An Opportunity Lost: Obama Takes Large Speaking Fee

In response to the first comment, donations to BMG's technology fund cheerfully accepted! - promoted by hesterprynne

I never suspected he’d do otherwise, but it would be nice if President Obama agreed with the author of this piece.

Former President Barack Obama’s decision to accept a $400,000 fee to speak at a health care conference organized by the bond firm Cantor Fitzgerald is easily understood. That’s so much cash, for so little work, that it would be extraordinarily difficult for anyone to turn it down. And the precedent established by former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, to say nothing of former Federal Reserve Chairs Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan and a slew of other high-ranking former officials, is that there is nothing wrong with taking the money.

Indeed, to not take the money might be a problem for someone in Obama’s position. It would set a precedent.

Obama would be suggesting that for an economically comfortable high-ranking former government official to be out there doing paid speaking gigs would be corrupt, sleazy, or both. He’d be looking down his nose at the other corrupt, sleazy former high-ranking government officials and making enemies.

Which is exactly why he should have turned down the gig.

(Hat tip to Lawyers, Guns, and Money, via Eschaton.)

On the bright side, maybe this will motivate more people to run for office.

A Couple of Updates on the Russia Story

The worst, most corrupt stuff is just out in the open. - promoted by charley-on-the-mta

I’m not trying to steal Mark’s thunder, but I googled Carter Page just to get an update.

So there was this:

A top White House aide says he never met former Donald Trump adviser Carter Page during the more than 500 days he spent on the road with the president’s campaign.

“This Carter Page is a mess,” aide Dan Scavino tweeted on Saturday.

But there was also this, from September:

Page is the founder and managing partner of an investment fund called Global Energy Capital, and that he claims to have years of experience investing in Russia and the energy sector. As for his connection to Trump, when Page was reached for comment by the New York Times the day after Trump’s big reveal, he said he had been sending policy memos to the campaign and the paper said he “will be advising Mr. Trump on energy policy and Russia.”

It gets better:

What I did find, however, is that while Page might not be helping Trump, Trump has been a significant help to Page. Since being named by Trump as an adviser, Page, who has spent his career trying to put together energy deals in Russia and the former Soviet Union, has finally begun to be noticed in the region. He is being treated in Russia as a person with potentially important ties in America. “He’s an extremely well-informed, authoritative expert on Russia,” says Mikhail Leontiev, a pro-Kremlin talking head and spokesman for Rosneft, Russia’s state oil giant. “People really respect him in this industry. He’s a very serious guy, and he has a good reputation.” According to the Yahoo report, U.S. intelligence believes Page had an audience with top Russian officials—including Rosneft head Igor Sechin—during a summer trip to Moscow. From what I could find about him, it’s hard to imagine he could have secured those meetings without that mention by Trump.

Any other updates?

Gambling vs. Marijuana: A Tale of Two "Vices"

It’s been nearly six months since the voters approved Question 4 to legalize and tax recreational marijuana. But we’re still at the starting line, because in December the Legislature pushed back by six months all the timelines that the ballot question had established. The regulatory commission that was supposed to be appointed by March won’t be appointed until September, the review of license applications that was supposed to begin in October won’t start until next April, and so on.

And now it’s possible that the finish line may be moved. There’s a brand new legislative committee that will review the 44 bills that were filed at the start of the new 2017-2018 session responding to the passage of the new law.  With only a few exceptions, the bills are far more wary than enthusiastic. They propose stricter local control over retail marijuana establishments, a reduction in the amount of marijuana that can be grown at home, restrictions on potency (the law, as approved by the voters, provided that such restrictions would be imposed by the regulatory commission), restrictions on advertising, etc., etc.

Which is at least a little odd considering that the Department of Revenue has estimated that marijuana sales could bring in $64 million in new revenue in the first year of the law’s operation, and once again this year the state is digging through the sofa cushions for loose change to fix the perennial hole in the budget.

But before we conclude that our lawmakers are skittish about any new enterprise that may strike some members of the citizenry as morally problematic even as it brings in new revenue, let’s review the launch of the casino law.

At a comparable time (six months after the law was passed), the members of the new Massachusetts Gaming Commission had been appointed and staked to a $15 million line of credit.  The buzz was all about the new jobs that were shortly to arrive and the new revenues that were shortly to replenish our recession-depleted treasury.  (The marijuana law has gotten only a measly $300,000 to cover costs to date.)

