At The Wall Street Journal, Erik Holm writes, Japanese Government Responsible for Nuclear Cleanup Costs, Brokers Say:
The liability costs associated with cleaning up after the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant will ultimately be borne by the Japanese government instead of the private insurance market, according to experts from the insurance industry. ...
The utility company operating the Fukushima site is required under Japanese law to carry about ¥120 billion, or $1.5 billion, of liability protection to cover costs associated with a radioactive leak, said Dan McGarvey, a nuclear engineer who chairs the U.S. power and utility practice at insurance broker Marsh Inc.
Japanese law says the plant operator, in this case Tokyo Electric Power Co., is responsible for any radiation leaks, several insurance experts said. The reactor manufacturer, General Electric Co. and any contractors doing work at the site aren't liable, they said. GE wouldn't comment on liability issues. ...
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano, the government's top spokesman, said at a news conference Saturday that very little radiation has so far leaked from the troubled reactor. So actual liability costs could be significantly less than the limit.
But were costs to go higher than ¥120 billion, Japan's legislature, the Diet, would have to approve additional compensation for victims of the radioactive leak, Mr. McGarvey said.
? ? ? ? ?
At Daily Kos on this date in 2010:
The behavior of Bart Stupak over the last several months, but particularly the last few weeks, in the hcr debate has been deplorable. He refuses to acknowledge the reality that his crusade is built on a lie--the lie that there is federal funding for abortion coverage in the Senate bill. Now that he's not the center of leadership attention anymore, he's escalating his lies and his crusade.
Cross posted from The Stars Hollow GazetteAfter an earthquake that has now been upgraded by Japanese officials to a magnitude 9.0, with a tsunami that has devastated the northeastern region of the main island of Japan, it is now becoming evident that[...]
Read The Full Article:
Can this person, Larry Kudlow, keep his pundit employment and program on CNBC after this? After all, he did say the human toll is a tragedy, to amend this, "I mean, the human -- the human toll here looks to be much worse than the economic toll, and we[...]
Read The Full Article:
More details emerge on the series of events that led to the nuclear power crisis in Japan, including this grim news:Pentagon officials reported Sunday that helicopters flying 60 miles from the plant picked up small amounts of radioactive particulates --[...]
Read The Full Article:
Writer-director Kevin Smith, whose new movie "Red State" is, shall we say, "inspired" by Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps, will be donating a portion of the proceeds of the film's DC screening to the family that sued Phelps and lost (the family now has to pay Phelps' court costs). I should be going to screening this week, so I'll let you know how it goes. Oh, he's also going to have boxes throughout the theater where patrons can donate to the court fund as well. Here's more info on where the movie will be playing, around the country.
Title: Our Friend Owsley Stanley IIIArtist: Masters Apprentices
Psychedelic icon, LSD maker, former Grateful Dead manager Owlsley Stanley died in a car crash in Australia today. Bummer.
Be careful turning up the volume on this to hear the awesome barnburner of a brief speech by Wisconsin farmer Tony Schultz, or else you're going to hear some really loud whooping it up by assembled crowd, which is definitely a good thing (here...the rally turned out to be bigger than any manufactured "teahadist" throng)...
...and Tom Morello of Rage Against The Machine has helped out in Wisconsin also, so here's a little number from him (a bit oxymoronic that this was produced by the Murdoch Street Journal, I'll admit).
Read The Full Article:
Cross posted from The Stars Hollow GazetteBarack now not only owns two wars, a failing economic policy but torture policy as well. After saying that the treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning was "ridiculous, counterproductive and stupid", State Department[...]
Read The Full Article:
The NLRB is the National Labor Relations Board. As in, Labor.
To the extent you think that Obama's a Democrat, you would call that his base. And if you're a fan of political non-interference in "independent agencies," in the story below the non-political move for the White House would be not to intervene.
Instead, something else happened. Ryan Grim at the Huffington Post has the sorry tale (my emphasis):
When House Republicans targeted the budget of the National Labor Relations Board last month, the agency shot back, warning that such cuts would force it to largely cease operations for an extended period of time, creating a backlog of thousands of cases.The rest of Grim's reporting contains the weaselly WH explanation. Read it if you like.
It was one of the few counterattacks from the Obama administration, which was otherwise busy proposing its own cuts and endorsing the Republican call for slashing spending -- and it didn't last long. The White House demanded that the NLRB scrub the statement defending the agency from its website, an NLRB spokesperson told The Huffington Post. ... The Office of Management and Budget, an arm of the White House, reached out to the NLRB and told the agency to back off and take down the statement, according to the NLRB spokesperson.
