Pages

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Criminalizing homelessness? Fallout feared from anti-Occupy bill

Occupy protesters Anthony Gales, left, Ben Grady, center, and James Martin, right, eat dinner at the campsite on Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2012, in Nashville, Tenn.
Legislation passed by Tennessee lawmakers, apparently aimed at shutting the Occupy Nashville camp, could have a chilling effect on free speech and perhaps even criminalize the homeless, housing and civil liberties activists say.
The state's House of Representatives on Monday approved the Senate version of a bill -- the "Equal Access to Public Property Act of 2012" -- which prohibits unauthorized camping -- including sleeping and storing of personal belongings -- on public grounds, and the governor says he will sign it. Violators would face up to 11 months and 29 days in jail and/or a fine of $2,500.
The measure follows an unsuccessful attempt by the state to evict the Occupy protesters from Nashville’s Legislative Plaza in October.
“It chills the spirit of freedom of speech and assembly by targeting a particular form of expression,” said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee. “When you recognize that the Occupy folks were choosing to camp and put up tents as the very means by which they were expressing their frustration with the government -- to have that then be identified as criminal, challenges their right to political speech.”
The legislation does not specifically refer to the plaza where Occupy protesters have gathered, instead describing public property in one section as "a state park, recreation area, wildlife refuge, historic building, educational institution or natural green space." It notes the legislation is "specifically intended to protect state interests jeopardized by the activity of camping on state property that is not compatible to or designated for such activity."
The broad language poses a major problem for the homeless, said Charles Strobel, founding director of Room in the Inn and its Campus for Human Development, a religious nonprofit that provides services to the homeless in central Tennessee.
“I think it’s what they might refer to as unintended consequences,” he said. "… It’s criminalizing the right to exist as a human being. It’s outlawing homelessness."
Strobel, who has worked with the homeless community for 34 years, described the legislation as "cruel and mean.” He said it will join a number of measures, such as "quality of life" offenses, that the homeless already have to contend with.
"So this is just one of a number of situations that you’re constantly facing with the homeless, that they are being shuffled around and, of course, in this case, they just have to keep walking … God forbid that they stop and rest," he said late Tuesday.

Related story: Tale of a Southern 'Occupy': Nashville aims to bridge political divides

Some homeless had sheltered at Legislative Plaza before the Occupy protesters arrived, since there were only about 1,500 beds available to the city’s estimated more than 4,000 people who need them, Strobel said.
As many as 50 homeless people lived in the Occupy camp at the height of the protest, but that number has dropped to about 10, said Lindsey Krinks, a 27-year-old student at Vanderbilt Divinity School and a homeless advocate who is also an Occupy member.
“A lot of people have cleared off the plaza because they’re so concerned about getting jail time and fines that they can’t pay and having all of their belongings confiscated ... which is really problematic when you are looking at people who have so little to begin with," she said.
Among those is Nathan Rice, 32, who said he has lived on the streets since 13 and recycles cans for money. He arrived at the Occupy camp in mid-November and said he is "pretty much committed" to the movement.
“It was just a safe place to sleep and people treated me fairly nice,” Rice said of the Occupy camp. "They didn’t look at you as just homeless ... they looked at us as equals.”
One of the legislation's sponsors, Republican Rep. Eric Watson, said in an email that the legislation “does nothing to impact the homeless population” and did not elaborate. He directed msnbc.com to the text of the legislation regarding questions about the bill's intent. 
The other sponsor, Republican Sen. Dolores R. Gresham, did not respond to an email and phone calls from msnbc.com seeking comment by early Wednesday afternoon.
But in an interview with The Associated Press on Monday, she said the purpose was to make the grounds around the Capitol available to all visitors.

AP Photo/Erik Schelzig
Sen. Dolores Gresham introduces her bill seeking to ban unauthorized camping on public property on the Senate floor in Nashville, Tenn., on Thursday, Feb. 23, 2012.
"Certainly that was never the intent that the homeless would be in any way impacted by this bill," the Somerville Republican said.
Health concerns and preservation of state resources are cited in the bill among the reasons to impose the changes.
"It is in the state’s interests to be a good steward of public land and manage and protect it in such a manner as to ensure that future generations of Tennesseans are able to continue to enjoy the natural treasures and rich beauty of this state," the bill said.
While many other Occupy camps have been shuttered across the country using similar regulations since Occupy Wall Street began in September, U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Winmill in Idaho issued a temporary order on Monday allowing Occupy protesters in Boise to keep their tents.
The judge wrote that the camp was in a public place that is "highly visible and physically close to the seat of government, making it a natural forum for political protests." He has not allowed sleeping but said an argument could be made for it as a protected freedom of expression, according to KBOI2.com.
The order was issued in response to a new law signed last week by Idaho's governor intended to remove the protesters from the property surrounding a vacant courthouse where they've camped out since early November, The Associated Press reported.
Criminalization of the homeless in jurisdictions around the country “has become progressively worse over the last couple of years,” said Neil Donovan, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless.
“A number of communities are passing ordinances like this to push back against the Occupy movement and when you look at communities, some do it more artfully than others, and this is certainly not in that camp,” he said. “It’s quite apparent that they are constructing this to limit … very distinct behavior and actions.”
Donovan said it was a “flagrant targeting” of a group of individuals and said he thought it was unlikely to stand up in court. When asked how the legislation compared to others on the books, he said it was among "those ordinances that violate people's rights" and was "part of a collective movement" to restrict the rights of those who engage in "reasonable activities."
“Anytime that a state engages in this type of behavior it opens the door and creates a path for other ordinances and other laws that will affect the homeless so we would strongly object to this” kind of legislation, he added.
A separate process is also under way in Tennessee to write new procedures for the use of the plaza amid an ongoing federal lawsuit, filed by the local ACLU, which alleges that the state illegally revised the rules controlling the site last October when it tried to evict the Occupy protesters.



