What Happens When Bad Money Supports Good Foreign Policy?

The Koch Brothers’ Moonshine

Truthout/Flickr

In November, the Charles Koch Foundation announced that it would provide nearly $ 4 million in grants to Harvard University and MIT to train the next generation of foreign policy professionals. It’s part of the foundation’s effort to steer U.S. foreign policy away from its emphasis on military intervention and big Pentagon budgets.

Yes, that’s right: Charles Koch.

He’s the same fellow profiled in Jane Mayer’s devastating critique of how right-wing billionaires have injected their anti-government toxins into the American bloodstream. In Dark Money, Mayer describes how Charles and his brother David have funded organizations that have promoted tax cuts for the wealthy, an anti-regulatory agenda that trashes the environment in favor of energy companies (like Koch Industries), and Tea Party formations that want to shrink government to the point of non-existence.

The Kochs subscribe to a radical, right-wing version of libertarianism according to which nothing should stand in the way of free enterprise. No surprise that the Kochs’ philosophy helps their own bottom line. They spent nearly a million dollars in support of George W. Bush and other Republicans in 2000, and then benefited hugely from the Bush administration’s preferential treatment of energy companies (not to mention the tens of millions of dollars in government contracts they secured since 2000). Even during the Obama years, their efforts at the federal and state level to “get government off their backs” helped to double their fortune, from $ 19 billion each in 2008 to $ 41 billion each in 2016.

The Kochs are disgusting in many ways. But they can’t be faulted for being inconsistent in their hatred of government, all government. Most right-wing “deficit hawks” employ a national-security exception when they try to defund all parts of the government except the Pentagon. But the Kochs at least treat defense spending like all other government spending. In this case, it even goes against their pecuniary interests. The Kochs made around $ 170 million between 1996 and 2011 from defense contracts. In the grand scheme of things, of course, $ 10 million a year is a rounding error for billionaires.

Their anti-war and anti-intervention philosophy has meant that the Cato Institute, the libertarian think tank started and funded by the Kochs, has taken consistently good positions on foreign policy over the years. But the Cato Institute, even with its huge budget and swank downtown headquarters, has always been a little off to the side in the Washington policy community. The Kochs crave mainstream credibility.

So that’s why the Charles Koch Foundation is providing money to Harvard and MIT — the very definition of mainstream credibility — to encourage anti-interventionist thinking in academia. The two people who will administer the program are thoughtful critics of U.S. militarism: Harvard’s Steven Walt and MIT’s Barry Posen. Walt and John Mearsheimer wrote a perceptive essay in Foreign Affairs in 2016 laying out the argument for “offshore balancing,” a grand strategy of scaling back U.S. military commitments overseas that Posen also supports.

I have a lot of respect for Walt and Posen. I have also worked with folks at Cato on various foreign policy initiatives.

But in the current political climate, when the Trump administration is launching an all-out assault on federal programs and a Koch-supported tax bill is making its way through Congress, should progressives welcome the few crumbs that the Kochs are throwing in the direction of anti-war initiatives?

The Kochs and Trump

As a candidate for president, Donald Trump made some noises about opposing military interventions and reducing the Pentagon’s footprint overseas. Thanks largely to his senior advisor Steve Bannon, Trump also came to embrace the radical anti-government positions that right-wing libertarians favor.

But Charles and David Koch actively disliked Trump (a third brother, Bill, supported the Republican nominee). As the 2016 campaign heated up, rumors circulated of a Koch-funded anti-Trump campaign and of Charles Koch even supporting Hillary Clinton. Those turned out to be false. The Kochs didn’t activate their network to support Trump, but they also didn’t rule out cooperation.

Indeed, a number of Koch-friendly politicians and operatives were embedded in the campaign, from Mike Pence (Trump’s running mate) to Corey Lewandowski (Trump’s campaign manager, fired in June 2016). Marc Short, Pence’s communications advisor and then Trump’s legislative director, once headed up Freedom Partners, a Koch-funded organization. “The vacuum in Trump not having his own network is filled by people who’ve been cultivated for years by the Koch network,” Richard L. Hasen, a UC Irvine law professor told the Los Angeles Times.

