Activists succeeded in getting the Obama administration to delay a Keystone decision, but many rich and influential people, beyond the Koch brothers, stand to benefit from the pipeline’s construction and it will take a huge effort from environmentalists to counter their sway in Washington.truthdig
Koch Brothers Stand to Make $100 Million From Keystone Pipeline
Peter Z. Scheer
Correction: That's 100 BILLION not 100 million.
The Huffington Post
Keystone XL Pipeline Could Yield $100 Billion For Koch Brothers
Jared Gilmour
(h/t Mike Norman in the commets)
12 comments:
Huffington Post has the figure at $100 billion.
Thanks for picking that up, Mike. I put a correction in the post.
Good points Ryan...
I don't look at Buffet as a Dem necessarily he seems like he plays both sides as it suits him....
Whereas the Kochs seem hard GOP.
All the Kochs should do is get out of the partisan politics business and start greasing both sides and this thing gets done pronto for them....
The Kochs have poured mucho dinero down the toilet supporting impossible candidates imo... they are probably good business people but bad politicians....
rsp,
Matt - The Koch Brothers have money to burn and every right to be engaged in partisan politics as does Warren Buffet, George Soros, etc.... If I were a very wealthy guy and you were running for president, and I thought you were the next Thomas Jefferson, why should I not be allowed to contribute $1 million to your campaign. Transparency is key to leveling out the playing field. My idea of campaign finance reform in 8 words is... No caps, immediate full disclosure & US citizens only.
Right Ed,
I have no problem with the Citizens United issue and consider all of this talk of "getting the money out of politics" as an insulting statement (to me)...
There are people in this world who I would NEVER vote for no matter how much money they spent on a campaign...
So to say 'it is about the money' is basically insulting to my intelligence....
I'm not saying the Kochs shouldn't be allowed to do what they are doing, I am saying that they are stupid for doing what they are doing with their political partisanship...
That said they are a hugely ideological lot so I don't expect them to change.... sounds like they have PLENTY of 'money' to piss away so I'm sure they will be fine even though financially...
rsp,
Sorry Matt, I deleted that comment because it was probably a bit offensive to blog friends.
You guys have to be kidding? Congress is a giant mediator or arbitrator. That is their job description, higher taxes on this group is an economic decision that could be worth $100's of billions of dollars. Cuts to SS is an economic decision worth potentially trillions of dollars. A regulation or loophole passed or eliminated here and there has real market value. You wouldn't want to go in front of a judge that was being paid by the insurance company or hospital you are suing. So why should you want to be governed by a Congress and President that is getting paid by parties whose interest may run directly counter to your own well-being? Just because you may be well-informed, its the height of naivete to assume the great unwashed masses have any idea whose being bought by whom. In the judiciary they must recuse themselves to avoid even the appearance of impropriety lest it reduce confidence in the institution. Why on Earth would you not want that same standard to be applied to the other two branches of Govt. Its no surprise that people's faith in Congress and the President continue to erode. Finance elections with public money (as MMTers, you know the cost isn't an issue), so that We The People own the politicians and its not just the wealthy people that own them. I honestly can't believe that you guys believe in our system of organized bribery annd corruption, and I usual enjoy all the insights you two have to offer.
@ Aubrun Parks
Exactly.
It's a matter of trust in government, and as the Tea Party and OWS show from opposite sides, as well as polls of confidence in congress and the president, trust in the US government is abysmal, and cronyism and corruption are no small part of this.
So you don't care about "getting the money out of politics", so you have no problem with bribery and corruption?
Maybe it's commonly badly phrased, but buying politicians to legislate how you want instead of how they should ain't good for the system neither trust on the system. Reinforcing the view of the "no government" crew and spreading it.
Maybe we should say "getting bad incentives out of politics" to be more clear.
And no, you can't get a clear picture on what candidates will be honest from what you see published; and more importantly, the people in places of responsibility which are not directly chosen by the public.
P.S: Auburn was more clear than me on the importance of this,
I for one am happy to see that the job creators are finally getting their fair share.
Post a Comment