Always make the wording match your intent. Otherwise the law will be dusted off 20 years from now to justify arresting people -- long after the "Occupy" movement is another fotenote in history.
  • 42 votes
#1 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:28 PM EST
Ok, all you hard core, right wing, gun rights HUNTERS - don't fall asleep in your tree stand or it will cost you $2,500 and 364 days in jail.
...instead describing public property in one section as "a state park, recreation area, wildlife refuge, historic building, educational institution or natural green space."
I know you can't legally hunt in all the places listed. Does TN have state game lands?
  • 25 votes
#1.1 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:40 PM EST
Crminalizing homelessness in a State where the average folks cant get a job, are being laid off, and foreclosed from their homes; I would call that dumbass...
And then to infringe on free speech by not allowing folks to say something about government; I would call that redneck ploitics, where ya shoot yourself in the ass and ask questions later where you have no ass to seat on....
Wow, the mid of a teabag is something, aint it?
  • 55 votes
#1.2 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:41 PM EST
They would rather have taxpayers pay to house all the Occupiers in jail than let them peacefully protest? And where are the real criminals going to go?
  • 55 votes
#1.3 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:51 PM EST
In Tennessee, there are lands that are approved for hunting, and hunters must be licensed to participate. Of course, a lot of people in Tennessee hunt on family owned land.
  • 12 votes
#1.4 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:54 PM EST
Comment author avatartruthseeker 244Expand Comment Comment collapsed by the community
How dare you post an intelligent and factual reply...these are mostly liberals here - they don't want to here things like that here - it dosen't fit into their agenda...
  • 10 votes
#1.6 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:01 PM EST
Great move,Tennessee! You manage to be both anti-Christian (because, you know, Jesus really would believe in arresting people for not having a roof over their heads) and anti-democracy in one piece of legislation!
  • 54 votes
#1.7 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:02 PM EST
Tenn. should worry more about it's 54% functional illiteracy rate than the occupy movement.
  • 57 votes
#1.8 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:04 PM EST
When did we go from "land of the free, home of the brave" to this mess?
  • 47 votes
#1.9 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:05 PM EST
Comment author avatarNancy1074Expand Comment Comment collapsed by the community
LOL.....just how many LIBERALS are going along with this legislation ?
Oh, forgive me...but if it was drafted by a Liberal, everything would be hunky dory.
The Occupy movement has completely STALLED months ago, as if there was an agenda. Time for the occupiers to pack up their bags and head home.
  • 19 votes
#1.11 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:09 PM EST
When you consider that people on the right favour privatized prisons this is a win win for them. Getting a guarantied payout from the same government they complain about is a pretty neat trick .
  • 26 votes
#1.12 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:09 PM EST
These lawmakers are absolutely hilarious........ Make martyrs of the occupy crowd...... Great idea! In the words of:

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win . by Mahatma Gandhi.

