Governor’s race is about clean energy vs corporate profits

The 2016 NextEra deal is the fulcrum upon which the Hawaiʻi executive's race hinges.

Evan Tector Energy Read
Primarily Voting For Change

If change is your primary concern, show up to vote in the Democratic Primary on August 11, or take advantage of early voting and same day registration options: The Hawaii Independent's 2018 Primary Election Guides

Kauai County Primary Election Guide

Your one-stop guide for primary election races in the County of Kauai, with associated research and media links.

Oahu County Primary Election Guide

Your one-stop guide for primary election races in the County of Oahu, with associated research and media links.

Maui County Primary Election Guide

Your one-stop guide for primary election races in the County of Maui, with associated research and media links.

Hawaii County Primary Election Guide

Your one-stop guide for primary election races in the County of Hawaiʻi, with associated research and media links.

Koch-funded study admits Medicare for All would save trillions

The study was intended to make Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All proposal look unattainable, but even cursory analysis shows that the study's estimated cost for the proposal is still at least $1.4 trillion cheaper than what our current system will cost over the next 10 years.

A study released this morning by George Mason University’s Mercatus Center claims that a Bernie Sanders-style Medicare for All plan would cost approximately $32.6 trillion over 10 years. The Mercatus Center has received millions of dollars in funding from right-wing billionaires Charles and David Koch. The study is clearly aimed at throwing doubt over whether or not we can afford the cost of such a proposal, but the problem is, even by the most conservative estimates—including the ones in this study—our current health insurance and health care system will still cost more money.

In 2016, the United States spent $3.4 trillion on healthcare; projected over ten years—and assuming costs don’t rise, as they’re expected to—that’s $34 trillion. What’s more, by 2025, the current for-profit healthcare system is expected to cost a staggering $5.5 trillion per year. This means that, even if the Koch-funded study is accurate in its $32.6 trillion estimate for Medicare for All (which Sen. Sanders has already said is inflated), we would still end up saving $1.4 trillion at a minimum while insuring tens of millions more Americans and providing better health outcomes overall.

These soaring costs are a major reason most Americans—both Democrats and Republicans—now support a Medicare for All-type system.

In response to the study, Sen. Sanders said in an AP article, “This grossly misleading and biased report is the Koch brothers’ response to the growing support in our country for a ‘Medicare for All’ program.”

“Even if you take the report’s headline figures at face value, the picture it paints is that of an enormous bargain,” said Matt Bruenig of the People’s Policy Project. “We get to insure every single person in the country…and save everyone from the hell of constantly changing health insurance all while saving money. You would have to be a fool to pass that offer up.”

“If every major country on Earth can guarantee healthcare to all, and achieve better health outcomes, while spending substantially less per capita than we do, it is absurd for anyone to suggest that the United States cannot do the same,” Sen. Sanders concluded. It appears that, once the numbers are crunched, even a conservative policy center like Mercatus can’t argue with that.

Will Caron Healthcare Read
Does Doug Chin believe in civil rights for everyone?

Actions taken by the Department of the Attorney General, which Chin headed from 2015 until the beginning of 2018, lead one voter to question whether the candidate for Congressional District 1 is truly the civil rights champion he claims to be.

NOAA drops illegal “take” charges against Hawaiian cultural practitioners

The Federal agency may have thought it was doing its duty in enforcing tenets of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, but the agency's lack of knowledge and understanding of Hawaiian culture and the protected rights of practitioners resulted in a violation of civil liberties that could have been prevented with better communication.

Department of the Interior proposal would gut the Endangered Species Act

Under newly proposed guidelines from the Trump Administration’s Department of the Interior, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would be forced to take “economic impacts” into consideration when deciding whether to protect species. While this has a veneer of fiscal responsibility laid over it, the policy would potentially allow large corporations to move ahead with projects that would otherwise be prohibited under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The department proposal also includes provisions to stop extending similar levels of protection to animals and plants listed as either “endangered” or “threatened,” and would remove language preventing illegal “takes”—the harming or killing of species—for animals that have been newly added to the “threatened” list.

The ESA has the approval of some 90 percent of Americans.

“These proposals would slam a wrecking ball into the most crucial protections for our most endangered wildlife,” Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. “If these regulations had been in place in the 1970s, the bald eagle and the gray whale would be extinct today. If they’re finalized now, [Secretary] Zinke will go down in history as the extinction secretary.”

The ESA was enacted in 1973 and has become “one of the most successful environmental laws in U.S. history,” according to the Center for Biological Diversity—currently protecting more than 1,600 species from extinction. Fewer than one percent of species have gone extinct once listed as protected under the Act. The regulations have kept fossil fuel companies, loggers and developers from interfering with their habitats as well as protecting many species from hunting.

“These regulations are the heart of how the Endangered Species Act is implemented,” said Jamie Rappaport Clark, a former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who is now president of Defenders of Wildlife. “Imperiled species depend on them for their very lives. The signal being sent by the Trump administration is clear: Protecting America’s wildlife and wild lands is simply not on their agenda.”

Page 2 of 523 pages