It wasn’t long after the administration took office that the Koch brothers began to investigatehow the Trump team could advance their agenda. They welcomed Trump’s pullout from the Paris climate accord, the various environmental regulations that the administration rolled back, and the congressional effort to kill the Affordable Care Act.

By May, the brothers identified Trump’s tax plan as something they could get behind — in a big way. As the fight intensified in Congress, the Koch network was going all out. Tim Phillips, president of the Koch-affiliated Americans for Prosperity, told the Boston Globe: “It’s the most significant federal effort we’ve ever taken on.” The Koch network has pooled $ 400 million for the next two years of political work, and it’s applying a good chunk of that to getting the tax bill passed. It’s been a full-court press with op-eds and $ 8 million in attack ads.

So, let’s dispense with the notion that the Kochs can be relied on to fund a big-tent effort against Trump. They don’t like his positions on immigration, marijuana, or criminal justice reform. But they’re eager to exploit Trump as a “useful idiot” in their campaign to pillage the commonwealth.

Against the Globalists

It’s easy for me to take a principled stand against taking money from the Kochs. They haven’t offered me any. But here are some reasons why others might think twice about taking their anti-war resources.

The ideological reason: A progressive anti-war position is part of a larger internationalist program that supports global peacekeeping and post-conflict reconstruction, robust environmental programs, transnational anti-poverty efforts, and human rights mechanisms that hold countries and individuals accountable. The Kochs aren’t interested in any of that.

All of the prescriptive elements of the progressive internationalist agenda require strong states. The Kochs believe that the invisible hand of the free market will solve all problems, without any state guidance or interference. In the same way that Margaret Thatcher didn’t believe in society, only individuals, the Kochs don’t really believe in the international community. The only transnational force that has any import for them are transnational corporations. Their anti-war funding thus comes with some serious (if often hidden) ideological strings attached.

The monetary reason: So far, the Charles Koch Foundation has shelled out less than $ 15 million to support programs at educational institutions to look at a less militaristic foreign policy. That’s a pittance compared to what it’s spending on efforts to unravel Obamacare or get Trump’s tax plan passed. It’s also about what the Kochs make every year off the U.S. military. Perhaps if Koch Enterprises announced that it was divesting from all military-related activities, their charitable giving would have more impact.

The educational reason: As Jane Mayer points out in Dark Money, the Kochs have funded programs at universities to shift academic discourse away from liberal and progressive thinking. Their funding of programs on “law and economics,” for instance, has helped to shift the legal profession toward more laissez-faire thinking. And it’s not as if the Kochs have been particularly transparent about their methods. Jane Mayer quotes a Koch advisor, George Pearson: “Traditional gifts to universities, he warned, didn’t guarantee enough ideological control. Instead, he advocated funding private institutes within prestigious universities, where influence over hiring decisions and other forms of control could be exerted by donors while hiding the radicalism of their aims.”

The legitimacy reason: The Kochs have been trying to give the appearance of being transpartisan. They have collaborated with progressives on sentencing reform, though as Mayer points out they’re probably more interested in getting reduced sentences for corporations than for the poor. They work with the Negro College Fund, but the money goes toward demonstratinghow “principled entrepreneurship, economics, and innovation contribute to well-being for individuals, communities, and society.”

The term “well-being,” as Mayer details, was something the Kochs came up with to put a smiley-face on funding that otherwise destroys communities, social welfare programs, and the environment. Even if their new foreign policy funding doesn’t come with such strings, it still helps with the image makeover of the Kochs.

So, even though Walt and Posen, not Charles Koch, will be administering the funds at Harvard and MIT, the program could well be the thin edge of the wedge. If the Kochs decide to pour money into foreign policy, they could successfully untether the anti-war position from its internationalist foundations.