Click here to view this media
With Democrats like these, who needs Republicans? Maybe someone can ask Warner if he bothered to read the letter Dean Baker sent him last month because it sure as hell doesn't look like it after his appearance on Fox News Sunday this week.
Here's Baker's letter from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (emphasis mine):
February 17, 2011
The Honorable Mark Warner
459A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Warner:
During an interview on NPR's Morning Edition today you stated that the retirement age for Social Security was set at 65 by President Roosevelt when the average life expectancy was 64 and that now we are living much longer. The implication of this comment was that the retirement age must be raised to better reflect life expectancy.
As can be seen from the Social Security Trustees? Report, the normal retirement age for Social Security has already been raised to 66 and is already scheduled to rise to 67. Raising the retirement age further would amount to a cut in benefits with each successive increase in the retirement age. If the normal age of retirement is phased in to reach 70 by 2036, it would result in a 4.0 percent reduction in benefits for workers between the ages of 50-54 in 2007 and a 10 percent reduction for workers between the ages of 40-44 in 2007.
Another point worth considering is that if the normal retirement age rose further, many workers would find it increasingly difficult to work until they are eligible for Social Security benefits. Forty five percent of workers over the age of 58 work in jobs that are physically demanding or have difficult work conditions. It is hard to imagine construction workers, firefighters, or nurses working well into their late 60?s. Many would end up taking early retirement with a considerable reduction in benefits compared to currently scheduled levels.
The Trustees? Report projects that Social Security will remain fully solvent through 2037 and will be able to pay almost 80 percent of benefits for many decades past this date. It is also worth noting that the necessary increases in funding to maintain full solvency are relatively small compared to items like the rise in defense spending over the last decade, so there certainly are not major economic obstacles to maintaining full funding.
I hope that you will have the time to review the program?s finances more carefully so that when you speak on it in the future you are better informed. I would be happy to assist you in providing additional background if it would be helpful.
Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Transcript below the fold.
WALLACE: All right. Well, let me bring in Senator Warner.
For you, as a Democrat -- having a skin in the game means that you have to take the politically unpalatable choice of cutting entitlements. As a Democrat, are you willing to scale back on benefits for Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid?
WARNER: Well, you see? We have to do this because otherwise, if we focus the discussion as we have so far on the back and forth in Congress, all you're cutting is 12 percent of the federal budget, the domestic discretionary spending. And you are seeing actually good programs perhaps being eliminated because you focus the discussion only in that area.
You got to put everything out. That means Saxby and I are probably going to take some arrows -- he on the Republican side and he, because we're taking, willing to take on reforming some of these entitlement issues. But every day that we punt, every day that we don't act, we add $4 billion to our national debt. At some point, we're going to have to pay that back.
So, why not now go ahead and put a plan in place -- we didn't get in the situation overnight. We're not going to dig out in a single year. But if we put a plan in place, I think the markets will respond and I actually think the economy will be better. But that's going to require a little give from both sides.
WALLACE: But the Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, said this recently: "Social Security has contributed not a single penny to the deficit. So, we can talk about entitlements as long as you eliminate social security from the discussion."
First of all, isn't that wrong? Social Security is already paying out more than it takes in and that's just going to get worse as the baby boomers retire. Isn't that as a fact wrong that it doesn't contribute the deficit? And secondly, can Social Security really be off the table?
WARNER: Well, Chris, until recently, Social Security has actually been running major surpluses. In effect, we've been borrowing from Social Security to finance the government. Now that's clicked over on an annual basis -- as you said, we're paying out more than we're taking in.
What the debt -- what our proposal puts out is not taking Social Security proceeds any longer and paying off the deficit. It's saying let's make sure Social Security is solvent for the next 75 years. If we don't do it - -
WALLACE: But you're also talking about, first, is raising retirement age.
WARNER: Well, my sense is, you know, remember Social Security was put in place back in the '30s. They set 65 as the period -- the start, because life expectancy was 64. Now, Americans, thank goodness, are living towards closer to age 80.
And the idea that we're going to slowly raise the retirement age a couple of years over the next 40 years -- nobody, you, me, Saxby, we're not going to be effected at all. Folks under 35 might see a slight bump in their age increase, but frankly, a lot of folks under 35 don't even think there's even going to be Social Security if we don't do something in this.