, self-made entrepreneurs climbing to the top of the socioeconomic ladder. If you’re born poor, you’re likely to stay poor; if you’re born super rich, you’ll probably get even richer...

Don’t hold your breath for an onslaught of billionaire heirs suddenly giving their inheritances away for the betterment of society. One insight from the UBS report is that heirs tend to be much less interested in philanthropy than first-gen billionaires. A theory as to why, according to Collins, is that “the first generation has some confidence in their ability to create wealth,” while the second generation doesn’t. “We know that the second generation, third generation are more concerned about protecting wealth than creating it,” he continues. “They invest a lot in wealth defense; they invest a lot in lobbying.” That means opposing any wealth tax or income tax hikes on the rich, or fighting regulations that would close loopholes that have long allowed billionaires to minimize what they owe to the government. It’s a sign that “the tax system on wealth has become more optional,” says Collins. - Vox

Return-to-office is corporate BS

I've worked in places where one or more managers were, it would be fair to say, rather on the neurotic and controlling side. So I can relate. Perhaps you can as well.

Your manager may suggest that returning to the office is imperative for the company’s success, workplace culture, and overall productivity. However, there’s a growing body of evidence suggesting that’s bullshit. New research out of the University of Pittsburgh examined 137 of America’s largest corporations and found that return-to-office mandates did not result in significant improvements to firm performance.

“Using a sample of S&P 500 firms, we examine determinants and consequences of U.S. firms’ return-to-office (RTO) mandates,” said researchers from the Katz Graduate School of Business at the University of Pittsburgh. The study found that managers use RTO mandates “to reassert control over employees and blame employees as a scapegoat,” and concluded that “we do not find significant changes in firm performance in terms of profitability and stock market valuation after the RTO mandates.” - Gizmodo

Mixed numbers for unions in 2023

More, and more effective, pro-worker legislation would help.

In 2023, 16.2 million workers were represented by a union—an increase of 191,000. At the same time, the percentage of workers represented by a union decreased from 11.3% to 11.2%, as unionization efforts were unable to keep pace with 2023’s strong job growth.

By sector, private-sector unionization rose to 6.9% in 2023, while public-sector unionization declined to 36.0%...
 
These statistics don’t capture the number of workers who want to join unions. Evidence suggests that in 2023, more than 60 million workers wanted to join a union but couldn’t do so. - EPI

Options for regulating AI

I remain an AI skeptic. When has anything from Big Tech ever ultimately come anywhere near living up to the hype? But it is time to put strict regulation on AI. This article discusses some aspects.

Concern about generative artificial intelligence technologies seems to be growing almost as fast as the spread of the technologies themselves. These worries are driven by unease about the possible spread of disinformation at a scale never seen before, and fears of loss of employment, loss of control over creative works and, more futuristically, AI becoming so powerful that it causes extinction of the human species...

In light of the drive to regulate AI, it is important to consider which approaches to regulation are feasible. There are two aspects to this question: what is technologically feasible today and what is economically feasible. It’s also important to look at both the training data that goes into an AI model and the model’s output. - The Conversation

Private equity is going after life insurance

I am so sick of seeing shit like this about private equity. But it is the inescapable present reality.

Private equity firms continue to stalk insurance company takeovers and critics say the potential for a financial disaster grows along with that trend.

Americans for Financial Reform, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit group that advocates for stronger regulation of Wall Street firms, is the latest group to raise alarm bells on what it deems to be risky private equity investment of policyholder funds.

AFR's new study grew out of its analysis of the relationship between private equity and public pension funds, said Andrew Park, senior policy analyst for the group. The PE impact on pensions is now understood, he explained.

"What has been less understood is how much of this new capital that private equity is getting is coming from the acquisition of insurance companies, and then in turn, insurance companies buying up a lot of the assets that private equity tends to originate," he added. "It's almost like you have this circular financing scheme that has been created now with private equity and insurance."

