Thursday, January 21, 2016

Documents regarding Michigan Governor’s original actions on the Flint Water Problem

image

Gov. Rick Snyder releases emails sent, received on Flint

January 20, 2016

Lansing, MICH - Gov. Rick Snyder today released all emails he sent and received regarding Flint from Jan. 2014 through Dec. 2015. 

On Tuesday evening, he said during his State of the State address:

"Tomorrow I will release my 2014 and 2015 emails regarding Flint to you, the citizens, so that you have answers to your questions about what we’ve done and what we’re doing to make this right for the families of Flint. Anyone will be able to read this information for themselves at Michigan.gov/Snyder. Because the most important thing we can do right now is to work hard and work together for the people of Flint."

A timeline of 2014 and 2015 actions on Flint water is available here.

For more information on the governor's speech, visit mi.gov/stateofthestate.

To learn how to help Flint, or for residents who need water resources, visit www.helpforFlint.com.

Above is from:  http://michigan.gov/snyder/0,4668,7-277--374050--,00.html

How the Kochtopus Went After a Reporter

 

In Jane Mayer's new book, she reports how the conservative machine sicced private detectives on her.

Prize-winning New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer made headlines recently when she released a new book, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, that revealed how the father of the Koch brothers once helped build a major oil refinery in Nazi Germany that was a pet project of Adolph Hitler. Overall, the book tells the tale of a small number of ultrarich donors—including Richard Mellon Scaife and Harry and Lynde Bradley—who did much to create the modern conservative moment, with a strong emphasis on billionaires Charles and David Koch. "It is not easy to uncover the inner workings of an essentially secretive political establishment," the New York Times' review of the book notes. "Mayer has come as close to doing it as anyone is likely to come anytime soon." And there's a section in the book that should be particularly chilling for journalists, for Mayer describes how she became the target of a nasty opposition research effort after she wrote about the Koch brothers several years ago.

In the summer of 2010, she published a pathbreaking, in-depth piece, headlined "Covert Operations," which chronicled the rise of the Kochs' ideological network—dubbed the "Kochtopus"—and the efforts of the publicity-shy libertarian brothers to guide the burgeoning tea party toward policies that favor Koch Industries. The article depicted the Kochs as secretive bankrollers waging a war against President Barack Obama and opposing environmental safety measures. The Kochs were enraged by the story. A lawyer for their company complained; David Koch called the story "ludicrous." But the New Yorker saw no reason to correct anything. And the kerfuffle seemed to die down. Or so Mayer thought.

While reporting for her book, Mayer discovered that after her story was published, the Koch political machine assigned six or so operatives, who were working in borrowed space in the lobbying firm operated by J.C. Watts, a former Republican congressman, to dig up dirt on her. She notes that a source told her, "If they couldn't find it, they'd create it." And Mayer maintains that a private investigative firm, Vigilant Resources International, was hired for this job as well. (This company was founded by Howard Safir, who had been a New York City police commissioner when Rudy Giuliani was mayor.)

Mayer writes that she was at the time unaware of this effort, but she began to spot clues. A blogger asked if she had heard the rumor that a private detective firm was on her trail. At a Christmas party, a former reporter told her that a private investigator had mentioned that some conservative billionaires were looking for dirt on a reporter who had written a story they disliked. Then, in January 2011, a New York Post reporter, Keith Kelly, contacted David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker, to get a comment on "allegations" that would soon be published claiming that Mayer had borrowed heavily from other reporters. Shortly after that, as Mayer puts it in her book, Jonathan Strong, then a reporter at the conservative Daily Caller, emailed Mayer and Remnick and asked whether her work fell "within the realm of plagiarism." He sent several examples of her purported theft.