I am not even part of the occupy movement, but I am smart enough to know poking a stick at it or making ridiculous laws only increases the tension.
  • 41 votes
#1.13 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:13 PM EST
When did we go from "land of the free, home of the brave" to this mess?
When people thought defecating in public and squatting was a good idea. In other words when the brave turned into cry babies.
  • 25 votes
#1.14 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:14 PM EST
When some people started thinking of decades past as the "good old days" and started to try to recreate them. Back then, homeless people didn't exist, so lets just make them go away. And back then, people didn't protest the government or the unjust system we ended up with. It was far better... to their minds.
  • 19 votes
#1.15 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:14 PM EST
I feel bad for Nashville. First they had a flood to clean up. Now they have an even bigger disaster to clean up.
  • 15 votes
#1.16 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:19 PM EST
Comment author avatarMike KrotchExpand Comment Comment collapsed by the community
JedClampett@Bugtussel.USA
How dare you post an intelligent and factual reply...these are mostly liberals here - they don't want to here things like that here - it dosen't fit into their agenda...
Actually Jed, you've got that backwards. We liberal are the ones who deal in intelligence and facts. We believe in science, and prefer books to bullets. Even your boy Santorum admitted that when he dissed getting a college education as being snobby. Looks like you could use a refresher spelling and punctuation course.
Though I must say, you sure picked an appropriate name for yourself.
  • 24 votes
#1.18 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:32 PM EST
Comment author avatarRyan in TexasExpand Comment Comment collapsed by the community
You're right, Mike. Jail ANYONE who wants to say ANYTHING about the state of our government.
And that includes you.
  • 21 votes
#1.20 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:39 PM EST
Ryan, citation on "millions in damages" please.
  • 10 votes
#1.21 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:40 PM EST
Juice-3107132Expand Comment Comment collapsed by the community
Comment author avatarBackcountry164Expand Comment Comment collapsed by the community
I think most of you bought into the headline, "criminalizing homelessness". You can be homeless without persecution, but you cannot takeover public property. This law does allow authorities to clear public parks of unwanted squatters. Here in Hawaii, one of the bluest of Blue States, they have passed laws to keep people from sleeping and storing their property in public parks and on sidewalks. We have temporary and transitional shelters for the homeless. The chronic homeless want nothing to do with those shelters because they choose not to live by anybody elses rules. It's hard to maintain you crystal meth habit in a shelter. Most of our homeless are there because of drug, alcohol, and mental health problems. Prior to our government passing these laws, we had public parks where regular folks were afraid to go. The Occupy folks and their supporters only use the freedom of speech line in order to defend their disruption to the normal use of these parks. Public property being squatted on is the issue, not freedom of speech. You can speak your mind while enjoying these public areas, you just should not be able to take up residence there.
  • 22 votes
#1.24 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:42 PM EST
Passing a law which could have a negative effect on society in general as the public and political establishment become more isolated from one another.
  • 13 votes
#1.25 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:43 PM EST
Love how the right will stand up for free speech and right to assemble when it is THEIR message... but when the other team does it, "Jail them".
We have gone from: "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"... to silencing any opposing viewpoint.
So much for honor and respect. You all should be so proud.
  • 14 votes
#1.26 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:45 PM EST
truthseeker
Republicans from the United States weren't in Germany during WWII. But the democrats were here in the US. In fact it was the leftie loon FDR who decided to round up US ctizens and put them in camps because of their nationality. He even did it against the will of his Attorney General. You can spew all the crap you want about the right in this couintry but if you really study history you will see that the left has been on the wrong side of equality issues most of the time.
  • 15 votes
#1.27 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:45 PM EST
Sean, you're off your liberal game today. Here's just one article addressing the millions of dollars that the Occupy Movement has cost those of us that stoill pay taxes. There are many articles easily accessible to you if you really want to know. I bet you don't.
Occupy protests costs taxpayers, cities nearly $13 million: survey
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
During the first two months of the nationwide Occupy protests, the movement that is demanding more out of the wealthiest Americans cost local taxpayers at least $13 million in police overtime and other municipal services, according to a survey by The Associated Press.
The heaviest financial burden has fallen upon law enforcement agencies tasked with monitoring marches and evicting protesters from outdoor camps. And the steepest costs by far piled up in New York City and Oakland, Calif., where police clashed with protesters on several occasions.
  • 14 votes
#1.28 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:51 PM EST
If you please Mike's Krotch, do you mean the legislators or the occupiers? Both can be scummy at times!!
  • 5 votes
#1.29 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:53 PM EST
@ Bobby Jones, another teabagger. Sad day in America when your very right to exist is challenged. The GOP want to make anyone and everyone that doesn't bend over backwards for them illegal in one way or another. And NO Booby I am not talking about actual Illegals.. Although..
The GOP want to make being gay illegal. They want to make gay people illegal. They want to control who you can and cannot be with, live with or even marry. The GOP want to force Judeo-Christian Sharia law on ALL of America and then rule with the iron fists of Christiandom. The GOP want to rule with a bible in one hand and a fully automatic weapon in the other.
Public Property? That is the biggest caveat in the law! Anything could be deemed as "green space," and/or "public property," since a government has immanent domain. The GOP are separating this nation further and further each day with bunk laws like this.
Elect a GOPer in 2012 for the President and we'll have WW3 with Iran, China, Russia, North Korea and, Venezuela. Willard and Ricky both want to invade Iran. Iran is a sovereign nation and has the right to develop ANY technology it see's fit. Hell we gave Israel the tech for nukes. Israel is going to be the downfall of America. Let them fight their own battles. We saved them total destruction and this is how they repay us? Lies about Iraq. A hand in 9-11.. America would be wiser to spend the trillions the GOP want to spend on war, rebuilding this nation instead.
  • 9 votes
#1.30 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:57 PM EST
“It chills the spirit of freedom of speech and assembly by targeting a particular form of expression,” said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee.
Yea, because camping on property intended to be accessible to everyone is clearly a "form of expression".. what a joke.
I like to "express myself" by robbing banks, think the judge will feel sorry for me?
"It’s criminalizing the right to exist as a human being. It’s outlawing homelessness."
Drama queen much?
The only time in American history where the right to exist has been criminalized is the recent fines imposed by Obamacare for living without purchasing health insurance.
No, it outlaws squating on property intended for use by the taxpayers who fund it's construction and upkeep. You can still be homeless, you just can't take over public property... pretty plain and simple, not too surprising that liberals can't understand it though.
  • 12 votes
#1.31 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:59 PM EST
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So Tennessee thinks they have a law that trumps the US constitution. Notice the First amendment does not say where, when or how you are "allowed" to to speak and assemble only that the people have the right to peaceably assemble. It does not say the government can regulate that assembly. As long as it is peaceful. The GOP is lucky that the Occupy movement hasn't assembled in the town square with their weapons as their ancestors did at Lexington and Concord. Since you GOPers don't all know this, that is in Massachusetts.
  • 15 votes
#1.32 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:59 PM EST
@IndieParty
Love how the right will stand up for free speech and right to assemble when it is THEIR message... but when the other team does it, "Jail them".
Could you please post examples of where this has happened? FYI, the First Amendemt does not give you the right to occupy anything. These people can show up every morning for the rest of their lives to assemble and speak freely as long as they go home that night.
  • 13 votes
#1.33 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:06 PM EST
420 Frees the Mind
Seems 420 is clouding your ability to make accurate assumptions. It's also clouding your ability to realize your rights are not being taken away. They are preserving the rights of all citizens, not just the ones who feel since they squatted on "public" land first they are entitled to it.
Elect a GOPer in 2012 for the President and we'll have WW3 with Iran, China, Russia, North Korea and, Venezuela.
Oops I forgot what a wonderful job Obama is doing to prevent it.
  • 12 votes
#1.34 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:10 PM EST
@Devil's Son
So Tennessee thinks they have a law that trumps the US constitution. Notice the First amendment does not say where, when or how you are "allowed" to to speak and assemble only that the people have the right to peaceably assemble. It does not say the government can regulate that assembly. As long as it is peaceful.
You know what, I've got some stuff I'd like to protest about. I think I'll head to Washington and protest inside the Oval Office or maybe just on the front steps of the White House. If the Secret Service gives me any grief I'll just explain to them that the First Amendment gives me the right as long as I'm being peaceful. durrrrrrrr
Please get a clue about the First Amendment before you make any more assine statement regarding it.
  • 12 votes
#1.35 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:12 PM EST
Lanikai Ron, nope, I'm not off my game at all; I set you up and you fell into it.
The bottom line is that the choice to send riot squads != "damages"
I went to Occupy in my city. There was no damage. OW kept their stuff together and their area was far cleaner than any campsite I visited during the summer and cleaner than the aftermath of any kid's birthday party held in the same location. I regularly attend events with larger gatherings on public land with an exponential number of attendees and a fraction of the police presence. While I was there there was never a need to have at least a dozen cops surveilling the area without probable cause. But that's a choice of the government, all the same.
Nope, I'm completely on my game today. Now, bring me some itemized "damages" that equalled "millions" like I instructed.
  • 4 votes
#1.36 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:18 PM EST
does the 13 million include having to right some of the wrongs of the police brutality?
  • 3 votes
#1.37 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:18 PM EST
*sigh*
crap likes this happens because we didn't let the south secede. Why didn't we just let them become a part of mexico? Let them take alaska, too, every crazy ass state who whines and screams "nyah nyah nyah nyah-nyah" at everything. The people who care about fetuses and don't care about the living who are suffering and dying, the people who are worried about muslims flying airplanes into their homes but aren't worried about massive hurricanes which level entire cities, the people who vote for republicans while they do just about every corrupt thing they accuse democrats of outside of a few core principles.
Can't we just make a bill making them all a part of a different country? I'm sick of reading comments left by hateful morons a tad late for the stone age.
  • 5 votes
#1.38 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:18 PM EST
 
