Republicans Are Kicking People Off Food Stamps

Newsweek

Under Trump’s New Budget, If You Don’t Work, You Don’t Eat: Republicans Are Kicking People Off Food Stamps

By Christianna Silva October 7, 2017

UPDATE: The budget resolution passed by the House on Thursday will push millions of already struggling people off food stamps, leaving the neediest Americans—children and the elderly among them—without food.

The $4.1-trillion budget will take over $150 billion away from several poverty programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which helps low-income people keep food on the table, by giving them small amounts of supplemental money to spend on groceries—anywhere from $100 a month to $700 a month for a family of five, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

This budget isn’t the newest problem SNAP has had to face. The number of people on SNAP ebbs and flows with the economy, but only 75 percent of people who are eligible for SNAP actually participate in the program, the website Snap to Health says. And it’s because applying can get really complicated.

Evan Teske, a 26-year-old medical student, needed assistance while he was working for Americorps. After graduating from college in 2014, Americorps assigned him to Focuspoint Family Research Center, which focuses on education from childhood to adulthood. His stipend just wasn’t enough.

“So I had to apply for food stamps,” Teske told Newsweek.

The application process was pretty confusing, he said, but Americorps helped him apply. Then, after about a year and a half, he was taken off.

“I got taken off by the government against my will because every six months I had to update my paperwork so they could see how much they were giving me,” Teske said. “And at one point, when food stamps and a stipend still wasn’t quite enough, I had help from my parents and family members to help me out in a pinch. When I put that down in the updated documents, they didn’t call it an income, but they said it was extra. So they cut me off.”

Teske worked for Americorps for the next six months and then moved to New Mexico for medical school. He said SNAP and food stamps made his life more livable.

Teske was taken off food stamps because his family helped him when he was needing a bit more. If Trump’s budget proposal passes the Senate, as it has already passed the House, many more people will be bumped off SNAP—and a lot of them won’t have the familial safety net that Teske did.

“SNAP is the first line of defense against hunger in the U.S.,” Ellen Vollinger, the legal director who directs SNAP work at the Food Research and Action Center, told Newsweek. “It’s the one program that’s available all over the country to serve people who need food. It’s the most accessible and available to people.”

But lately, for two big reasons, fewer people have been taking advantage of SNAP. First of all, the economy is doing better, which means fewer people are struggling with poverty and fewer people need the program.

In 2009, about 32 million people received SNAP benefits. The number increased during the great recession to an annual high of 47.6 million in 2013. Then, as the economy began to improve, it was down to 43 million in April 2010. And it’s continue to show. From April 2015 to April 2016, it was all the way down by 1.9 million participants.

“The unemployment rate has often been a pretty good indicator for the need for SNAP. As it comes down, there might be a bit of a lag, but we see SNAP come down,” Vollinger said.

The second reason, however, is that some states are cutting corners by making it more difficult to apply for SNAP so they make more room in their budget.

“A lot of people don’t know that they’re eligible,” Ginger Zielinskie, president and CEO of Benefits Data Trust, a company that connects people with the services they need, told Newsweek. “The first barrier is awareness. … It can be a really complicated application process.”

Moreover, some state laws don’t allow people to stay on SNAP for longer than a few months unless they have jobs, are training for jobs or are doing community service. But in times of economic stress, there aren’t always jobs available for them.

Take, for example, Devon Bracher, who graduated from Vanderbilt with an engineering degree and was living with her two sisters in Portland, Oregon, when she applied to get on SNAP after not being able to find a job.

“Technically, my residency was in Virginia, but all my work experience was in Tennessee,” Bracher told Newsweek. “I didn’t have a job, I was looking for jobs. This was my first year after graduating. That was part of what’s complicated. I wasn’t an Oregon resident, but I didn’t have an official job in Virginia. Virginia told me to apply to Tennessee.”

So Bracher went through the online application for SNAP. But the system had her call a SNAP representative because she wasn’t a Tennessee resident.

“I probably called maybe like five different times and the line was always busy,” Bracher said. Eventually, she just gave up.

