The Albuquerque Journal Monitor

I teach history, economics and the media. Our media leave many issues "untold," so I have started this e-list, going to 500+ leaders, citizens and media. It is devoted to "untold stories"--information and viewpoints which are important, but covered inconsequentially in our media.

This week's example: For a year I asked the Albuquerque Journal to explore hedge funds. Friday, it finally gave front page attention to this topic with a woefully inadequate article.

Hedge funds are new and huge, probably the most powerful force on Wall Street, bigger than most global banks. Some days they comprise half of NYSE shares traded. They own about 40% of U.S. business.

They are profitable! The average salary of the top 25 hedge fund managers last year was $900 million; that's right -- almost a billion dollars for one year's work.

Warren Buffet, arguably the world's greatest investor, complains that most of these men are taxed at a lower rate than their secretaries.

Due to a legal loophole, hedge funds are completely unregulated (no hyperbole--completely!). According to George W. Bush's former SEC chairman, William Donaldson, this is a dangerous situation. Bush fired Donaldson for insisting that hedge funds, like banks, be regulated by the SEC.

Hedge funds take huge risks, sometimes with disastrous results. Much of our cascading subprime mortgage crisis involves hedge funds and speculators like Bear Stearns and the Carlysle group. It would be wise to remember the prime lesson of the Great Depression--unregulated speculation almost destroyed our economy.

How does this hurt you? Experts hired by CBS News have estimated that one third of today's oil price is the result of speculation, not supply and demand, causing inflation and higher prices for food, clothes and many other products.

Do you think gas will go to $5/gallon? If hedge fund managers and speculators can make money pushing the price that far, they will.

How could hedge funds hurt New Mexico? Corporations increasingly demand taxpayer subsidies as the price of doing business (Verde, Forest Covington, SunCal -- even local shopping center developers). The potential of a hedge fund takeover of these corporations could be a threat to New Mexico communities who give them tax money and bond guarantees.

To avoid responsibility, hedge funds often employ armies of lawyers to hide their ownership in interminable "layers" of fiscal instruments. Bill Moyers reported that hundreds of Florida nursing homes were taken over by hedge funds who reduced services to jack up profits, hurting many residents, killing some. The occupants' lawyers oftentimes cannot even find out who owns the nursing homes!

Note: none of the aforementioned information was in the Journal article!

Hedge funds are just one of many issues that the corporate media refuse to cover in any depth. The Journal did a series of detailed front page articles on beautifying the Big I interchange. Why not a series on TIDDS and SunCal? Why indeed?

One reason is that big corporations buy advertising and politicians. Ads pay the salaries of newspeople. Legislators' campaigns are financed by corporations. Politicians influence the content of the news.

This is nothing new. American history is replete with examples of business and politics buying media coverage.

Nonetheless, citizens need depth, context, and non-corporatized points of view, and now we have this new electronic tool that can provide such.

Today the front page has an article about Tuesday's CNN appearance of Governor Richardson and political personality, James Carville.

This story uses terms tabloid terms like "duke it out," "face off," "showdown," and "political boxing match." The front page part of this article, continued on page 5, listed only negatives about Richardson. Oh well, so much for a Pulitzer.

But wait, it gets worse. In the "Metro and NM" section. The Journal place a current story (real news) about Richardson's upcoming trip to Venezuela to try and free 3 U.S. hostages from Columbian guerrillas. IS THIS A METRO STORY?

Which story should have been on the front page? A U.S. State Department coordinated humanitarian mission by an experienced diplomat who happens to be our governor or biased, gossip from a talk show?

The J showed less integrity than a Hollywood tabloid and less honor than when it used maniacal shock jock Don Imus to criticize Bill Richardson (really, former lead story, front page).

Dragging out its designated slanderer, Leslie Linthicum (infamous for her unflattering two-part “biography” of the Governor), the rag’s front page bashed Bill Richardson for the THIRD day in ONE week—not with fact, not with real news--but with innuendo from another shock jock--that paragon of hysterical hyperbole, James Carville.

Surely, the front page could be used for something more newsworthy than the ravings of a man whose only job seems to be bald faced (or “headed” in his case) ad hominem in pursuit of ever more lucrative TV “commentary” jobs.

It might be lost on an unknowing reader that Carville has less credibility than Imus.