Satanick
Occupy better come back every day and raise hell. @!$%# this law.
  • 6 votes
#1.39 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:28 PM EST
No problem Fox,
You can have the people who don't mind killing babies but want to let convicted killers live.
Anyone who supports a party 100% should have their head checked in the first place.
  • 8 votes
#1.40 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:31 PM EST
Ido, you idiot! There are few liberals left in the halls of Nashville. The crazies in rural and east tennessee voted most of them out last election cycle. This state has gone nuts, emphasis on the legislature. Since the Republicans took control of our state government then re-elected those two nutbag senators things have been going steadily down hill for small businesses of 5 employees or less and the working poor. Secondly, they say they are good steward!! What a crock. This is our state and our land and our people. We pay taxes only to find that they can't even manage to collect trash and break even. Our school systems are mismanaged. Our cities are mismanaged and now the state is mismanaged. If you want proof just look at what kind of crap they are creating and passing in Nashville. The Republicans have created more problems than they repaired.......and that's a fact. They want to have church in the chambers of our congress and then they want to talk freedom......................................sure.
  • 4 votes
#1.41 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:41 PM EST
@Sean,
Ryan, citation on "millions in damages" please
Here are few of those Documented Costs you asked about in 1.21
In Los Angeles, Democratic Mayor Antonio "Villaraigosa has said the cleanup and repair to the park might cost more than $1 million." Oh, and let's not forget the "overtime costs for city employees" during the "occupation." According to the LA Times, "Overtime costs for the General Services Department, which runs the police force assigned to City Hall and other municipal buildings, exceeded $100,000 even before the overnight raid [ending the 'occupation']."
www.gaypatriot.net/2011/12/10/how-much-will-it-cost-to-clean-up-after-occupy-movements/
Latest Occupy Portland cost estimate to repair Chapman, Lownsdale squares $50,000
www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/11/latest_occupy_portland_cost_es.html
Preliminary Report Reveals Occupy LA Cleanup Cost At Least $2.3M
losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/12/23/city-occupy-la-costs-at-least-2-3-million/
Occupy Movement's Price Tag Tops $20 Million …Much Higher Than the $13 Million That Was Previously Reported
www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/11/occupy-movements-price-tag-tops-20000000-much-higher-than-the-13000000-that-was-previously-reported/
•Occupy Asheville – $170,000
•Occupy Atlanta – $652,000
•Occupy Austin – $110,000
•Occupy Boston – $575,000
•Occupy Charlotte – $105,000
•Occupy Chicago – $49,000
•Occupy Cincinnati – $128,000
•Occupy Des Moines – $7,800
•Occupy DC – $870,000
•Occupy Denver – $365,000
•Occupy Eugene – $20,000
•Occupy Fresno – $110,000
•Occupy LA – $120,000 plus estimated $400,000 to repair the lawn
•Occupy Long Beach – $40,000
•Occupy Minnesota – $400,000
•Occupy Nashville – $4,500
•Occupy New York – $7,000,000
•Occupy Oakland – $2,400,000 for police overtime alone
•Occupy Philadelphia – $500,000
•Occupy Phoenix – $200,000
•Occupy Portland – $750,000 3.5 million + $50,000 to repair damaged parks
•Occupy Providence – $9, 000
•Occupy Raleigh – $60, 000
•Occupy Sacramento – $300,000
•Occupy San Diego – $2,400,000
•Occupy San Francisco – $100,000
•Occupy St. Louis – $2,200
•Occupy Seattle – $625,999
– Total: Over $21,273,499
@Ryan, sorry for answering for you, I know you were going to get right on it.
  • 9 votes
#1.42 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:41 PM EST
RandomFox
You were talking about democrats weren't you? The people who don't care about babies in the womb, the democrat leaders of Louisiana? If you are tired of reading hateful comments from morons you better go to another site far away from the looney leftists here at MSNBC.
cjbak - look what the democrats have done to the whole country since 2007. Yes, they said that they would fix everything if we elected them in 2006. They have failed and it has made every state, no matter what party is in charge, go in the wrong direction. Get rid of the progressive/liberals and things will get better.
  • 7 votes
#1.43 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:42 PM EST
As a Tennessee resident, my advice would be go sue the state and steal the land through "Eminent Domain" and file it as property of the people and not property of the state. You could pretty much keep doing what you're doing, pissing off the 1%. I'm sure we have at least 1 judge in this state with some balls.
  • 1 vote
#1.44 - Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:44 PM EST
 