“I benefitted a lot from being able to live with family,” Bracher said. “My sisters helped a lot.”

Not everyone has a family like Bracher’s, and if the proposed cuts to SNAP make its way through, the states will be responsible to keep families from starving.

In Alabama, for instance, the number of able-bodied people on SNAP has dropped from around 5,000 to 800. Most of it is because of the regulations states are forced to place on the benefits so that they can make their budget, a trend that’s seen all over the U.S.

Californians have concerns people who need programs like SNAP won’t be able to access them under Trump’s new budget, according to Jared Call from California Food Policy Advocates.

“We try to think of people first, but this particular [budget proposal] … would really seek to shift a substantial share to the states or propose penalties to put states on the hook and that’s just not something that state budgets are prepared to absorb,” he told Newsweek.

“California would go down $1.8 billion to just keep even. So you’re faced with cutting other important services or education or other programs or cutting benefit amounts or cutting eligibility,” Call said. “We want SNAP to go to the people who need it, but this proposal does not work that way. There is no way to cut SNAP without impacting benefit levels or eligibility. Ninety-four percent of these funds go directly to benefits, there’s no fat to cut.”

One in six people in America faces hunger, more than almost any other country in the developed world. If this budget goes through, and important programs like SNAP are axed, that number will be on the rise.

Story was updated to clarify the number of SNAP participants between 2015 and 2016 and the number of able-bodied people on SNAP in Alabama.

The U.S. Could Learn From Australia’s Gun Control

Fusion is with Splinter

Two decades ago, Australia took action on gun control after a mass shooting.

Now, gun violence has drastically declined in the wake of some of the strictest gun laws in the world:

The U.S. Could Learn From Australia's Gun Control

Two decades ago, Australia took action on gun control after a mass shooting.Now, gun violence has drastically declined in the wake of some of the strictest gun laws in the world:

Posted by Fusion on Friday, October 6, 2017

Game-Changing Lamp Powered by Gravity Could Provide Light to Billions

EcoWatch via ZINC

Gravitylight is changing lives in Africa

Game-Changing Lamp Powered by Gravity Could Provide Light to Billions

by Elaine Chow

Solar-powered electricity systems have often been touted as a solution for those living without reliable access to electricity, but another Earthly force is also readily available (and doesn’t surrender to inclement weather or nightfall): Gravity.

That’s the idea behind the GravityLight—a lamp that only requires the weight of a bag of sand or rocks to provide light. And for the 1.3 billion people in the world who live in “energy poverty,” this simple yet genius idea could be a game changer.

For the majority of people without reliable access to electricity, dangerous and polluting kerosene is the primary source for light. But as designers Martin Riddiford and Jim Reeves said in their Indiegogo campaign, the GravityLight is “a low-cost [less than $10], safe and reliable alternative to the kerosene lamp, one that costs nothing to run, doesn’t need batteries and pays for itself within weeks switching from kerosene.”

It doesn’t take much to provide a lot of power. Photo Credit: GravityLight

It basically works like a hand-cranked lantern. To activate the GravityLight’s bright LED, the user attaches a weighted bag that’s at least a 12 kg (about 26 lbs) to a beaded chain. The user then lifts the bag up by pulling on the chain.

When user releases the bag, the bag’s slow descent to the floor (at about 1mm a second) helps power an internal DC generator that runs at thousands of rotations per minute. With these easy steps, the lamp can provide enough light for up to 30 minutes and can be repeated over and over as needed.

This simple pulley system allows the process to repeat indefinitely. Photo Credit: GravityLight

The project, which reached half of its $199,000 crowdsourcing goal in only 10 days and is nearing complete funding, is actually version 2.0 of the lamp. After the first version of the lamp, called GL01, was fully funded by a 2014 Indiegogo campaign, the makers tested it on more than 1,300 off-grid families around the globe. According to the designers, more than 90 percent of those who tried the lamp preferred it over a kerosene lamp.

This current version allegedly hammered out GL01’s kinks and is also brighter, simpler, lasts longer and stays lit even while it’s being charged, Gizmodo Australia reported.

