ThinkProgress Logo

Yglesias

Android Getting Less Open Sourcy

Having gained a staggering amount of market share with its open release of Android, Google now wants to exert some more control:

Playtime is over in Android Land. Over the last couple of months Google has reached out to the major carriers and device makers backing its mobile operating system with a message: There will be no more willy-nilly tweaks to the software. No more partnerships formed outside of Google’s purview. From now on, companies hoping to receive early access to Google’s most up-to-date software will need approval of their plans. And they will seek that approval from Andy Rubin, the head of Google’s Android group.

This is the new reality described by about a dozen executives working at key companies in the Android ecosystem. Some of those affected include LG, Toshiba, Samsung, and even Facebook, which has been trying to develop an Android device. There have been enough run-ins to trigger complaints with the Justice Dept., according to a person familiar with the matter. The Google that once welcomed all comers to help get its mobile software off the ground has become far more discriminating—especially for companies that want to include Google services such as search and maps on their hardware. Google also gives chip and device makers that abide by its rules a head start in bringing Android products to market, according to the executives.

For those invested in the Apple side of the weird, quasi-ideological online debate about cell phones this is an opportunity for gloating but I think it’s interesting to see the effort to put an influential piece of open source software into a business plan that’s clearer than “we earn huge profits on web search so we have plenty of money to waste.” After all, as I understand it what’s been released is still open source software. If someone out there has the ability to do a better job than Google of updating existing Android OS, then the field is open to them. Google’s leverage is its presumed expertise in doing updates to a product it created.

Politics

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal Proposes Massive Tax Cuts For The Rich, Big Tax Hikes for Middle Class

One of the organizing principles of the conservative movement revolves around always cutting taxes and resisting any moves towards raising revenues. Hundreds of conservatives have even signed Grover Norquist’s pledge to never, under any circumstances, support a tax increase.

Gov. Nathan Deal (R-GA) made tax cuts a major part of his campaign promise last fall. In an ad put out by his campaign in February 2010, Deal bragged about running on “tax-cutting policies.” Watch it:

Now that Deal is Governor, the state legislature is currently drafting major tax legislation. Deal has been a guiding hand in the negotiations over the bill, and stands behind the latest version of the bill being debated among senate and house legislators. The bill does, as Deal promised, cut many taxes.

For example, it lowers the state personal income tax rate from 6 to 4.5 percent. Yet at the same time, the bill is being touted as being revenue neutral — meaning that revenue has to come from somewhere. Georgia Republicans, under the leadership of Deal, have decided to make up the difference by eliminating a whole host of tax exemptions and increases in sales taxes. The end result? Georgians making over $180,000 would see steep tax cuts while middle class Georgians making between $20,000 and $180,000 would see tax hikes. This chart compiled by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Jay Bookman using data from Georgia State University’s Fiscal Research Center illustrates this:

While negotiations over the tax bill are far from over, it appears that Deal and his Republican colleagues are standing behind a template that is becoming all too familiar for right-wing legislators: cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans and then demand that middle class and working class Main Street Americans pay out more in tax hikes or in reduced spending to health care, education, and other important investments. As ThinkProgress previously reported, at least a dozen states are currently pursuing corporate tax cuts while at the same time increasing burdens on working families.

Update

Georgia Politico’s Brett Johns has more details about how the GOP’s plan is sizing up to slam the middle class and enrich the already wealthy.

Yglesias

Kauffman Blogger Presentations

Most of the formal presentations from the economics bloggers conference I was over the weekend are available for viewing here. My favorites are Dean Baker on the inefficiency of patents, Arnold Kling dancing and discussing the economics of The Diamond Age, and Megan McArdle making me panic about anti-biotic resistant bacteria:

I used to read things like Laurie Garrett’s The Coming Plague and be very worried. Then I kind of stopped thinking about it. But per McArdle’s presentation, the multi-resistant bacteria problem remains quite real and the mismatched incentives that drive it seem incredibly difficult to pull apart, especially on a global basis.

Security

Radical Pastor Terry Jones Says He’s Considering ‘A Trial On The Life Of Mohammed’

Responding to news that Florida pastor Terry Jones had last week burnt the Quran, a mob of Afghans in the relatively calm city of Mazar-i-Sharif ransacked the United Nations headquarters there, killing 12 people. Last year, Jones sparked widespread condemnation when he threatened to burn a copy of the Quran outside his church. While he ultimately decided against it after pleas from high ranking U.S. officials such as Gen. David Petraeus and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Jones last week burned the Quran after a supposed “trial” of the Muslim holy book at his church found it guilty of “crimes against humanity.”

Violent protests in Afghanistan have now spread as far south as Kandahar. However, Jones feels no sense of responsibility. “We do not feel responsible,” he said on Friday. “We feel more that the Muslims and radical Islam uses that as an excuse.” Now, in an interview with the Daily Telegraph, Jones says he might also put the prophet Mohammad on trial:

Terry Jones, the radical pastor who oversaw the burning of a Koran in his Florida church last month after a mock court hearing, may put the Islamic prophet Mohammed on trial in his next ‘day of judgement’, he told The Sunday Telegraph.