First Thoughts: Winning ugly



Romney wins ugly in Michigan… But that win silences the talk about a white knight riding to the GOP’s rescue… February took a toll on Romney… Did Santorum lose Michigan more than Romney winning it?... On to Super Tuesday… And Snowe’s retirement gives Democrats a better than 50%-50% chance of holding the Senate in November.

Mark Blinch / Reuters
Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney addresses supporters at his Michigan primary night rally in Novi, Michigan, February 28, 2012.

*** Winning ugly: With so much riding on last night's outcome in Michigan, Mitt Romney got exactly what he needed to avoid political disaster -- a win. After all, a win is a win, and Romney pocketed two of them with a blow-out victory in Arizona (47%-27% over Rick Santorum) and a nail-biter in Michigan (41%-38%). But it wasn’t pretty for the former Massachusetts governor in the state where he grew up, where his father had served as governor, and where he won by nine percentage points in 2008. If this were college football, last night’s Michigan contest was akin to the No.2-ranked team in the country winning on a last-second field goal (the score 41-38) against an unranked opponent at home, on Homecoming. That No. 2 team survives, gets to regroup, and keeps its championship hopes alive. But the way it won -- UGLY -- despite all of its advantages raises doubts among the sports writers and even fans about its chances against the No. 1 team. Then again, the goal is to make it to the BCS game and see what happens. And Romney essentially did that by winning in Michigan last night.

*** But that win silences the talk about a white knight riding to the rescue: The biggest impact of Romney’s narrow victory in Michigan: It silences the talk of a white knight riding to the GOP’s rescue. While such an outcome might not have occurred even if Romney lost -- was a Christie/Daniels/Jeb Bush really going to jump in this late in the game? -- last night pretty much closed the door on that kind of speculation, even if Romney struggles next week on Super Tuesday (which is entirely possible). The other result: It drives home the point to all that Romney has PLENTY of work to do to close the deal with rank-and-file conservatives and convince his party that he can be a strong nominee. At his media avail yesterday in Michigan, Romney admitted that. "The candidate sometimes makes some mistakes, and so I'm trying to do better and work harder and make sure that we get our message across." Yet Romney also appears to have a message problem and a campaign problem. (Does the campaign appear competent because it is, or does it look that way in comparison to the other GOP campaigns?) And the campaign has to ask itself: How did they come this close to disaster… in MICHIGAN????