If such arguments prove successful, the United States will scale back its military presence, but the world won’t become any safer as a result. Overall global military spending might increaseto compensate for U.S. retrenchment. U.S. allies — South Korea, Japan — might decide to acquire their own nuclear weapons programs if the U.S. nuclear umbrella becomes frayed. Absent a strong international security framework, other countries will inevitably fight each other for the mantle of U.S. hegemonic authority.

The Kochs don’t care. They welcome global anarchy because they think they’ll be able to profit by it. Perhaps Walt and Posen believe that they are successfully using Charles Koch toward their own end of constructing a more realist U.S. foreign policy. But the Kochs, with billions of dollars at their disposal, are more likely to be the ones manipulating, not being manipulated.

The post What Happens When Bad Money Supports Good Foreign Policy? appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/MuOGdDnXPdI/

Can Trump Actually Cut (Good) Deals on Diplomacy?

chess-game-risk

(Photo: Nyord / Shutterstock)

American beef is now available in China — as a result of a deal that Donald Trump made with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. In exchange, Chinese chicken is now available in the United States.

Seems like a fair deal — hats off to Trump.

Oh, except that there are a few important caveats to the quid pro quo. The chicken can only be cooked. It won’t be labeled as coming from China. And consumers won’t even know the name of the brand that will market the birds. So, if you’re worried about eating chicken produced in a country with notoriously lax food safety regulations and inspections, stay away from that box of drumsticks in the freezer aisle.

But here’s perhaps the most idiotic part of the deal. The chickens that China cooks have to be sourced from the United States, Canada, or Chile. Chickens can’t fly long distances. But these particular chickens are jetsetters, flying as much as 12,000 miles one way from Chile to China and then another 7,000 miles from China to the United States.

Sorry, Donald: As deals go, this one’s definitely a zonk, as Monte Hall would have put it.

Donald Trump based his campaign in part on his ability to make better deals. He lambasted trade pacts like NAFTA and promised to do better. He criticized the Iran nuclear agreement and promised to do better. He challenged the terms of alliance arrangements with Japan and South Korea and promised to do better.

So far, however, the Trump administration has either left previous deals in place (NAFTA, Iran, alliances) or simply pulled out unilaterally (Trans Pacific Partnership, Paris climate deal).

Now, nearly a half-year into his term, Trump needs to demonstrate his dealmaker cred. He’s just returned from the G20 meeting in Hamburg where he’s touted his agreement on Syria with Vladimir Putin. It’s not yet clear whether this ceasefire will stop the fighting in Syria or whether it will turn out to be another crazy chicken deal with its ridiculous stipulations.

Meanwhile, the United States desperately needs to sit down and talk with North Korea to avert war in Northeast Asia. It has to help patch up relations between Qatar and its Persian Gulf neighbors. And it has to find some way to repair ties with Europe in the wake of Trump’s resolute efforts to alienate German and French leadership.

This is the bare minimum of negotiating that the administration needs to do. More ambitious and urgent deals, such as another climate pact or a way for America to rejoin the existing one, are obviously beyond Trump’s interest or understanding. At the same time, Trump’s ability to make any deals in the present is complicated by the deals he or his associates might have made in the past, particularly with the Russians.

But for the sake of world peace, let’s assume that Trump can do something positive. It’s been all too easy to see what Trump minus looks like. What about Trump plus?

Dealing with North Korea

On July 4, North Korea crossed a red line that Trump drew in the stratosphere. At the beginning of 2017, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un promised to launch a successful ICBM within the year. Trump tweeted in return, “It won’t happen.”

Now that North Korea has successfully tested something that approximates an ICBM — in reality, it would be difficult at this point to imagine the Hwasong-14 accurately reaching a target in Alaska — Trump must decide how to proceed.

The Trump administration could continue to ignore North Korea — the very strategy it has criticized the Obama administration for adopting. It could go to war, which would be a catastrophe as anyone with even a passing knowledge of the Korean peninsula could tell you.