Makers of the lamp are hoping to “empower those without electricity” and enable people to “break free from the economic, health and environmental hazards of kerosene lamps.”

Did you know 28% of Africa’s rural pop have electricity @UNDPAfrica @WorldResources #SE4ALL http://t.co/SQPR9Rdhdv pic.twitter.com/RIu3aO4p6b
— GravityLight (@GravityLight) May 22, 2015

The goal of the crowdsourcing campaign is to set up an assembly line in Kenya as well as provide local jobs and skills.

Now that’s a bright idea.

Tom Steyer: I’m a billionaire. Please raise my taxes

Los Angeles Times Op ED

Tom Steyer: I’m a billionaire. Please raise my taxes

Tom Steyer, the author of this article, speaks at the California Democratic Convention, in Los Angeles on March 8, 2014. (Los Angeles Times)

Tom Steyer October 5, 2017

As a billionaire, I would profit substantially from the tax cuts proposed last week by President Trump and the Republican Party. But I am strongly opposed to even one more penny in cuts for rich people and corporations.

My reason is simple: Tax cuts for the rich defund the critical public programs on which American families depend.

Three decades of data prove that tax cuts for the wealthy do not “trickle down” to working people or grow the overall economy. Since the Reagan era, Republicans have prescribed cuts for rich people and corporations as a cure-all. But every time they put their theory into practice, the rich just get richer and everyone else gets left behind. When such cuts drain the government of the revenue it needs to pay for essential services like public education, Medicare and Social Security, Republicans then seize the opportunity to shrink those programs.

Consider Kansas, where Republicans recently had the chance to pursue their tax-cut fantasy with an extreme anti-tax experiment. In 2012, they slashed taxes and promised fantastic growth. Instead, their scheme blew a hole in the state budget. The resulting shortfall in revenue forced severe cuts to public education and other essential programs, hurt working families and drove businesses out of the state.

Let’s raise taxes on the rich and use the money to invest directly in the American people.

Similar experiments at the national level have left the U.S. teetering on the edge of dangerous economic inequality. Today, the top 1% of the population takes more than 20% of the income generated here in a year. That’s more than double the share that rich people took in the 1970s. Meanwhile, the earnings of America’s working families have stagnated.

This degree of inequality is a major crisis, yet Republicans are proposing to exacerbate it by stripping trillions more in government revenue. Indeed, the GOP plan would put the country on a path to permanent economic inequality — and maybe that’s the point.

Some members of the ruling class are making a concerted effort to expand the wealth gap. A gang of powerful interests, led by the Koch brothers, launched a campaign to build support for the tax overhaul before it even existed. The coalition of wealthy conservatives spent tens of millions to mislead Americans about tax cuts. They had to: As the president of the Koch-backed group Americans for Prosperity, Tim Phillips, recently said of the “average Americans” whose support would be needed: “If they think it’s just a group of wealthy corporations or powerful special interests battling it out to see who gets the best carve-outs, then it will fail.” If the coalition succeeded in obscuring the truth, in other words, its investments would pay off.

This campaign illustrates why economic inequality poses a grave threat to democracy. In our political system, money is power. The more we allow Republicans to concentrate the lion’s share of wealth in the hands of a few, the more power these wealthy few will have. And they will use this power to continue rewriting the rules of both our economy and our political system in their favor.

As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump promised to “fix the rigged system.” By “fix,” he apparently meant rigging it to permanently benefit billionaires like himself.

Unrigging the system will require us to acknowledge that the American middle class enjoyed its strongest period of growth from 1950 to 1970 — a time when the effective tax rates for the wealthy were above 40% and the U.S. took unrivaled leadership in the global economy. It will require that we think of investment not as something done solely by the private sector, but as a category that encompasses public spending.

Bullish investment in the American people has arguably been the most important factor in our national success. But out of greed and selfishness, Republicans are intent on fighting such investment at every turn. After accumulating nearly all of the economy’s gains over the last 10 years, billionaires like Trump, and me, can more than afford to pay our fair share.