Mayer mobilized quickly. She contacted the writers whose works she had supposedly swiped—in some cases she had given credit to these writers—and they told her they did not consider these instances of plagiarism. Mayer says she sent these facts to the Daily Caller, and the story disappeared. Subsequently, in the New York Post, Kelly wondered, "Who is behind the apparently concerted campaign to smear The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer?" Kelly asked Tucker Carlson, the editor of the Daily Caller, about the origins of these allegations against Mayer, and Carlson replied, "I have no clue where we got it. I never ask the reporters where they get stuff, only whether it's true. In this case, we didn't have enough." Strong declined to talk to Kelly about the story.

The Koch operatives, Mayer was later told by a source she doesn't name in her book, "thought they had you. They thought they were going to be knighted by the Kochs." And Mayer observes, "Their search for dirt had started with my personal life, I was told, but when that turned up nothing truly incriminating, they moved on to plagiarism." Later on, the general counsel of Koch Industries sent a letter to the American Society of Magazine Editors decrying the article in an attempt to prevent the New Yorker from winning a National Magazine Award for the piece.

When Mayer asked Safir if his firm had investigated her, he said, "I don't comment. I don't confirm or deny it." And a spokesman for the Koch brothers would not talk to Mayer about this. Indeed, another Koch brothers spokesman did not respond this week when Mother Jones asked if the Kochs had mounted a secret operation against Mayer.

The covert smear campaign against Mayer did not succeed. But this is a cautionary tale for any reporter who digs too deep into the world of dark money. The super wealthy donors who want to influence politics with cash also have the money to target those who would cast light upon the actions they wish to keep secret.

Clarification: Lynde Bradley died in 1942, and his brother Harry passed away in 1965. The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation began in 1942, but it was not until after the death of Harry that it began to focus on public policy. About twenty years later, it received a massive infusion of cash and about that time turned sharply to the right.

Above is from: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/koch-brothers-jane-mayer-dark-money

Illinois governor backs 'Democratic' state pension-cost plan

image

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner and Republican legislative leaders said on Thursday they will endorse what they called a Senate Democratic approach to curbing the state's $111 billion unfunded pension liability.

But Senate President John Cullerton, a Chicago Democrat, said the plan promoted by the Republican governor goes beyond what he supports because of curbs on collective bargaining.

Rauner said the initiative would give workers a choice between having future salary increases count toward their pensions or continuing to receive 3 percent compounded annual cost-of-living increases upon retirement.

"This does not go as far as we need to ... But it's a step in the right direction," Rauner told reporters at a news conference. He added it would save the state $1 billion annually and affect four of the state's five pension funds.

Illinois has the worst-funded pensions and lowest credit ratings among the 50 states. An impasse between Rauner and Democrats who control the legislature has left the fifth-largest state without a budget seven months into fiscal 2016.

Rauner said the so-called consideration approach will be constitutional as long as salary increases are removed from collective bargaining with labor unions.

“We apparently still have a fundamental disagreement over the role of collective bargaining in this process, in the sense that I think collective bargaining should continue to exist and the governor does not," Cullerton said in a statement.

An aide to House Speaker Michael Madigan characterized the governor’s track record on pensions as anti-working family.

“What he wants to do is destroy middle-class families whether it’s over pensions or wages or injuries on the job site,” said Steve Brown, a spokesman for Madigan.

Easing pension costs was made harder after the Illinois Supreme Court last May tossed out a 2013 state law that would have saved as much as $145 billion over 30 years, ruling that public sector workers have iron-clad protection in the state constitution against cuts to retirement benefits. The high court could rule as soon as Friday on a union challenge to a 2014 state law to shore up two of Chicago's financially struggling pension funds.

The city used a consideration argument to defend the law, claiming that pension benefit cuts and higher pension contributions will save the funds from insolvency.

Union coalition We Are One Illinois contended the governor's plan was unconstitutional. "A forced choice between two diminished options is no choice at all and forbidden by the court," it said.

(Editing by Matthew Lewis)

Above is from:  http://news.yahoo.com/illinois-governor-backs-democratic-state-pension-cost-plan-193636097--business.html