*** February took a toll on Romney: As we end the month of February, it’s worth noting the toll it took on Romney. When February began, the Conventional Wisdom was that it was tailor-made for the former Massachusetts governor. It started right after Romney’s big win in Florida; the only two big primaries in the month were on Romney turf (Michigan and Arizona); it featured just one debate (preventing a Gingrich or even Santorum from using it to build momentum); and in between were minor contests (in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri) that no one would pay attention to. But here’s what happened: Victories in those supposed minor contests gave Santorum all the momentum he needed to give Romney a run for his money in Michigan; Romney committed numerous verbal gaffes (“I’m not concerned about the very poor,” two Cadillacs, NASCAR team owners); his staff made mistakes (the Ford Field speech); and national polls showed an erosion of support from independent voters. Bottom line: He started the month looking strong and ends it looking weak.

*** Team Romney turns its attention to Obama: The Romney campaign has a new web video -- also serving as a fundraising solicitation -- that turns its attention to President Obama and notes how Team Obama and its Democratic allies tried to help defeat Romney in Michigan. Speaking of fundraising solicitations… Romney made what appears to be his first primary-night pitch for supporters to actually go to his website and give money. As we've been reporting for the last week, there is reason to believe Romney has a money problem, and we know he does not want to write a check like he did four years ago. It is amazing, by the way, that the frontrunner for the GOP nomination is likely to have fewer individual donors than two of his opponents (Santorum and Paul) when the next reports come out (March 20).

Top Talkers: Mitt Romney takes home two wins in Michigan and Arizona after the state's primaries, and the Morning Joe panel – including Time's Mark Halperin, MSNBC's Michael Steele, and Random House's Jon Meacham – discusses Romney's win and why Santorum didn't walk away with Michigan the way some expected.
*** Did Santorum lose Michigan? As for Santorum, you could make the argument that he lost Michigan more than Romney winning it. In past contests, we’ve seen the Romney campaign destroy all of its opponents. But in this case, Santorum hurt himself with self-inflicted wounds. His debate performance in Arizona. His college/snob line. His attack on JFK’s 1960 speech. Just look at the exit polls in Michigan: Romney crushed Santorum among “somewhat conservatives,” 50%-32%. That suggests he turned off rank-and-file Republicans who might not be excited about Romney, but who aren’t as conservative as Santorum and were turned off by the rhetoric. Next week’s Super Tuesday contest in Ohio becomes a must-win proposition if Santorum wants to be the GOP nominee or even simply REMAIN the chief alternative. The good news for him: It’s more than doable. Polls taken before last night’s contests show him ahead in the Buckeye State; the demographics there are very similar what we saw in Michigan; and Romney doesn’t have a built-in advantage in the state. But here’s the bad news: Romney’s victories last night could give him the momentum that he needs to erase Santorum’s lead. What’s more, Romney and his allies currently enjoy a 6-to-1 ad spending advantage in Ohio (see below) when that edge was just 2-to-1 in Michigan -- and even smaller than that in the final week of the contest.

*** The delegate battle: Here’s one final point about Michigan: NBC News can declare that Romney and Santorum have each won six of Michigan’s congressional districts, giving them 12 delegates. (And when you add the one at-large delegate each won, they stand at 13 each.) But there are two undecided districts (the 5th and 13th) -- one where Romney is leading by some 60 votes (with more to be counted), and one where Santorum is up some 40 votes. So, yes, it's still possible for Santorum to win more delegates in Michigan than Romney.

*** On to Super Tuesday: So now we move to next week’s Super Tuesday contests -- and even before that the Washington caucuses this Saturday. The big Super Tuesday prize is Ohio, given that it seems all the candidates (sans Paul) will be campaigning there. And here is the early campaigning strategy: Romney stumps in Ohio (today and Friday), North Dakota (Thursday), Idaho (Thursday), and Washington state (Thursday); Santorum heads to Tennessee (today) and Ohio (Friday); Gingrich hits Georgia (today, Thursday, and on Super Tuesday); and Paul campaigns in Washington state (Thursday, Friday, and Saturday), Alaska (Saturday and Sunday), and Idaho (Monday and Tuesday). By the way, keep an eye on Tennessee. It's the ONE Southern State on Super Tuesday -- excluding Virginia -- where Romney could overperform. And if he wins it, he could actually begin to put this nomination away for good.

*** Super Tuesday ad spending: As in the other contests, Romney and his allies have a sizable spending edge in the Super Tuesday states.