Or Trump could go with door number three.

North Korea likes to make deals, and it bargains hard. It tries to extract the most money or the most ironclad guarantees from both allies and adversaries. It also sometimes breaks agreements. That, alas, is all too common in geopolitics.

In 1994, the United States managed to retard North Korea’s nuclear program by supplying heavy fuel oil and promising to build two light-water reactors through the Agreed Framework. North Korea secretly pursued a different (uranium enrichment) path to the bomb, while the United States and its partners never built those nuclear reactors. Deal off.

Between 1992 and 1994, Israel attempted to pay North Korea about a billion dollars to stop it from exporting missiles to the Middle East. North Korea even agreed to allow Israeli inspectors on North Korean soil to verify the agreement. The United States, however, blocked the effort. Deal off.

In 2007, because of a deal reached at the Six Party Talks, North Korea began to dismantle its nuclear program in exchange for an easing of sanctions and the removal of the country from the U.S. terrorism list. But a year later, disagreements sharpened over inspections, North Korea grew more recalcitrant, and the incoming Obama administration failed to engage immediately to sustain momentum. Deal off.

What kind of deal would North Korea consider at this point? Of course I’d like to see North Korea mothball its nuclear program. But because of its fear of regime-change efforts, North Korea probably won’t agree to give up its deterrent capability. The United States could still attempt to freeze North Korea’s program as is and explore a moratorium on long-range missile tests (which Pyongyang maintained from 1999 to 2006). The real question is how much sweetener Washington will have to add to its offer, and what that sweetener will look like.

Trump has proven that he gets along great with dictators. For once, he should put this talent to good use.

A Deal with Doha

Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson was a terrible choice for secretary of state for many reasons — his lack of diplomatic experience, his conflicts of interest in the energy sector. But if there’s one place in the world where he should be able to exploit his modest capabilities, it’s the Persian Gulf. In the wake of the falling out between the tiny sheikhdom of Qatar and its neighbors Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Tillerson is on his way to the region to see if he can help sort things out.

It’s not going to be easy. Not only does he have to deal with Riyadh, which has presented Doha with a long list of frankly unreasonable demands such as the closure of Al Jazeera, but he also had to do battle with his own administration. President Trump has indicated his own supportfor Saudi Arabia in this conflict even as his underlings in State and the Pentagon are desperately trying to patch things up. Qatar, after all, hosts Al Udeid airbase (and 11,000 U.S. and U.S.-led coalition forces) and plays a key role in the fight against the Islamic State.

So, first task: Get the president to stop tweeting on the issue. It’s not that difficult. Qatar’s banishment was a full month ago, Trump is easily distracted, and he’s now busy defending his son from charges of colluding with the Russians.

Second task: lower expectations. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert announcedlast week that “we believe that this could potentially drag on for weeks; it could drag on for months; it could possibly even intensify.”

Third task: connect with the most promising mediator. Kuwait is the go-to country in this regard. It has remained neutral in the Gulf showdown. It has also tried to mediate other conflicts in the region, such as the war in Yemen. It’s the first stop on Tillerson’s itinerary.

Fourth task: apply leverage. The United States can threaten to reduce Saudi arms sales — which would be an excellent idea anyway — and it can threaten to move its base away from Qatar. Indeed, Washington holds a lot of trump cards in this game.

But first, Tillerson has to maneuver Trump out of the game. To clean up the Gulf mess, I’d choose a former oil exec over a former reality TV star any day.

Reset with Europe (and Russia?)

A picture in The Washington Post shows Donald Trump sitting alone at a table during the G20 summit as other participants socialize behind him. Here is America, in the “solitude of its power,” having “ceased to draw other nations to itself,” as Jean-Marie Colombani wrote immediately after 9/11in his famous Le Monde article “We Are All Americans.”

Of course, Trump supporters will see a very different photo. Snooty Europeans! And there is our defiant president, sticking to his guns and continuing to declare at every turn that America is first.