The Gaming Commission got the licensing process underway with an award to Penn National Gaming to operate a slots parlor in Plainville. They did so with the rosy understanding that it would bring in as much as $300 million in revenue annually. But whoops. After the first year of operation, the revenue number was $160 million, barely half of the original estimate. What happened?

According to the Commission’s account, which the Globe reported credulously, the initial revenue projections were “extravagant” guesses offered by casino industry consultants. Well, okay, but what about the Commission’s due diligence in investigating that guesstimate? “We thought there was a flaw in their methodology but we couldn’t find it,” Crosby said.

Indeed. The Commission could not find the flaw, even when aided by the research of their own consultants, who also predicted that Plainville’s annual revenues would yield far more than $160 million — and who were rewarded by the state for such prognostications to the tune of a million bucks.

Water under the bridge, apparently. Anyway, now all is well.  The Commission “could not be more pleased” with the Plainridge revenues, which are half of the original estimates and which is totally okay, because we now know the estimates were unrealistic to begin with. Construction has begun on two other casinos, with who knows how many more to follow, as Massachusetts duels Connecticut for supremacy in the gambling wars. Gambling is clearly the Legislature’s favored child, (as compared to marijuana), and even more cossetting may be on the way — the House of Representatives is proposing to let casinos continue to serve alcohol for hours after bars and restaurants must close. Meanwhile, marijuana legalization is in danger of being strangled in its crib.

Did the Legislature ever take note of the discrepancy between revenue expectations and revenue reality in Plainville? No evidence that they did, and if it’s brought to their attention, many seem prepared to laugh it off like Commissioner Crosby did: “we all seemed to be smoking something.”

March for Science / Earth Day

Today, appropriately on Earth Day, is the March for Science on the Boston Common, from 1pm to 4pm. It includes a star-studded cast of speakers, including MA’s own Gina McCarthy, former EPA head.

Would that this were not necessary! Science, of course, should not be partisan; it should be the basis on which political arguments are held. But scientists did not choose this fight. Science — the search for facts — is indeed under attack: Look at the attempted dismantling of the EPA by Scott Pruitt; the House Committee for Science’s attacks on climate scientists; Trump’s budget with its draconian cuts for science research (very bad for MA, incidentally); and his flirtation with anti-vaxxers. They’re going after weather satellites — because the satellites are telling them things they don’t want to hear.

That is crushing, weapons-grade stupidity, stubbornness and ignorance. These will go down in history with Lysenkoism, the Five-Year Plans, Great Leap Forward and other triumphs of inhumane ideology over observed facts.

For whatever comes of the demonstrations, I’d like to humbly suggest the following goals/agenda for the scientific community in the public/political sphere:

  • Encourage the teaching of logic and critical thinking, at every level of education — from elementary school to post-doc. People ought to know p’s and q’s of logic, and how to identify pseudo-logic, how we are bewildered into accepting false or unproven things. Nigel Warburton’s Thinking from A to Z is a good anti-derp vaccine, to recognize logical fallacies. Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s Cosmos series was a terrific introduction not only to scientific discoveries, but the scientific process – hypothesis, testing, reproducibility, peer-review, etc. — by which such discoveries are made.
  • Define “pure” science as a search for facts and knowledge, not merely as an economic driver. We start heading into some ugly directions when science is only deemed “useful” if it makes someone money. In our rush to be practical and competitive, we teach facts —  but little about how such facts are derived.
  • Defend the federal government as a reliable, neutral source of facts and information — and fund such sources. From fish stocks to global temperatures to unemployment statistics, the government provides the public with useful data upon which momentous decisions are made. Such research must be left absolutely professional, transparent, and non-partisan. Heretofore, it largely has been. But at any given time we are neck-deep in corporate propaganda, political and regulatory capture. We must absolutely hold that government research is on behalf of the greater public good. They work for us.
  • Relatedly, support federal funding for scientific research outside the government: Grants to universities from NIH, NSF, etc. Obvs.
  • Defend scientists from politicized attacks. Particularly I have climate scientists in mind, of course; but they have been the canaries in a coal mine (as it were) in confronting vastly powerful monied interests. The plain facts came up against the fossil industry’s billions, and the industry has tried to corral the facts using politics.
  • Defend academic tenure. See above. Defense from political attacks is one reason why tenure exists; it has been severely weakened at the University of Wisconsin, once one of the jewels of higher public education in the US.