It is definitely a consideration to stage a trial on the life of Mohammed in the future,” he said in interview on Saturday.

Jones said in an interview with ABC News that his burning of the Quran “definitely does prove that there is a radical element of Islam. … I believe the UN needs to stand up to countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Muslim-dominated countries. They have been persecuting, killing Christians for generations.”

Una Moore, a development professional based in Afghanistan, wrote on UN Dispatch on Friday that the reaction to Jones in Mazar-i-Sharif marks “the end” of the international community’s involvement in Afghanistan:

Foreigners have been killed in Afghanistan before, and today’s attack was not the first fatal attack on UN staff. But it was different than previous fatal attacks. Very different. The killers were ordinary residents of a city deemed peaceful enough to be one of the first places transferred to the control of Afghan security forces.

“Terry Jones and others will continue to pull anti-Islam stunts and opportunistic extremists here will use those actions to incite attacks against foreigners,” she wrote, adding, “Unless we, the internationals, want our guards to fire on unarmed protesters from now on, the day has come for us to leave Afghanistan.”

Update

The Washington Post reports that Jones acknowledged he broke his promise not to burn a Quran. “If you want to be technical,” he said, “I guess we broke our word.”

Yglesias

What Hath God Wrought?

Daniel Walker Howe’s What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 covering American history from roughly 1812-1848 is just a tremendous book. I recommend it unreservedly to any nonfiction readers out there. This is a period in the United States that most of us (certainly myself included) don’t know much about because “nothing happened.” except, as Howe makes clear, tons of stuff happened. For one thing, the country expanded massively in size to include Florida, Texas, and the Pacific Coast. Mass democracy came into being paired with mass communication and mass literacy. The country was tied together by these factors into a meaningful national unit even while controversy over war with Mexico and what to do with its spoils began to split it apart.

As a side observation, I’ll note it’s interesting that there’s a surprising amount of partisanship among contemporary historians in their treatments of this period even though obviously the Second Party System was very different from ours. Sean Wilentz’s The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln is very much a pro-Democrat book while Howe is much more of a Whig. My own inclinations, I suppose, are closer go Howe’s in this regard. But it’s a bit of an odd way to look a things.

But the incredible strength of Howe’s book is his ability to weave the myriad non-political elements of the history into the narrative. You get the establishment of doomed utopian religious communities, but also the non-doomed establishment of Mormonism. Technologic change via the rise of the railroad and the telegraph. Economic transformation driven by canal-building and more modern finance. Military strategy in Mexico. Social change as the understanding of race relations, slavery, and the status of Christianity in America is redefined. It’s something close to a genuinely comprehensive history of the period. Check it out.

Politics

Paul Ryan Dodges Fox News’ Questions About Whether He’ll Eliminate Tax Breaks For Oil Companies

On Tuesday, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) plans to lay out his proposed budget for the next fiscal year. Promoting his plan on Fox News Sunday this morning, Ryan made clear that his plan for deficit reduction would demand drastic spending cuts shouldered on the backs of low- and middle-income Americans without asking for similar sacrifice from the wealthy. Asked repeatedly by host Chris Wallace whether he’ll eliminate tax breaks for oil companies, Ryan hemmed and hawed without giving a clear answer:

WALLACE: A lot of Democrats that are already saying, even before they’ve seen your budget, that you do all of this balancing of the budget on the spending side, and unlike the President’s debt commission, you don’t do it on the revenue side. Do you eliminate tax breaks? Do you bring in new revenue by eliminating, for instance, tax breaks for oil companies?

RYAN: We don’t have a tax problem. The problem with our deficit is not because Americans are taxed too little. The problem with our deficit is because Washington spends too much money. … So we’re not going to down the path of raising taxes on people. […]

WALLACE: But for instance, you will not eliminate tax breaks for Big Oil and Gas?

RYAN: Those are the kinds of details that we’ll come out later with, that the Ways and Means Committee will work on. We’re not going to go into the little details of which tax expenditure goes and which tax expenditure stays.

Watch it:

Ryan has no problem discussing details of his budget plan that impose higher taxes on 90 percent of Americans and relies on squeezing Medicare and Medicaid. But when pressed on details about cutting corporate welfare, he had nothing to say. But previously, he’s been more blunt, calling the idea of ending taxpayer handouts to oil and gas companies “ridiculous economics.”