Indeed, Jeffrey Lord in a CNN commentary, gives Trump 11 out of 10 for his performance at the G20 (because of the apparently inadvertent reference to the movie This Is Spinal Tap, I initially took Lord’s piece to be a satire). “Count on the president’s supporters seeing this as a great win — a win in which Trump stayed true to his campaign promises to put American interests above all else,” Lord writes.

Trump has made no real effort to bridge the distance between himself and European leaders. Indeed, his only other stop in Europe was Poland, where he could commune with a similarly far-right government that hates immigrants, the media, and an open society. The Polish government obliged by bussing in loyalists who could be counted on to cheer a world leader in which only 23 percent of Poles have any confidence.

From adulation, Trump then traveled to consternation. Even otherwise conservative politicians like the UK’s Teresa May have been appalled at Trump’s maladroit moves at the global level. The assembled leaders of the G20 probably would have preferred if Ivanka had substituted for her father throughout the entire proceedings instead of just that one short seat-warming occasion.

In a direct rebuke to Trump’s dangerous and delusional approach to environmental issues, the European Union and the rest of the “G19” issued a final communiqué reaffirming their commitment to the Paris agreement on climate change. It will probably be the last G20 meeting Trump has to worry about — the next summits will be in Argentina, Japan, and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps that’s what he was thinking when he was sitting by himself at the table. Or perhaps he was daydreaming about firing all the other G20 leaders.

The focus of media coverage, meanwhile, was the sideline meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Controversy continues to swirl over what the two might have said, or promised, concerning the charges of Russian interference in the U.S. election. But let’s take a closer look at the deal-making.

Putin and Trump capped several months of behind-the-scenes negotiations when they announced a ceasefire in Syria as the UN starts up its seventh round of indirect peace talks. Sure, there are plenty of reasons why this ceasefire is flawed. Every previous attempt at stopping the bloodshed has failed. This one covers only one part of the country. Iran did not participate in the deal. Russian police are slated to monitor the ceasefire, but Israel has already said that it doesn’t want Russians across its borders in Syria. It’s a win for Syria’s murderous leader, Bashar al-Assad.

But peace has to start somewhere. So, let’s provide some muted applause for the deal. Maybe it will represent a turning point for Syria. Maybe it will represent a turning point for Trump’s foreign policy, and Tillerson can use the political capital in both Doha and Pyongyang.

But beware of the fine print on any deal with Trump’s insignia on it. For a businessman who routinely swindled his contractors and filed bankruptcy to escape from his monumental mistakes, the “art of the deal” is all about looking out for number one.

And let’s be clear, number one is not America. It’s Trump himself.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/eDd_W9YCcLM/

The Bad News about Good Census Numbers

economic-justice-protest

(Photo: Unarmed Civilian / flickr)

Poverty is down, median income is up and health coverage expanded last year. These gains are felt across all racial, ethnic, gender and age groups in the U.S. The gender pay gap, income inequality, unemployment rates – all decreasing. Both the poor and those with middle incomes saw economic gains in 2015, according to new U.S. Census data. And the economy even added more than 2.6 million jobs last year.

Sounds like cause for celebration, doesn’t it? But don’t break out the bubbly just yet. Although these figures are heartening, especially after so many years of increasing hardship in the wake of the 2008 financial collapse, the news appears much better than it really is.

Forty-three million people still live in poverty in the U.S., including 14.5 million children.According to an analysis of the U.S. Census data, black women still take home just 63 cents compared to a white man’s dollar, and Latinas make a measly 54 cents per dollar.