I’m sure the organizers chose Earth Day for a reason: That climate science is an urgent topic for the public; and — not coincidentally — threatened with political retribution and silencing.

It is indeed a small world, quite finite, and quite fragile, as it turns out. And CO2 concentration has passed the mark of 410 parts per million, which hasn’t happened in 3 million years. Everything that we care about, that we have ever cared about — everything! — is at grave risk.
Hadfield in space

Senator Donnelly's Chief of Staff Will Enter Race to Succeed Him

State House News is reporting that Cindy Friedman, chief of staff to the late Senator Ken Donnelly, will announce on Monday that she’s going to enter the race to succeed him, setting up a June 27 primary contest with Representative Sean Garballey, who announced last week.  The general election is July 25.

 

 

Platform

Talk vs walk - promoted by charley-on-the-mta

I just can’t get excited about attending a platform meeting.  Why?  Let me count the ways by examining the present platform: I’ll start at the preamble

  1. We want health care to be a basic human right.  (we do?  tell me then, when we had a candidate for governor who was for this, why we did not endorse him?)
  2.  We want everyone to be able to work for a living wage and have the right to organize; (NY & CA have a $15 minimum wage law on the books.  Not us. We won’t go for it)
  3. We want taxes to be reasonable and expenditures to be fairly distributed (we do?  name one Democrat in a position of power who wants to raise taxes on the rich)

I could go on and on, but what’s the point?

And what’s the point of a new Platform that will be equally ignored by those in power within the party?

Garballey to run for Donnelly's Senate seat

Statement from my Rep., Sean Garballey:

For those of us lucky enough to have called Senator Ken Donnelly a friend, this has been a sad time. Ken put everyone else first – as a fireman, a legislator, and a husband, father, and grandfather – and we in Massachusetts are forever indebted to him for his lifetime of service and sacrifice. My thoughts continually turn to Ken’s family, and I pray that they find solace and strength in the fact that his legacy lives on in the innumerable lives he touched and enriched. Senator Donnelly and I were partners throughout the last decade and I want to make sure his work continues in the State Senate.

After much reflection and a long weekend of conversations with family, loved ones, and constituents, I have decided to run in the special election for the Senate seat to represent the people of Arlington, Woburn, Billerica, Lexington, and Burlington. While no one can replace Ken, I believe that my extensive legislative experience in local and state government and in our community, makes me a strong candidate for the State Senate. In the coming weeks, I encourage residents of the district to look at my record, look for campaign announcements as I begin this endeavor, and never hesitate to reach out directly if you have any questions or wish to get involved.

I look forward to campaigning across the district, to knocking on doors to hear voters’ concerns, and to highlight the work I’ve done on behalf of people in my district and across the Commonwealth. As a State Representative, I have worked to advance policies to protect the environment, maintain an inclusive society and ensure equal rights for all, preventing MBTA service cuts in our district and leading the effort on developing a real solution to the MBTA, improving conditions for children in foster care, and reducing income inequality to enable middle class families in Massachusetts to not just make ends meet but provide a better future for the next generation. I am proud of the work I have done and, with your support, I would be honored to continue this work as our next State Senator.

The primary election has been set for Tuesday, June 27 and the general election has been set for Tuesday July 25.

Sean’s a good guy. He’s been there a long time, and is still young — 32. He returns phone calls. I remember him volunteering for the ’04 Kerry campaign. He got elected to school committee right out of high school; got the nomination for State Rep in a bit of a kooky primary, taking over for Marzilli in ’08. He’s what you’d expect from Arlington: Very progressive, part of the MBTA caucus, big on environment, single-payer, justice reform, etc. (Thanks ProgressiveMass.)

The Senate would be a friendlier place for Sean’s priorities than Bob DeLeo’s House. Of course, whoever follows Sean into the House is going to face the same problem.

If Sean wins, Arlington being what it is (along with West Medford), I suspect the Rep race will attract more than one candidate.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Rural Stats

Trump support corresponds to need for economic development. Hmmm ... - promoted by charley-on-the-mta

By Lee Harrison and Lisa Moscynski, Co-Chairs, Rural Issues Subcommittee of the Massachusetts Democratic Party

If Mark Twain were alive today, he would have been amused by Evan Horowitz’s April 7 article in the Globe, “City and Country Folk: We’re Mostly the Same in Massachusetts” because it proves his maxim that “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”  And while many of us west of Rte. 495 shake our heads and chuckle in disbelief at Mr. Horowitz’s findings, articles like this can do real harm to real rural Massachusetts.