Ohio: Restore Our Future $2.25 million; Romney $1.2 million; Winning Our Future $498,000; Santorum $275,000; Red, White and Blue Fund $255,000

Georgia
: Restore Our Future $1.5 million; Winning Our Future $1.1 million; Romney $327,000; Santorum $152,000; Gingrich $15,000

Tennessee
: Restore Our Future $915,000; Winning Our Future $464,000; Santorum $130,000; Gingrich $3,000

Oklahoma
: Restore Our Future $378,000; Winning Our Future $323,000; Santorum $90,000, Romney $8,000; Gingrich $2,000

Idaho
: Romney $37,000

TOTAL:
Restore $5 million; Romney $1.5 million; Winning $2.4 million; Santorum $647,000; Red, White and Blue $225,000; Gingrich $20,000

*** On the trail, per NBC’s Adam Perez: Romney hosts two events in Ohio, rallying in Toledo and Bexley… Gingrich remains in Georgia, making stops in Atlanta, Covington and Gainseville… Santorum rallies in Nashville, TN… And Paul hits Washington, DC.

*** Two points on Snowe’s retirement: We want to make two points about Olympia Snowe’s retirement announcement yesterday. One, it gives Democrats a better than 50%-50% chance of holding the Senate in November. If Democrats win in Maine and Massachusetts, then they’ve moved the bar to Republicans needing to win five seats (if Obama loses) and six (if he wins). We can see how Republicans get to four (North Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, and Missouri). And we can see how they maybe get to five (adding Virginia or Wisconsin or Ohio). But six? That would mean that Republicans would need to win in a New Mexico or a Florida or a Michigan. It's a tall order; they didn't sweep all the toss-ups in 2010, which was a much BETTER landscape for the GOP.  Two, Snowe’s stated reason for not seeking re-election in 2012 -- increased polarization in the Senate -- couldn’t have been scripted better by David Plouffe or David Axelrod. “I do find it frustrating … that an atmosphere of polarization and 'my way or the highway' ideologies has become pervasive in campaigns and in our governing institutions," she said yesterday. There’s a reason why President Obama released a statement on Snowe’s announcement yesterday when he didn’t do the same for other announced GOP senators (Kyl and Hutchison).

*** The latest GOP aisle-crosser to leave the Senate: And by the way, Snowe is just the latest of the regular Republican aisle-crosser to leave the Senate (by retirement or loss) since 2008. Here are some of the others: Bob Bennett, George Voinovich, Judd Gregg, Arlen Specter (though he switched parties), Mel Martinez, Chuck Hagel, Gordon Smith, and John Warner. And get this: Susan Collins now becomes the last remaining Senate Republican who voted for the stimulus back in 2009.

Countdown to Super Tuesday: 6 days
Countdown to Election Day: 251 days

Keystone pipeline claims just don't add up




TransCanada via Reuters file
The Keystone pipeline is pictured under construction in North Dakota in this undated photograph released in January. Republicans have been turning up the heat on the pipeline, which has been blocked by the Obama administration.
ANALYSIS: Proponents of the Keystone oil pipeline argue the $7 billion project will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, give the economy a shot in the arm, lower gasoline prices and wean the U.S. from foreign imports.
Too bad the claims don’t hold up.
House Speaker John Boehner renewed his attack on the White House this week for postponing approval of the project pending a State Department review of the environmental impact of the 1,661-mile pipeline, which would cross six Midwest states to deliver Canadian crude to the Gulf Coast. Republicans have intensified their attacks on Democratic President Barack Obama's energy policies in recent days, blaming them for higher pump prices that could hurt his re-election prospects in the Nov. 6 face-off against the eventual GOP  nominee.
On Wednesday, Boehner stepped up the pressure in a letter to the White House urging approval of the project "to provide greater energy security." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blamed the White House for rising pump prices.
"Make no mistake: the rising price of gasoline isn't simply the result of forces we can't control," he said in a Senate speech.
There's no doubt that rising North American oil production has created pipeline bottlenecks for companies trying to get their product to market. One major chokepoint at a central storage hub in Cushing, Okla., has created such a glut of oil that it's forced prices lower, providing consumers in the middle of the country with a significant discount at the gas pump.
But proponents' case that the Keystone XL pipeline will bring major economic benefits to the U.S. is much harder to make.
Short-term, the construction phase of the project will "create more than 15,000 high-wage manufacturing jobs and construction jobs in 2011-2012 across the U.S., stimulating significant additional economic activity," according to TransCanada, the Canadian company that is seeking approval to build it. (The company said this week it plans to go ahead with construction of a 450-mile segment linking the Gulf Coast and a major pipeline and storage hub in Cushing. That segment with U.S. borders does not require State Department approval.)