In 2015, according to a new study by the Economic Policy Institute, the gap in hourly wage pay between white and black workers widened to nearly 27 percent, the widest racial pay gap in 40 years. Further, the racial wealth gap is the highest it’s been in 30 years. Meanwhile, the richest Americans’ wealth has grown by an average of 736 percent. That’s 10 times the rate of wealth growth for the Latinos, and nearly 30 times the rate of growth for the black population, says a report by the Institute for Policy Studies. IPS’ analysis further finds that by the year 2043, that huge chasm in wealth between white people and black and Latino people will double if we don’t do something to change it. And to squeeze the last bit of helium out of that quickly deflating balloon celebrating new census data – median income for all but the richest 5 percent of Americans is still below pre-recession rates.

 …

The post The Bad News about Good Census Numbers appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.

Karen Dolan is the director of the Criminalization of Poverty project at the Institute for Policy Studies.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/DpsZUzGcEz0/

Half of Prince’s $300 Million Estate Could Be Taxed. That’s a Good Thing.

(Flickr / SynergyByDesign)

(Flickr / SynergyByDesign)

The massive global outpouring of emotion in the wake of the sudden death of pop sensation Prince has mostly subsided. What’s left is likely a prolonged dispute over his sizable estate, valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars—a dilemma made ever more complicated by his lack of a will.

Rooted in this dispute is an open question: How much of what Prince earned should go to the U.S. Treasury?

By any measure, Prince was an exceptionally productive musician. He racked up seven Grammy awards and released 39 studio albums, not to mention the reported 100 albums he recorded but never released. For this work, he was paid handsomely, generating a fortune worth over $ 300 million at his death.

Beyond his own talent, hard work, and a bit of luck, though, what else contributed to this fortune?

If you’re a taxpayer, you did.

Read the full article on American Prospect’s website.

The post Half of Prince’s $ 300 Million Estate Could Be Taxed. That’s a Good Thing. appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.

Josh Hoxie directs the Project on Opportunity and Taxation at the Institute for Policy Studies.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/ZzXNBzHLFvQ/

Fitzgerald: Marty, a good name is hard to come by – Boston Herald


Boston Herald
Fitzgerald: Marty, a good name is hard to come by
Boston Herald
It's one thing to toy with whimsical insanities, such as keeping the bars open until 3 a.m., or inviting IndyCar Grand Prix daredevils to race through our streets at breakneck speeds, or tossing out a welcome mat for the 2024 Summer Olympics, luring

|||||||http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&ct2=us&usg=AFQjCNFL4IwmbRo_82wJ3J2F0AHXbsW6NA&clid=c3a7d30bb8a4878e06b80cf16b898331&ei=NqRAV5mGJa2lwQGylZrwAQ&url=http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/joe_fitzgerald/2016/05/fitzgerald_marty_a_good_name_is_hard_to_come_by

Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Good for Latin America? – Brown Political Review


Brown Political Review
Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Good for Latin America?
Brown Political Review
But a similar program was not negotiated with Mexico, even though only one percent of Mexican workers are members of independent unions and labor abuses are rampant in the country. Moreover, the consistency plans are unlikely to … Although it

|||||||http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&ct2=ca&usg=AFQjCNEqPY-fmmwvCXy7HcXmUavr7pKxQQ&clid=c3a7d30bb8a4878e06b80cf16b898331&ei=SpYSV5DHLMShhAGxnpiYDg&url=http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2016/04/trans-pacific-partnership-good-latin-america/

The Budget Deal: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Photo from Shutterstock.com/trekandshoot

Photo from Shutterstock.com/trekandshoot

As Congressional dysfunction seemed to be barreling us toward a government shutdown, comes the news of an 11th-hour deal, announced Monday at midnight.

Let’s start with the good news. Our government, it appears, won’t be shutting its doors. The United States will pay its bills rather than endangering its own economy, and the rest of the world’s, by defaulting on them. Let’s pause and take a breath and/or tear out a few hairs as we reflect that this is what passes for “good news” these days.

We are three years into a budget deal, the Budget Control Act, that was supposed to restrain the budget deficit by making equal cuts to the military and non-military parts of federal spending over a ten year period. In two of those three years, Congress basically said, “Yes, we really mean to do this, but not right now.” House and Senate Budget Committee chairs Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Patty Murray (D-WA) negotiated a bipartisan deal that returned some of the money that was originally cut. Now, the deal before them would do the same thing for the next two years. They are the dieters who promised themselves they would start that diet next year, now deciding, “Nah, it can wait until 2018.”