Let’s raise taxes on the rich and use the money to invest directly in the American people — by improving infrastructure, promoting clean energy, strengthening public education and expanding healthcare. Let’s boost wages to stimulate economic growth and job creation. It’s the only way we will create broad prosperity, rebuild the middle class and give working families a fair shake.

At a time like this, there’s only one reasonable position to take: I’m a billionaire. Please raise my taxes.

Tom Steyer is president of the progressive advocacy organization NextGen America.

Notes from closed meeting show how Interior aims to weaken environmental laws

Washington Post

Energy and Environment

Notes from closed meeting show how Interior aims to weaken environmental laws

By Darryl Fears October 5, 2017

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke talks with rancher Heidi Redd at the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah in May. (Scott G. Winterton/Salt Lake City Deseret News via AP)

Near the end of September, officials at the Interior Department bureau that oversees hundreds of millions of acres of public land hosted a conference with state, county and local government representatives to discuss ways to loosen environmental rules.

Bureau of Land Management hosts told attendees and those joining the invitation-only meeting remotely that they wanted to streamline a powerful law that protects wildlife and public land, the National Environmental Policy Act. They asked how its rules could be smoothed out to limit delays that slow public and corporate development so that the federal government, as President Trump and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke have said, can be a better partner rather than a hindrance. The meeting covered ways to fulfill the president’s executive order to remove impediments to new infrastructure, mining and other development on federal land.

At least two groups not on the invitation list obtained the call-in information for the meeting and secretly sat in and took notes, which one group provided to The Washington Post.

Surrounded by miners from Rosebud Mining, President Trump signs his executive order on energy independence at the Environmental Protection Agency’s headquarters in Washington in March. (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)

During the Sept. 21 webinar, the BLM and its guests discussed ways to water down NEPA and more. They talked about working around environmental analyses that determine whether infrastructure projects harm ecosystems, about stripping conservation groups of the power to sue the BLM if it wrongly approves a project and about limiting the number of federal Freedom of Information Act requests that allow the public to scrutinize how decisions were made.

“We’re seeking a better decision-making process that’s more productive and getting decisions faster,” Leah Baker, the BLM division chief for planning and NEPA, said in an interview Tuesday. “We heard through this process that we should try and streamline regulations … and that the agency leaves a little to be desired in how effectively we coordinate” with states and local governments.

When a participant in the meeting noticed that the event was being recorded, BLM officials assured the group that it would not be distributed. A second webinar attended by native tribes took place Sept. 25, BLM officials said in an interview this week.

A few days after the webinars, Zinke called employees who disagreed with Trump’s vision for change disloyal and vowed to move policymaking positions at Interior’s Washington headquarters to offices out West, possibly to Denver. Zinke has already reassigned dozens of senior Interior employees to positions they did not want. Interior’s inspector general is probing the legality of Zinke’s rapid reassignments.

NEPA is one of the oldest and most progressive environmental laws on the books. Established in 1970, it has been called an environmental Magna Carta that dozens of governments across the globe have used to craft their own environmental policies. But corporations and some state and local government officials have long criticized it as an impediment to development and revenue.

The webinar’s participants, which included the Western Governors’ Association and the National Association of Counties, also took aim at the Equal Access to Justice Act, which allows groups to seek reimbursement of attorneys’ fees when they win cases against the government. BLM officials and their guests said the reimbursements fuel more lawsuits from people who disagree with their land management practices.

The participants complained that the BLM is being overwhelmed with Freedom of Information Act requests from groups and individuals, more than 1,000 so far this year and growing. They discussed submitting recommendations to Zinke to limit those requests in addition to altering NEPA and EAJA.

Kelly Fuller, energy campaign coordinator for the Western Watersheds Project, said some state and local governments want to align the BLM’s environmental priorities with weaker or, in some cases, nonexistent rules of municipalities.

“They want BLM planning outcomes to match local and state plans … but there are different obligations,” Fuller said. “State and local plans are about development and extraction and making more money, creating more revenue.”