By the second half of 2023, private equity firms owned $774 billion in life insurance assets, or 9% percent of the life insurance industry, according to the AM Best insurance analyst. Likewise, PE firms are estimated to manage $5.7 trillion in global assets, giving these firms ample ability to buy up even more insurance companies, AFR noted.

The AFR report, Risky Business: Private Equity’s Life Insurance Gambit, comes amid growing pressure on private equity firms to submit to stronger oversight. Over the past month, the Financial Stability Oversight Council and the International Monetary Fund both released their own reports questioning private-equity control of insurers. - Insurance News Net

COP28 sucked when it came to food systems

And, many would argue, everything else. I'm highlighting this:

Despite the spotlight on food systems at COP28, the final decisions said little about the urgent need for transformative shifts toward agroecology to address the climate crisis.

The Global Stocktake decision, designed to inform governments as they ramp up their national-level climate plans, failed to strengthen climate finance commitments. The final report contains only high-level principles about food systems without concrete guidance on reducing or preventing food system emissions or strengthening their adaptive capacity. Left without strong guidance, countries now must ambitiously push beyond the COP28 stocktake recommendations to reform climate policies and transition food systems to avoid the loss and damage from a worsening climate. Countries in the Global North, home to the highest-emitting agriculture systems and with access to the most resources, must spearhead climate action independent of the UNFCCC. - IATP

The SEC may save crypto

Which they absolutely should not do.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, which has done a decent job of protecting the public from cryptocurrency scams, is on the verge of making a disastrous decision to allow financial companies to offer the equivalent of exchange-traded funds comprised of Bitcoins.

The sponsors include BlackRock, Fidelity, and 11 other firms.

In anticipation of a favorable SEC ruling, the price of Bitcoin, which had languished around $25,000 as recently as last September, has been bid up to over $45,000. The financial press has reported that BlackRock alone has at least $2 billion lined up for this play and that the first-quarter trading volume could be $40 billion. With crypto mercifully dying of its own weight, the SEC could throw it a lifeline.

SEC Chair Gary Gensler, who once taught a course on crypto at MIT, has long warned that creations like Bitcoin, backed by nothing other than speculative expectations of investors, are dubious investments lacking the safeguards that the securities laws impose on stocks and bonds. Exchange-traded funds made up of Bitcoins operate at one further remove from scrutiny. The main beneficiaries are the financial companies that propose to offer them. - The American Prospect

Child labor to the rescue!

Plenty of people apparently do want a return to the time and place of, say, Charles Dickens. Do they ever listen to themselves at all?

One would never have thought that a “Year in Review” — almost a quarter of the way through the 21st century — would be discussing the growing scourge of child labor. The 19th century, maybe. But 2023? Really?

Yes, really.

Not only that, but some of the discussion around child labor is not focused on how to eliminate it, but how to increase it.

Yes, really...

The combination of a tight labor market, an abundant supply of kids — especially immigrant kids — needing jobs, low penalties and lack of enforcement resources are fueling the rise of child labor. - DC Report

Clean energy money goes to greenwash CAFOs

This is just one example of the sort of thing that's happening too often in too many ways. Corn-based ethanol fuel is the biggest example, overall.

Now, a controversial energy source claims a larger share of these federal dollars in Wisconsin than systems like solar and wind. Biogas, a fuel created from livestock waste, has become increasingly popular on farms nationwide in the past two decades, and in Wisconsin, biogas projects are receiving a growing portion of REAP funding.

Analysis of the national program funding for rural clean energy in Wisconsin since 2012 found biogas digester projects have received more money in the past two years than every solar project combined since 2012. Wisconsin biogas projects funded by REAP receive $1.3 million on average, roughly 18 times the average amount REAP gave to upgrade outdated machinery and energy-hogging equipment on farms and rural businesses. Wisconsin biogas projects funded by REAP receive 50 times the average funding compared to their solar counterparts...

Critics of biogas say the technology only exists because of the massive amount of waste created on farms with thousands of heads of livestock. These Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs, have been linked to various cancers and public health risks caused by waste runoff. Some research suggests that the climate benefits of digesters aren’t as great as the industry claims. - Barn Raiser