We don’t know how Mr. Horowitz defines “rural,” but in the vast majority of small towns west of Rte. 495, people definitely do not earn “approximately the same incomes” as people in Newton or Brookline.  Of course, Mr. Horowitz uses averages, which is always a red flag, for a man can easily drown in a stream with an average depth of one foot.  Besides, median values, i.e., half above and half below, are much better tools for comparison.

According to the latest U.S. Census Bureau data, the annual median household income in Berkshire County was under $50,000 – the lowest in the state – with Hampden County next lowest with just over $50,000.  Franklin and Bristol counties were under $60,000, as was Suffolk County, which includes many wealthy and poor families.  At the other end of the income spectrum are Norfolk ($88,262) and Middlesex ($85118) counties, which shows how proximity to Boston skews the numbers.  Worcester County ($65,313) is below Essex ($69,068), which is roughly the middle of the pack.

Unemployment rates show the same kind of discrepancies between Boston-centric and real rural Massachusetts.  In February, while the unemployment rate for all of Massachusetts was 4.2%, in Berkshire County the rate was 5.3%, in Hampden 5.6%.  Nantucket, Dukes, and Barnstable counties were even higher, but seasonal employment in those regions is certainly a factor.  By contrast in Suffolk, Norfolk, and Middlesex counties – Boston and its suburban ring – the rate was 3.5% or lower.  This is a critical difference, a story that averages don’t tell, and Mr. Horowitz should know that.

And despite what Mr. Horowitz would like us to believe, voting our voting patterns differ markedly, too.  As analyst Brent Benson notes:  “While western Massachusetts, the Boston Metropolitan Area and other urban areas, the tip of Cape Cod, and the Islands show strong Democratic tendencies in statewide elections, Central Massachusetts, parts of the North Shore, and Southern Massachusetts – from Tolland in the west to Dennis in the east – are much more Republican.”

In fact, WBUR reported on April 12, that, “In central Massachusetts, you can travel from New Hampshire to Connecticut or Rhode Island entirely through towns that voted for President Trump.”  The radio station also noted that, “As many as 90% of voters in the central Massachusetts towns where Donald Trump received more votes for president than Hillary Clinton still view the president ‘very positively’ and believe he will, eventually, deliver on his campaign promises.”

So, yes, contrary to what Mr. Horowitz has written, Massachusetts voters are indeed divided.  And unless our leaders see past superficial and misleading articles like this and reach out to improve education, transportation, and broadband to expand the overall economies of our real rural areas, this gap will only increase.

A Few Random Thoughts Because I Got Nothin'

This would seem to be ... An open thread. If your thoughts run more than 140 characters, this is your place. [This post is actually by JimC -- technical glitch is preventing that from showing ...] - promoted by charley-on-the-mta

Charming family, the Kushners.

The short version is: In 2004, Jared Kushner’s father Charles, a real estate magnate in New Jersey and New York, pleaded guilty to a tax fraud scheme in which he claimed hundreds of thousands of dollars in phony deductions for office expenses at the partnerships he created to manage the apartment buildings he owned. Kushner, a major donor to the Democratic Party, also pleaded guilty to fraudulently making hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions in the names of employees and associates who didn’t know their names were being used. Finally, Kushner pleaded guilty to retaliating against a cooperating witness in the case — his sister. He did so by setting a trap in which he hired a prostitute to lure his sister’s husband into a sexual encounter in a New Jersey hotel, where the action was secretly photographed and videotaped. Kushner sent the pictures and tape to his sister as revenge, apparently motivated by Kushner’s belief that she and her husband were helping U.S. Attorney Christie and his prosecutors.

In our quest to return the world to sanity, I think we should emphasize Wisconsin. Wisconsin should be as blue as we are.

Betsy DeVos recently compared charter schools to Uber, apparently not for the first time. I find this pretty offensive.

The Tsarnaevs stole our sacred right to make fun of the marathon. When do we get that back?

MA: A Segregated State

Amazing -- and not in a good way. "Is Boston [MA] racist?" Huh. - promoted by charley-on-the-mta

The Globe had a surprisingly in depth piece looking at the racial divides that still persist in the Greater Boston Housing market.