Since legislation is required to make those changes, they hoped Zinke would encourage Republicans in Congress, some of whom are working to weaken environmental rules such as the Endangered Species Act and Migratory Bird Act, to include the September meeting’s recommendations as part of overall reform.

“They may say they want to streamline, but what they mean is cut the public out of the process, do less environmental review and have more secrecy so they can give oil, gas and coal companies unfettered access to our treasured public lands,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, a vice president for government affairs at the League of Conservation Voters, who called the meeting an attempt to weaken NEPA.

“Let’s be perfectly clear,” said Bethany Cotton, a spokeswoman for WildEarth Guardians, based in Santa Fe, N.M. “The Trump administration’s efforts to roll back environmental protections are meant to strip the public of the opportunity to be informed and weigh in on proposals that will negatively impact our public lands, air, water, and most imperiled animals and plants. Each of these attacks is meant to cede power to resource extractive industries and anti-conservation localities.”

Cynthia Moses-Nedd, the BLM’s liaison to local and state governments who participated on the webinar with Baker and at least two other federal officials, said the issue isn’t so black and white. She recalled that a local government official suggested introducing legislation that would change the Equal Access to Justice Act.

“EAJA … is used to fund lawsuits against the BLM,” Nedd said, and can “paralyze the BLM when it’s doing its work. There needs to be something that deals with that … so BLM can do the work and not be hampered and paralyzed.”

Nedd said BLM isn’t necessarily trying to give its allies a greater role in environmental assessments. “I think our goal is to make sure we’re coordinating better … that’s where we saw the greatest input from our state and local partners.”

A gas flare burns as a driver monitors a water tank near Sidney, Mont., in February 2015. (Daniel Acker/Bloomberg News)

Baker called the NEPA statute “a cool law” but said complying with its rules is “a heavy lift. We’re trying to figure out how we do it quicker. … There are things routine in nature that can make [the process] speed up.” She said she recalled an experience where a single misstep caused a decision that could have been completed in months to take years. Officials worried that the misstep would trigger a lawsuit that would doom an entire project.

The National Association of Counties agrees with local officials who say they’re cut out of NEPA’s processes to determine environmental harm and want to help decide how its analysis should be done. Association spokesman David Jackson said counties suffer when a NEPA analysis drags on for months and sometimes years. “NACo supports the revision of NEPA to strengthen the involvement of local government in the federal decision-making process. We also support more public involvement.”

Jackson said the association’s position is that EAJA also should be reformed to ease lawsuits. “You can’t do effective forest management, for example, because you get sued at every turn.”

Fuller, of the Western Watersheds Project, said: “We’re waiting to see the BLM’s recommendations report to Secretary Zinke to give local governments and the states greater control. … How far is he going to go?”

Energy efficiency: The hidden hand in the fight against climate change

The Hill

Energy efficiency: The hidden hand in the fight against climate change

By Ted Trabue, opinion contributor October 5, 2017

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

The danger and destruction of three high-category hurricanes within a week of each other on one side of the country, while wildfires and heatwaves racked the west coast should have woken up the United States — Climate change is real and the risks are growing.

Seeing the devastation of those affected by extreme weather amplified by climate change leaves many of us angry and helpless. It also makes the recent regressive steps taken to continue our nation’s climate-changing fossil fuel addiction all the more frustrating. At the same time, it inspires my work as a leader of an organization that is helping D.C. stay focused on energy solutions.

On October 5, we celebrate the second annual Energy Efficiency Day. Energy efficiency is not the most exciting way to reduce fossil fuel pollution, but it is the easiest. Energy not used reduces carbon emissions, while saving residents money. It also lets us redirect public resources to other causes like health care and public housing and local jobs. Less pollution, more savings — what’s not to like?

We at the DC Sustainable Energy Utility (DCSEU) are supporting Energy Efficiency Day as a collaborative effort of scores of organizations, companies and government agencies to spotlight the best ways to manage the District’s energy demand. Our message is simple: Save energy, save money, reduce emissions. Lightbulb for lightbulb.