It might be lost on the uncritical J regular, that Bill Richardson is not only a good guy, but a good governor.

The front page lead stories for yesterday’s Journal (J):
-- the lead - UNM “close” to extending basketball coach’s contract (that should win a Pulitzer.)
-- two mayhem stories about murderers
-- yet another Richardson bashing – this one featuring “Judas” comments about his lack of loyalty for backing Obama and more crap from the Mayor

ON PAGE A-6 (no kidding), was the story commemorating the 4,000th death in Iraq. Heaven forbid that the J might have run a SERIES about the incredible cost in MEN (including 30,000 seriously wounded and unknown hundreds of thousands of Iraqis), not to mention TREASURE ($3 Trillion and counting – bankrupting this country)

On Monday, the J ran a small front page story about the 4,000th death, but larger and higher were stories about:
-- no increase in tuition at CNM (really - no increase is a front page story)
-- more bashing Bill Richardson - quoting the Mayor, etc., and the
-- LEAD STORY on Monday was (ready for this?) DNA testing your DOG - to find out his breeding makeup (I AM NOT KIDDING! - the lead story)

SOOO, that's how the J recognized the milestone of 4,000 brave men who have died in an absolutely useless war.

Whatta tabloid!

Now, compare that to the PBS Frontline commemoration of this momentous event.

This Frontline may have been the most impressive documentary I have ever seen. The number of sources and the careful construction of this four hour epic is incredible.

Even more amazing is the conclusion left with the viewer that basically three people conspired to create the rationale and atmosphere that led us to war and, then, the same triad completely screwed up the occupation.

History will hammer Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld who lied, circumvented the normal chains of command and, of course, manipulated poor, sad, ill-equipped George W.

What was amazing to me is the number of people in the administration and military willing to go on camera about this disaster.

I talked a normal "regular guy" type of neighbor into watching it -- his first Frontline -- he just sent me this reaction:

"If there were any justice in this World, they would try Cheney,
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz as war criminals. If I had a son or daughter
that got killed or injured in that %$#@ *&%$, I am not so sure that I could keep myself from hunting down one of those &%$#@."

If you did not see it, you might owe it to yourself as a citizen/media educator to find it and watch.

"That is why our press was protected by the First Ammendment, the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution, not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, NOT TO SIMPLY GIVE THE PUBLIC WHAT IT WANTS, but to INFORM, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion."
John F. Kennedy

The page one lead story on today's Journal is about a professor who sent porn to another, beneath the screaming headline, "NMSU Porn Investigation." The second lead is a fluff story about a 95 year-old basketball coach.

I am sure Kennedy is sighing, as are we.

Yesterday's Journal achieved a new record in its campaign to play down the war in Iraq so that we can avoid distractions and get to the important business of electing a Republican President.

Section A did not mention the war in Iraq. At all.

After all, there is nothing important about a war that has cost 4,000 U.S. lives and three trillion dollars so far. Is there?

Continuing Series: Stories not covered in any meaningful way by the Journal (J)

"I thought the most telling moment of the last seven years occurred last week when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was, literally, almost weeping that Exxon was being treated unfairly by a jury in Alaska."
James Carville, Meet the Press, 03-02-08

Interested? The Journal is not.

The Journal must really be going broke because it is silly season on their front page.

Front page of the Journal (J) today:
- woman finds wallet (top article-above the fold)
- deaf basketball player
- man shoots himself twice?
- an Arizona law

Really, one must calmly assess the situation and ask, "IS THERE NO OTHER FREAKING NEWS OUT THERE?

Because of the J's headlong race to irrelevance, I am starting a new seriew: "UNTOLD STORIES." It will suggest stories that our ONLY "newspaper" might have put on its front page.

Today's suggestion: "The Human Toll Approaches 4,000: the 3,973 guys who have died in this senseless, unbelievably expensive war?"

Breaking news: I am in Kent Walz's trash can . . . yup, banished! How, you ask?

It took the Albuquerque Journal more than a week to write an article about the defeat of SunCal's TIDD bonding bill which would have funneled over $700 Million to the CA development company. So, I wrote this (the whole message):

"I note that it took the Journal a week to get out this news. (It takes such a long time for horses to make the trip from Santa Fe.) Or, if your into conspiracy theories, maybe they had to check with their SunCal masters."