Naomi Cordova didn’t want to buy a home in Brockton. In fact, she was dead set against it. But the working-class city is where Cordova ended up, despite the fact that she’s employed at a tech company in downtown Boston and makes more than $90,000 a year.

With a price tag limit of$275,000, little money for a down payment, and no desire to buy a fixer-upper, Cordova, a 34-year-old single mother of Puerto Rican and African-American descent, felt she had few other options. The city, which she associates mainly with its gang violence, isn’t where she feels she belongs.

It goes on to profile the challenges which include a predominately white field of realtors steering minorities toward majority minority communities, lack of credit and savings, and fear of living in an all white community.

“The patterns are pretty persistent,” he said. “There aren’t a lot of integrated communities to choose from.”

And this segregation has persisted despite laws designed to reverse the damage done by decades of discriminatory housing practices. Some people are reluctant to leave neighborhoods where their family and friends have lived for generations; others are held back by reports of racism when black or Latino families move to white suburbs.

Finances are perhaps the biggest deterrent. People of color tend to have fewer assets and fewer family members they can borrow from — a racial wealth gap that puts them at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to securing a loan.

And even when minorities achieve levels of affluence comparative to their white peers-they are still less likely to live among their income cohort and rather live among their racial cohort.

Even when they are in the same income bracket as whites, minorities in the Boston region are turned down for mortgages at a higher rate and live in substantially less well-off neighborhoods, according to a study by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council in Boston. The average white family earning $78,000 a year in metro Boston lives in a neighborhood where the median household income is $72,400 a year, while the average black household earning $78,000 a year lives in an area where the median is $51,100 a year.

We should all be ashamed of this record.

In 86 of the state’s 351 cities and towns, not a single loan was made to a black or Latino home buyer

That fact alone should sober us from the delusion that we are a progressive state because we rejected Trump and sent Liz Warren to the Senate. By many other standards we still fall woefully short in income inequality and racial equity in housing. And housing is where it all starts. De facto segregation keeps minorities locked in unsafe neighborhoods, depresses their job prospects, their education prospects, reduces their lifespan, and crams minority voters in a few districts. It’s no accident our state legislature is one of the least diverse in the country as well. This is the kind of policy area a gubernatorial candidate needs to talk about. This is the kind of policy area Marty Walsh does not have the courage to address. And this is the kind of policy area we must be talking about on this blog and in the broader activist community.

Stability and stagnation in MA

I was thinking about this since my last MBTA screed. Joan Vennochi beats me to the punch, using the poll showing Baker’s, uh, formidable popularity as a jumping-off point to show the underside of inequality:

Does Massachusetts live up to the hype? – The Boston Globe.

Not for people stuck on the wrong side of the income gap, who are desperate for affordable housing and not in the market for a $4 million condo unit in a revitalized Downtown Crossing. Not for the homeless, whose numbers have nearly doubled over the past nine years, according to a recent study commissioned by the Boston Foundation. Not for kids stuck in schools hindered by an outdated school funding formula. And not for those rail commuters who just experienced three miserable days of delays attributed to defective new locomotives.

Massachusetts honks are justified. We are #1 in education; #1 in being health-insured; we have a strong economy and low unemployment. We also have a hellacious inequality gap, one which is gnawing at the quality of life for those not in a position to benefit from industries that require the extremely-well-trained. Personally I don’t wish to live in the East Coast version of a gilded, class-bifurcated Silicon Valley.

Neither the successes nor the challenges are really about Baker at all. These are the result of factors that pre-date Baker by decades, if not centuries. Actions taken or not taken by him and the legislature will also be felt in the generational terms.

Baker re-re-invented himself between 2010 (angry!) and 2014 (sober bean-counting manager). He was basically content to inherit a post-Deval Patrick political consensus: Play to our strengths in tech, health care and education; don’t do anything too crazy on taxes, up or down; manage the bureaucracies. This comports perfectly well with a House leadership that, if anything, is even more small-c conservative than he is.