Some good things will come out of this.

Programs for child health and nutrition, education, environmental protection and myriad others that were due to be drastically cut will likely get a reprieve. As will the diplomatic and international assistance functions , including aid to Syrian refugees, that constitute our alternative to a foreign policy of war.

But so will that foreign policy of war. As George Orwell might put it, in this universe of equality for the military and non-military sides of our budget, one side is more equal than the other. According to this budget deal, the original limit on next year’s military spending of $ 523 billion will now increase to $ 548.1 billion, while the rest of our government’s funding (the “discretionary” part that Congress votes on every year) will rise from $ 493.5 to $ 518.5 billion.

And the military budget gets even more equality than that. In recent years Congress has been funding its wars through a separate account called the “Overseas Contingency Fund”, over and above the “regular” military budget. The beauty of this fund, from the defense hawks’ point of view, is that it’s not subject to the restraints of the 10-year Budget Control Act. And while this account is supposed to fund current military operations, it has in practice become a slush fund for military projects that have nothing to do with the wars we are currently fighting. The new deal currently on the table gives that fund more money, too.

And oh yes, it’s not at all clear that this new deal will become law. Numerous members of Congress are venting their unhappiness with it, including many of those for whom shutting down the government would be a statement of principle. Telling our government to stop functioning – also still on the table, at least for a few more days.

Government shutdown or an ugly deal? That’s the choice this Congress is giving us. We have a long way to go in the fight for a budget that puts peace, people, and the planet first.

The post The Budget Deal: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/unfwrxDIFRI/

The best defense is a good bee-fence – Mongabay.com

The best defense is a good bee-fence
Mongabay.com
Elephants Alive Program Manager Michelle Henley was inspired by Lucy's work and asked Robin Cook, a student at the University of the Witwatersrand, if he would be interested in exploring whether hives could protect trees more effectively than wire nets

|||||||http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&ct2=us&usg=AFQjCNFUeA6WALPYIgPSQyaXflaK6zAPhw&clid=c3a7d30bb8a4878e06b80cf16b898331&ei=y5YZVrj5CcOYhAHd-IUg&url=http://wildtech.mongabay.com/2015/09/pushing-the-boundaries/

The best defense is a good bee-fence – Mongabay.com

The best defense is a good bee-fence
Mongabay.com
Elephants Alive's Program Manager, Michelle Henley was inspired by Lucy's work and asked Robin Cook, a student at the University of the Witwatersrand, whether he would be interested in exploring whether hives could protect trees more effectively than

|||||||http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&ct2=us&usg=AFQjCNFUeA6WALPYIgPSQyaXflaK6zAPhw&clid=c3a7d30bb8a4878e06b80cf16b898331&ei=r14QVqCGMofAwAHho6LIDA&url=http://wildtech.mongabay.com/2015/09/pushing-the-boundaries/

Cultivating nutrition: Fortified crops and good nutrition in the first 1000 days – Devex


Devex
Cultivating nutrition: Fortified crops and good nutrition in the first 1000 days
Devex
These are biofortified, betacarotene-enriched orange sweet potatoes, developed by Ugandan scientists, and being disseminated by an organization called HarvestPlus to combat Vitamin A deficiency. Vitamin A deficiency affects … Malnutrition during the

and more »

|||||||http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&ct2=us&usg=AFQjCNEHoN5JtnQsigWp72rxrFsx7oQI7A&clid=c3a7d30bb8a4878e06b80cf16b898331&cid=52778956456507&ei=FiYHVqCqJsT6wQGyuL3gBw&url=https://www.devex.com/news/cultivating-nutrition-fortified-crops-and-good-nutrition-in-the-first-1-000-days-86927