Kent Walz, an editor wrote me the following (quoted exactly):

sun cal masters? really bob......you know better....your intellectual dishonesty is shocking. Don't bother to respond. You had your say. This is mine. In a time pressured world, i've added your emails to the auto delete category.

The satirical tone of my message and freedom of speech notwithstanding, I hit a major Walz nerve. His anger makes me wonder why. Hmmm . . . let's see.

As of Wednesday (with the death of the Tribune), the Journal now has a monopoly. Maybe the responsibility of being ABQ's only newspaper is stressing Kent out.

This is a LTE from the Albuquerque Tribune, which, unfortunately, just died, leaving the Journal with a monopoly. It shows the kind of article that the Journal would never publish.

And the following in the light of announcements that Wachovia received $120 Million REFUND on $3.2 BILLION in profits and that there is a building in the Caymans that houses 12,000 corporate headquarters (Enron had 650 there), and more that HALF of US corporations paid NO income tax.

Tribune: It's time to put an end to corporate welfare

Sharon Kayne
Thursday, February 7, 2008

Albuquerque Tribune
In his recent column, Harold Morgan completely mischaracterized the purpose of state House Bill 51, which would require combined reporting for corporate income tax purposes.

In "Tax Hit Dodged," from Jan. 31, Morgan implies that Rep. Peter Wirth's bill would have had the effect of double-taxing multi-state corporations that do business in New Mexico through subsidiaries.

The truth is, mandatory combined reporting, or MCR, would allow the state to collect corporate income tax from companies that do business here but are currently not paying corporate income tax on their profits.

How do they get away with such a thing? We let them. We allow them to shield their New Mexico profits by shifting them to a "passive investment company," which is most likely nothing more than an office in Delaware.

Didn't make any profits in New Mexico? Then you don't owe us any corporate income tax payments. Sounds like a very good deal for the Wal-Marts and Sonics of the state. It costs the rest of us some $90 million a year in revenue lost through what is really just corporate welfare.

The state's Taxation and Revenue Department understands these things perfectly. That's why they took Wal-Mart and K-Mart to court a few years back and won multi-million dollar settlements.

The discount giants can't avoid paying income tax here by sending their profits out of state anymore, but other mega-corporations still can. Tax and Revenue is now looking at computer retailer Dell. Taking the big boys all to court is a slow and expensive way to make them pay up, but that's the only option the state has until the Legislature steps up.

Here is how MCR really works: it requires that a corporation doing business in more than one state "combine" its income from all states. A formula is then used to determine how much the corporation owes to each state. Every state west of the Mississippi that collects corporate income tax — except New Mexico and Oklahoma — requires combined reporting.

So while Sonic is allowed to pretend it doesn't make any money here, it's paying on the profits it makes in our neighboring states. So much for Morgan's assertion that MCR would kill New Mexico's chances of luring more big corporations to New Mexico, thereby stalling our economic development. It has hardly hurt California's economic development. Or Washington's. Or Oregon's.

As compelling a reason as that is, HB 51 is about more than collecting money that's due the state. It's also about equity. Corporations that do business solely in New Mexico can't take advantage of this tax setup.

That puts them at a competitive disadvantage. It also means that the bill for the public services these multi-state corporations use gets paid by the rest of us. Big corporations would hardly do business in New Mexico without services like police and fire protection, paved roads, access to utilities, even public education (an uneducated consumer is not likely a well-paid consumer).

As one local business owner put it, "You mean I have to pay to pave the road in front of my business and the road in front of Wal-Mart?" In essence, yes. In fact, we all do. The rest of us also have to either make up the $90 million the state fails to collect or we make do with fewer services.

Wirth has carried MCR legislation before, and we've always supported him. That legislation has also sought to lower the corporate income tax rate for everyone while still bringing in more revenue.

Morgan did get one thing right in his column: "HB 51 might rise again in this session."

We hope so. And when it does, we'll be in the room to support it. Because, really, a state with the second-highest poverty rate in the nation can't afford to dole out $90 million in corporate welfare.

Wayne is communications director for advocacy group New Mexico Voices for Children.

Kiss Senator Cisco

Full-on body hugs and kisses to State Senator Cisco McSorley.