But we have a political culture that has no interest in taking on the long-term, structural problems that put together, squeeze the comfort out of life for many. We are failing to adapt. There are no plans, no ambitions, no signature legislated efforts to address:

  • The cost of housing. It is an increasingly crushing burden for the non-wealthy; but even if you’ve been a homeowner and seen your asset increase in value, how can your young adult kids afford their own places? This has been festering at least since the tech boom of the late 90s got laundered into real estate assets. We have needed a regional (Greater Boston) plan to create non-luxury housing in quantity, and have never gotten action, or even a clear vision from legislature nor governor.
  • The decay of the MBTA. A related economic justice issue. A reliable T is cheaper (and cleaner) than a car, providing a little economic cushion for the non-rich. And when it’s not reliable, one’s hold on a job is precarious. The Baker administration’s efforts on the T are technical, not adaptive: Save a few bucks here and there, but then what are you left with?
  • The cost of health care. I actually have to give some credit to Baker — and take away from the House — for proposing price growth caps to address the confiscatory pricing of Partners et al.  ”Health insurance” for nearly everyone doesn’t obviate rising costs, which cut into household budgets and employers’ ability to hire or raise wages. Speaker DeLeo ensured once again that we failed to act firmly.
  • Cost of higher education. Public higher education has always seemed an afterthought in Massachusetts political culture. We see the same administrative featherbedding and high salaries in the UMass system as in the higher ed system at large. And now UMass Boston — which should be a gateway to the middle class — is $30 million in the hole, cancelling classes. Wrong direction.

These are big-picture problems that require Vision, or Progress – which is really just adaptation. Our Governor and legislature seem content to live off the achievements of those who designed and invested in our current comforts and (relative, contingent) successes.  Our successes are not equally shared, and create their own set of problems. Assets are prone to decay, and in some cases (the T, our real estate market) they are already at a breaking point. The time frame of public investment and planning is generational, not the next election.

We are not asking for miracles. We are asking for long-term planning.

Target Increased Military Spending at the Enemy

Exactly - promoted by charley-on-the-mta

Target Increased Military Spending at the Enemy

On April 6, 2017 the Huffington Post published my piece arguing that if we’re going to increase defense spending, we should target the enemy.

The piece observes that

The budget President Trump released this month increases Defense Department spending by $54 billion, or 10 percent.  It increases Homeland Security expenditures by almost 7 percent.  At the same time, it decreases spending by the Environmental Protection Agency by an astounding 31 percent, and eliminates EPA spending on climate programs.  “As to climate change…we’re not spending money on that anymore,” according to Mick Mulvaney, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.  It’s ‘a waste of your money.”

But in fact, the failure to address climate change has profound security implications, which U.S. defense and intelligence agencies—and not just traditional environmental groups—have raised for decades.

In 2007, a report commissioned by the Center for Naval Analyses and including 11 retired generals—eight four-star and three three-star—refers to climate change as “a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world,” in part by causing water shortages and damaging food production.  The report says that 40 percent of the world’s population gets at least half its drinking water from mountain glaciers that are disappearing.

In a study commissioned by the C.I.A., the National Research Council said in 2012 that the U.S. is unprepared to address the catastrophes that climate change will create.

Further, according to the Huffington Post piece,

In 2014 the Pentagon released a report referencing the dangerous impacts of climate change on food and water supplies, damage to infrastructure, the spread of disease, and mass migration.  The report said:  “These developments could undermine already-fragile governments that are unable to respond effectively or challenge currently-stable governments…. These gaps in governance can create an avenue for extremist ideologies and conditions that foster terrorism.”

Even President Trump’s Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, agrees.  In January, Secretary Mattis said in written comments to the Senate Armed Services Committee: “I agree that the effects of a changing climate — such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others — impact our security situation.”

Secretary Mattis has opined before on climate change and its military implications.  In 2010, the United States Joint Forces Command released a document entitled “The Joint Operating Environment,” with a Foreword signed “J.N. Mattis, General, U.S. Marines Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command.”

The report lists climate change “as one of the ten trends most likely to impact the Joint Force.”  It references shrinking Arctic sea ice as opening new areas for natural resource exploitation that may raise tensions among Arctic nations.  It cites a 2007 event in which “two Russian submersibles made an unprecedented dive 2.5 miles to the arctic sea floor, where one ship dropped a titanium capsule containing a Russian flag.”

Referencing sea level rise caused by climate change, the Joint Forces Command report notes that “one-fifth of the world’s population as well as one-sixth of the land area of the world’s largest urban areas are located in coastal zones less than ten meters above sea level.”

One-fifth of the world’s population obviously dwarfs the numbers of refugees now moving west in Europe, with enormous implications for geopolitical instability.

The full Huffington Post piece appears at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/military-spending-climate-change_us_58e65c62e4b0917d34780029?j9