In partnership with the District Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE), the DCSEU was born in 2011 with a mission to reduce the city’s energy use — and with it, pollution. That’s what we’ve done. Over the past six years, the DCSEU has prevented lifetime emissions of more than 3 million tons of CO₂. This is equivalent to the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 3 billion pounds of coal burned or more than 670,000 passenger vehicles driven for one year. Fewer greenhouse gasses means less warming, which reduces the risks from extreme weather events worsened by warming.

D.C. faces a particular energy struggle: About 900 people move to the city every month — with population growth surging, energy demand is soaring. But we don’t have our own power plants. Nearby states generate most of D.C.’s electricity, and fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas account for 60 percent of that mix.

At the DCSEU we focus on energy efficiency because we know that it’s helping the District become more energy self-sufficient while creating new economic opportunities for District residents. Our rebate program makes energy efficient lighting and appliances more affordable and is part of our support for a more equitable energy future.

Our Workforce Development Program is one way we are building this future, by training underemployed, unemployed and other job-seeking D.C. residents so they have the skills for the ever-growing green jobs market. Since 2011, we have helped the District, its residents, and businesses save half-a-billion dollars on their energy bills. And we are not done yet.

But how can energy efficiency help you combat climate change by reducing your own carbon footprint? The answer is easy. You can start by switching your old incandescent or CFL lightbulbs to LED’s, which use 75 percent less energy. Buying a new washing machine? Consider picking one that’s ENERGY STAR-certified, which means it will deliver the same results as a standard washer — clean clothes — but will require 45 percent less water and 25 percent less energy. And it will show on your utility bills. Thanks to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Appliance and Equipment Standards Program. By 2020, a typical family with new appliances will be able to save an average of $500 per year. The total savings are estimated to accumulate to $64 billion annually as appliances become more efficient.

While cities have become the main drivers in the transformation of the energy economy, everyone can take action. Today, I am asking you to reconsider your environment in a new light — whether home or business — and think about their energy choices. Small steps will translate into a larger transformation, lightbulb for lightbulb.

Ted Trabue is the managing director of the District of Columbia Sustainable Energy Utility.

Food and farming policies ‘need total rethink’

BBC News Science and Environment

Food and farming policies ‘need total rethink’

By Claire Marshall BBC News October 5, 2017

Image copyright SPL Image caption The world needs to be fed but in a more sustainable way, says the CiWF

Can farming and food production be made less damaging to the planet?

A big meeting in London will look at how reforms could help halt species extinction, meet climate goals, limit the spread of antibiotic resistance and improve animal welfare.

The organizers of the Extinction and Livestock Conference say diverse interests will be represented.

They include multinational food corporations, native breed farmers, neurologists and naturalists.

McDonalds, Tesco and Compass will be rubbing shoulders with those from the Sustainable Food Trust, Quorn and WWF. The 500 delegates come from more than 30 countries.

Their wide interests illustrate the complex and difficult issues arising from global livestock production.

‘Catastrophic impacts’

The two-day conference is being organized by Compassion in World Farming (CiWF).

The campaigning organization warns that “there will be catastrophic impacts for life on Earth unless there is a global move away from intensive farming”.

The world is on track to lose two-thirds of its wildlife by the end of this decade, largely because habitats have been destroyed to produce food for humans.

There has been a rise in so-called “superbugs” linked to the use of antibiotics in farmed animals. And methane emissions from livestock have made a significant contribution to climate change.

CiWF CEO Philip Lymbery said: “Livestock production, the environment, wildlife conservation and human health are all interlinked, so it’s vital that experts from each of these fields work together to come up with practical solutions to stop this before it’s too late.”

CiWF believes that there should be a total rethink of food and farming policies, enshrined in the framework of a UN Convention.

The aim would be to properly integrate objectives such as food security, climate change, animal welfare and human health – so one isn’t pursued at the expense of the other.