Ryan is wrong about one key point — there is, in fact, “a tax problem.” Federal tax receipts are at the lowest levels since 1950. As this graph produced by CAP’s Director for Tax and Budget Policy Michael Linden demonstrates, tax receipts as a percentage of GDP dropped precipitously following the Bush tax cuts:

taxchart

According to the Office of Management and Budget, corporate tax receipts will account for just 7.2% of federal revenues in 2010, with large corporations contributing less than one-sixth as much as small business and individual taxpayers to the federal treasury. Exxon-Mobil, for instance, paid $15 billion in taxes in 2009, but not a penny of those taxes went to the American Treasury. Because oil and gas companies receive generous tax subsidies, the U.S. government loses about $4 billion in revenue a year.

Paul Ryan’s budget will demand that working Americans give up health care and pension benefits that they’ve earned, while asking nothing from hugely profitable corporations that are failing to meet their tax responsibilities.

Politics

VIDEO: Fox’s Brit Hume Is Left Speechless When Asked About G.E. Paying Zero Federal Taxes

While any sober solution to the country’s deficit problem should include both revenue enhancement and spending cuts, conservatives have been completely unwilling to even consider tax increases, proposing steep cuts that will do little to solve the deficit, while doing much to hurt the middle class and the most vulnerable. Toeing that conservative line on Fox News Sunday today, Fox personality Brit Hume argued that cutting taxes will actually lead to increased tax revenue. Fox analyst Juan Williams responded by noting this is often not the case, citing the fact that G.E. — the nation’s largest companypaid nothing in taxes last year. Williams’ response flummoxed Hume, who appeared dumbfounded and at a loss for words. Host Chris Wallace had to jump in to smooth things over with a joke:

WILLIAMS: You’re going on as if, you know what, we don’t know how in America how to help our own deficit problem. We do! We just have to tax people.

HUME: Juan, Juan. What we need is not higher tax rates. What we need is higher revenue. And how do you get higher revenues? You get higher revenues from an expanding economy. That’s where the big money comes from.

WILLIAMS: Yeah, and G.E. paying no taxes? That’s good for America? Come on, you know that’s not right.

[Pause]

WALLACE: I just want to say, I pay all my taxes!

Watch it:

Yglesias

Progress-Related Job Losses

A.G. Sulzberger reports on Illinois’ abolition of the death penalty and finds that change is rarely Pareto optimal:

>The day after the death penalty was abolished in Illinois in early March, Wendi Liss received a call from one of her clients, who was facing trial for murder and the prospect of being executed if found guilty.

He was calling not to celebrate, but to express concern for her career.

“He said, ‘I know this is what you guys wanted and I know this is good for us, but I don’t want you to be out of a job,’” recounted Ms. Liss, one of dozens of employees at the Office of the State Appellate Defender who specialize in death penalty cases.

Change for the better, I’d say.

Climate Progress

Downplaying or remaining silent about climate change was and is a blunder for progressives

Some of the best pollsters have known for years that progressives can and should talk about climate change  (see Mark Mellman on climate messaging: “A strong public consensus has emerged on the reality and severity of global warming, as well as on the need for federal action” [5/09]).  Mellman calls the polling that suggests one shouldn’t talk about global warming, a “politically na¯ve, methodologically flawed and factually inaccurate.”

Sure, if you talk about any subject in a clumsy fashion you will turn people off “” just look at how Obama and major progressive politicians managed to turn a winning political issue, health care reform, into an unpopular one! [see "Can Obama deliver health and energy security with a half (assed) message?"]

Much of the climate language that gets tested is truly lame.  But the fact that poor messaging fails is not an argument for not doing messaging on the subject at all!

Science-based (dire) warnings are an essential part of good climate messaging — along with a clear explanation of the myriad clean energy solutions available today and the multiple benefits those solutions that deliver,  including  millions of jobs,  energy security, competitiveness, and especially clean air and improved public health.  Recent research supports that view (even though many in the media misreported the story).

Ironically, many people think the failure of the climate bill proves that talking about climate change doesn’t work — because they don’t realize that the messaging campaign built around the climate bill was based on not talking about climate change! Those still confused on that matter should read “Can you solve global warming without talking about global warming?

Read more

Climate Progress

Can biochar help suppress greenhouse gases?

New study shows biochar to decrease nitrous oxide emissions

Nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse gas and a precursor to compounds that contribute to the destruction of the ozone. Intensively managed, grazed pastures are responsible for an increase in nitrous oxide emissions from grazing animals’ excrement. Biochar is potentially a mitigation option for reducing the world’s elevated carbon dioxide emissions, since the embodied carbon can be sequestered in the soil. Biochar also has the potential to beneficially alter soil nitrogen transformations.

It’s science Sunday, so I’m reprinting this news release from the American Society of Agronomy.  It’s the short, readable version of the full study, “Biochar Incorporation into Pasture Soil Suppresses in situ Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Ruminant Urine Patches.”

Many readers have expressed interested in biochar (aka “charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass” aka “a C-rich product that is manufactured by thermal decomposition of organic material under a limited oxygen supply at relatively low temperatures (<700°C),” as the study puts it).

I’ll run a longer post on biochar later this year.  For now, here’s the rest of the release:

Read more

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up