That 15,000-job claim is based on a report the company commissioned which assumes roughly $5 billion of the total will be spent on building the U.S. portion of the pipeline.
"The fallacy I see with a lot of the arguments that are going back and forth now is to try to say you can somehow spend $5 billion and not create some economic activity," said Robert Perryman, author of the report. "You can't do that."
But critics say the jobs created will be a drop in the bucket of the U.S. labor force, which totaled more than 153 million people in January. Even if those jobs were added in a single month, they would reduce the unemployment rate by just 0.01 percent. When measured against just the construction and manufacturing workforces, the impact would be 0.07 percent.
Critics of the company's claims, including a group of Cornell University researchers, also note that the employment impact would amount to the equivalent of 15,000 jobs that last only a year.
"We're not looking down our nose here at temporary jobs. A six-month job is better than no work," said Sean Sweeney, one of the authors of a report on the pipeline's economic impact. "But the actual effect of the project is finite. It's not going to create jobs permanently."
The Cornell report also notes that a significant portion of the economic impact will be felt outside the U.S. Some 50 percent or more of the steel pipe used for Keystone XL, the report said, will be manufactured outside of the U.S.
"A lot of the steel for Keystone XL is already stockpiled in the U.S. and sourced from India and Canada," said Sweeney. "Those are not U.S. jobs, those are Indian and Canadian jobs."
TransCanada also argues that the six states crossed by the pipeline's route "are expected to receive an additional $5.2 billion in property taxes during the estimated operating life of the pipeline."
But that analysis fails to account for the likely damage caused by oil spills along the pipeline route. In the past five years, more than half a million barrels of oil and other hazardous liquids have been spilled from U.S. pipelines, killing 76 people and causing some $2.4 billion in property damage, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Oil price impact
Some of the biggest claims about the pipeline's economic benefits are based on the argument that it will lower oil prices by increasing supplies and reducing the risk of a cutoff of shipments from less-friendly foreign suppliers. That assumption generated some very large numbers in Perryman's analysis, some of which have become part of the political debate.
Perryman argues that removing even a small "risk premium" from reliance on foreign sources will have a huge impact on the  U.S. economy.
"It's so much more than just gasoline," he said "When you work it through the entire economy and tilt down the cost structure over a $15 trillion economy, that generates some big numbers."
The number are indeed large. Based on the worst case -- the peak oil price of $147 a barrel reached in 2008 -- savings from more "stable" supplies would add an additional $221.3 billion in spending, $64.2 billion in output and 553,235 jobs to the U.S. economy. (Under more “normal” assumptions, based on the 2007 average price per barrel of $66.52, Perryman Group figured the benefit would amount to $100.1 billion in total spending, $29 billion in output and 250,348 permanent jobs.)
But critics argue that Keystone will raise the price of oil consumed in the U.S., not lower it. That's because the current glut of oil created by the bottleneck at the Cushing hub would allow Canadian producers to reprice their oil at the global benchmark, which is now about $15 a barrel higher. The total increase would amount to some $2 billion to $4 billion a year, according to the company's own estimates presented in its application to Canadian authorities.
"Oil companies don’t benefit by reducing the price that we pay at the pump," said Jeremy Symons, a spokesman for the National Wildlife Federation. "The reason they're willing to invest so much money to build in a pipeline all the way across America is to maximize their profit. And that means we're all going to pay more."
As a result of those higher prices, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel, adding up to $5 billion to the annual U.S. fuel bill, according to the Cornell researchers. They figure that just one year of those higher fuel prices cancels out some or all of the jobs created by the project.
Energy SecurityOne of the most popular claims by the pipeline's political supporters centers on the benefits of "energy security." They assert that increasing the supply of oil bought from a friendly neighbor will offset the reliance on politically hostile suppliers in the Middle East.
But critics say that argument fails for several reasons. First, while increased oil output from Canada would displace a small fraction of U.S. imports from other sources, even if the Keystone pipeline weren't built that oil would almost certainly flow to the U.S. over existing pipelines or by other modes of transportation, such as railcars. The U.S. imports just about every barrel of oil Canada produces. (Only 1.7 percent of Canadian oil goes to non-US destinations.)
Secondly, the flow of oil to the Gulf could actually lower the share of Canadian oil consumed in the U.S. because, once transported to Houston, oil producers would have access to a global shipping hub in a tariff-free zone, giving them a financial incentive to export at least some of it.
Moreover, the U.S. is already steadily “weaning” itself from foreign oil based on forces that will likely remain in place for some time, with or without the Keystone pipeline. Since 2005, U.S. dependence on imported oil fell from 60.3 percent in 2005 to 49.3 percent in 2010 due to a variety of factors, according the Energy Department. The biggest reason is that demand is falling; it's down 12 percent from the peak in 2007  thanks to more fuel-efficient cars and trucks and to increased supplies of biofuels.
Domestic oil production has also begun rising after more than two decades of being in decline. Increased output in deepwater Gulf of Mexico oilfields and the Bakken formation in the upper Midwest will continue to add to those supplies. Improvements in U.S. refineries have also helped cut the demand for crude, the Energy Department said.



Should the White House approve the Keystone pipeline?
Yes, we need all the oil we can get from friendly sources
 No, the benefits don't outweigh the risk of environmental damage.

Results
Total of 13,992 votes

40.5%
Yes, we need all the oil we can get from friendly sources
5,672 votes
59.5%
No, the benefits don't outweigh the risk of environmental damage.
8,320 votes