Mr Lymbery added: “Many people are aware that wild animals such as penguins, elephants and jaguars are threatened by extinction. However, few know that livestock production, fuelled by consumer demand for cheap meat, is one of the biggest drivers of species extinction and biodiversity loss on the planet.”

Image copyright CiWF Image caption Future farming must work with Nature, not against it, says Philip Lymbery

Award-winning writer and activist Raj Patel from the University of Texas is speaking at the conference.

He said: “The footprint of global agriculture is vast. Industrial agriculture is absolutely responsible for driving deforestation, absolutely responsible for pushing industrial monoculture, and that means it is responsible for species loss.

“We’re losing species we have never heard of, those we’ve yet to put a name to and industrial agriculture is very much at the spear-tip of that. Conferences are for forging the alliances and building the movement that will change the world.”

Also attending is Martin Palmer, secretary-general of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation.

He said: “Our current food system is not about a healthy, sustainable world of food but about excess, greed and foolishness disguised as ‘market forces’.

“It treats the natural world not as something we are part of and therefore should treasure, but as a larder we can raid and somehow hope it gets filled again.

“But the truth is, it won’t! As a result of this conference I would hope that all the key players – including the great faiths – would find a place at the table and together, each in their own distinctive way, will be able to inspire and guide us towards a better, fairer world.”

The Price of Freedom?????

Rogue Kite Productions with Michelle Antoinette Boley and Taylor Gill.

Define “good guy” with a gun…

GUNTOWN

Define "good guy" with a gun…

Posted by Rogue Kite Productions on Wednesday, June 21, 2017

U.S. interior secretary raised political funds on government trip: report

Reuters

U.S. interior secretary raised political funds on government trip: report

Reuters October 5, 2017

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke testifies before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee on “Identifying Indian Affairs priorities for the Trump Administration” at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., March 8, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke speaks during a daily press briefing at the White House in Washington, U.S.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The head of the U.S. Department of the Interior came under further scrutiny on Thursday amid a media report that he had attended a Republican fundraiser in March during a government trip to the Caribbean.

Politico, citing department travel records and other documents, said Ryan Zinke attended a Virgin Islands Republican Party fundraiser where donors paid up to $5,000 per couple for a photograph with the secretary.

The report comes as multiple investigations into the former one-term congressman’s travel while serving in the Trump administration were announced this week following various media reports on the subject.

On Monday, the Interior Department’s watchdog agency said it was probing Zinke’s travels after recent reports that he had used a private plane owned by an oil executive.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel said it was investigating whether he broke the law in June when he gave a speech to a professional hockey team owned by a political donor.

Other Cabinet members have also been scrutinized over their use of taxpayer money for more expensive private travel rather than less expensive commercial trips.

Former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price resigned on Friday following an uproar over his use of costly private charter planes.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt have also come under question over their private plane use.

Questions have also been raised about the cost of security for U.S. Education Secretary Betsy Devos.

Democratic House lawmakers earlier this week called on Zinke to disclose the full details of all of his privately chartered airplane trips.

In a letter to the secretary, lawmakers pointed to one reported $12,000 private flight from Nevada to Montana, a route they said commercial airlines charge as little as $300 for.

“Abuse of taxpayer money has so far been a problem for the Trump administration,” the group of 26 lawmakers wrote on Tuesday.

Representatives for Zinke did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Politico report Thursday.

Separately, the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has said he is seeking information on any private, non-commercial or military flights taken by White House counselor Kellyanne Conway.

U.S. Representative Elijah Cummings, in a statement released on Wednesday, also said he was seeking evidence that Price had repaid U.S. taxpayers for his private flights.

Representatives for the White House said on Thursday that U.S. agencies were responsible for arranging their own transportation, and that Cabinet members “occasionally invite relevant White House staff for official travel” that is then “planned and secured by the inviting agency.”

(Writing by Susan Heavey; Editing by Bernadette Baum)

This Amazing Danish Walkway is the Future of Hiking

EcoWatch

Trekking through trees. Read more about Denmark: http://bit.ly/2fR4Sto

Posted by EcoWatch on Wednesday, October 4, 2017