The SunCal tax increment development district (TIDD) bill is dead after
his 45 minute fillabuster and vote appeal in the final moments of the
session. Sources say the bill was tabled after his talk and then
raised again by Senator Michael Sanchez in the final minutes before
noon. Cisco appealed the voice vote and the clock took care of the
rest. Sine Die.

I wanna know who voted for that bill too, though that wasn't the point.

At stake was the approval of $629 million in tax-paid bonds for one
corporation - for one developer, about 13 lobbyists and a bunch of real
and wanna-be land profiteers. Mental daggers to Cisco from them.

Some of these old school powers-that-be tried to get got Mike Murphy to
run against Cisco awhile back. He would have worked out better for
them. You remember Murphy - he has since been indicted for his role in
cash-skimming schemes on government construction projects. Ethics
schmethics.

Posted by Coco la Boca on Friday, February 15, 2008 in Politicos |

OK, gang, It is official. For the next 40 years SunCal will get 30% of the county's sales taxes, 10% of the property taxes and 50% of the state sales taxes from the first phase (4,000 acres) of their 57,000 acre development on the West side (bigger than Las Cruces and Santa Fe combined).

Think about it, we are subsidizing the development of a CITY!

It is such a shame that the Journal has not taken seriously its responsibility to inform the public about the TIDDs subsidies in a timely and detailed manner. Instead of researching why many other cities are turning against TIDDS, including Las Cruces, they have blindly followed Journal owner Lang's develop-at-any-cost agenda by printing SunCal's talking points and half truths like the following in today's paper.

On Jan 23, 2008, the ABQ Journal said, "County economic development coordinator Daniel Gutierrez said no taxes would be taken from other entities, such as Albuquerque Public Schools or University of New Mexico Hospital."

This is, of course, a sad half truth. When you reduce the amount of money going to the state, which provides APS' funds, you reduce the money available to go to APS.

Sigh.

Today the Journal(J) ran two articles about how great our water supply is. Last month (Dec. 3), the J ran a front page article that said ABQ’s water supply, “appears set for the next forty years.”

This, of course was no where near the size of, say, the recent huge front page article about Roger Clemen’s steroid problems, but, then, tabloids will be tabloids.

The water triad seems to be part of the J’s continuing propaganda effort to support massive, taxpayer subsidized developments in the ABQ area, the latest of which is the Sun Cal 55,000 acre TIDD giveaway (bigger than Santa Fe and Las Cruces combined).

Facts about our ABQ’s water supply:

1. We use 32 billion gallons/year from our aquifer which is dropping at 8 feet per year.
2. It has dropped so much that we could soon see major subsidence (sinkholes).
3. Our San Juan-Chama-Rio Grande water project, which cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, will supply 30 billion gallons/year.
4. A period of extended drought would create chaos, as farmers, other cities and Texas fought over the diminishing Rio Grande water.

If that happened, where would we get our 30 billion gallons/year? And, don't say this cannot happen. I has happened many times in the geologic past! Just look at Atlanta's desperate drought for a developer-created disaster.

In any case, we are STILL looking at continuing to draw down the aquifer by 2 billion gallons/year, even when SJ-C-RG water comes on line.

BUT, developers argue, “We will conserve more water.”

Drastic conservation measures have already cut our water consumption from 42 billion g/yr in the 90’s to 32 now. Obviously, there is a limit to how much we can conserve, and conservation happens in the face of challenges from new growth--homes and industry.

BUT, developers argue, “The aquifer will recharge itself.” According to the U.S. Geologic Survey, “Recharge happens very slowly.” According to the head of ABQ’s water conservation program, “I could not tell you how fast recharge will happen.”

Soooo, developers want to double the size of ABQ in 40 years, AND use our tax money to make growth happen faster, even though we live in a desert.

The gamble on conservation and drought notwithstanding, one has to ask, “What the hell will our kids do in forty years?”

This, like the national debt and government spending in general, seems to be just another example of greedy politicians supporting their corporate bedmates at the expense of our kids’ future.

Asking a city councilor or a county commissioner about this draws angry responses, but corporate welfare is still welfare.

Paranthetical question: why did Exxon get subsidies from the U.S. last year when it was the most profitable corporation in the world?

Sigh