Delta tries again to own title of 'worst airline in the world'

The poor kids didn't deserve such punishment. It's bad enough that they had to fly Delta but it's downright cruel to make them have to fly that airline one more time than absolutely necessary. There should be laws against abusing paying customers like this.

Delta Air Lines blames a paperwork mix-up for sending two children to wrong destinations.

Delta says the children were connecting through Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on Tuesday as part of the airline's unaccompanied minor program. Because of a "paperwork swap," Delta says a boy ended up in Cleveland instead of Boston while a girl was sent to Boston instead of Cleveland. Delta says the children were under airline supervision at all times.

Read More......

BP slow to process claims - businesses on verge of collapse

Private industry is always more efficient than slow and lazy government workers, right? The Republicans are always so right about everything. BP has been released from the shackles of government tyranny and is showing everyone how glorious modern capitalism really can be. Let's join Steven Pearlstein of the Washington Post and give BP a round of applause. And a group hug while we're at it.

The reefs that David Walter makes for anglers to drop into the Gulf of Mexico are fake, but his frustration as he tries to win compensation from BP for lost income is real.

State regulators stopped issuing permits for the reefs on May 4 because of the oil spill, effectively killing off $350,000 in Walter's expected business. It sent him into a labyrinth of archived invoices and documents lost by BP. Finally, an offer came: $5,000.

"I said that's not fair because if you say that, then I have to go out of business and I lose everything," said Walter, whose company is based in Alabama.

Fishermen, property owners and businesspeople who have filed damage claims with BP are angrily complaining of delays, excessive paperwork and skimpy payments that have put them on the verge of going under as the financial and environmental toll of the seven-week-old disaster grows.

Well, there will always be a complainer here or there. Except for the others.

Shrimpers, oystermen, seafood businesses, out-of-work drilling crews and the tourism industry all are lining up to get paid back the billions of dollars washed away by the slick, and tempers have flared as locals direct outrage at BP over what they see as a tangle of red tape.

"Every day we call the adjuster eight or 10 times. There's no answer, no answering machine," said Regina Shipp, who has filed $33,000 in claims for lost business at her restaurant in Alabama. "If BP doesn't pay us within two months, we'll be out of business. We've got two kids."

Some kids are so selfish. Why do kids whose parents businesses that have been ruined and are left with nothing because of BP hate capitalism? Thank goodness people like John Boehner and David Vitter are around to help protect BP. Read More......

Congressional Oversight Panel rips AIG bailout

The fingers are being pointed directly at Hank Paulson during the Bush administration and the Federal Reserve which would be Tim Geithner at that time and location. Taxpayers will never see their return on this and Goldman is still getting a free ride from the billions they had riding on that deal. Paulson was of course the former CEO of Goldman Sachs.

The federal government didn't exhaust all its options before it committed tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars to bail out the American International Group during the height of the 2008 financial collapse, according to a new report from a congressional watchdog panel.

The Congressional Oversight Panel , which was created to monitor the spending in the 2008 bank bailout bill known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, detailed in its latest monthly report the government's extraordinary rescue of AIG and its lingering effects on taxpayers and the financial markets.

AIG, once one of the largest and most successful insurance companies in the world, collapsed in 2008 when it couldn't meet the collateral demands of its customers. The firm, the oversight panel said, had an "insatiable appetite for risk" but a "blindness to its own liabilities."

Read More......

A $20 million golden parachute can buy a great hair stylist

Or can it? Either way, it does bring back the issue of Fiorina's wealth that comes courtesy of a handsome payout when she was fired from HP. How many Americans can really relate to this kind of a financial free ride when they've been fired with two weeks pay? She's not unlike the Wall Street types who are paid lavishly despite being failures at their work. Read More......

Sweden's parental leave system

This is a really interesting article today in the Times. When working with Swedes I often come across this situation where men tell me that they will be out of the office for months on parental leave. Maybe it won't fly in the US (or in France) but it strikes me as yet another progressive policy out of the Nordic region.

From trendy central Stockholm to this village in the rugged forest south of the Arctic Circle, 85 percent of Swedish fathers take parental leave. Those who don’t face questions from family, friends and colleagues. As other countries still tinker with maternity leave and women’s rights, Sweden may be a glimpse of the future.

In this land of Viking lore, men are at the heart of the gender-equality debate. The ponytailed center-right finance minister calls himself a feminist, ads for cleaning products rarely feature women as homemakers, and preschools vet books for gender stereotypes in animal characters. For nearly four decades, governments of all political hues have legislated to give women equal rights at work — and men equal rights at home.

Read More......

BP executives attempt to clean up coffee spill

NSFW language. Read More......

Chicago Sun-Times on Mark Kirk's partisan activities during deployment - oh, and they found yet another lie about his military service

Chicago Sun-Times:

In yet another embarrassing revelation for GOP Senate candidate Mark Kirk, a document from the Department of Defense has surfaced showing military officials expressed “concerns arising from his partisan political activities during his last two tours of active duty.”

Kirk, a commander in the U.S. Navy reserves, needed a “waiver” to become — in his words — the first congressman to be deployed to an “imminent danger” area since World War II when he was deployed to Afghanistan in 2008 and again last year.

Because of the officials’ concerns about his previous “partisan political activities,” they required him to write out an “acknowledgement of limitations required for all candidates on active duty,” which he did. The waiver was granted.
The documents were posted on-line Wednesday evening by Terry Welch of Nitpicker.blogspot.com.

The document that surfaced Wednesday also raises issues about whether Kirk is being accurate when he says he was deployed to an “imminent danger area.” Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Gail McGinn wrote that as a congressman, Kirk was ineligible to deploy to such an area. McGinn has since retired.

Read More......

Murkowski's Big Oil resolution defeated 47 - 53

Senate just voted down Senator Lisa Murkowski's anti-environmental resolution to gut the authority of the EPA.

I'll post the roll call vote when it's posted. It's here. Blanche Lincoln did vote with Big Oil and the GOP. Josh Nelson provided the list of the six Dems. who voted Yes: Mark Pryor, Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, Jay Rockefeller, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu.

These Republicans are shameless. Even with oil gushing into the gulf of Mexico, the GOPers were unabashed about trying to weaken our environmental regulations. Read More......

Boehner now claims Bush's trillion dollar tax cuts didn't add to the deficit

That's what GOP House leader Boehner is claiming. It's a lie.

In January 2001, before the Bush tax cuts were enacted, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected annual budget surpluses of approximately $800 billion between 2009 and 2012. The CBO now projects a $1.2 trillion annual deficit for those years and has also stated that the Bush tax cuts contributed to the budget deficit.

And here's a little more:

CBPP: “The Tax Cuts Enacted Under President George W. Bush, The Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, And the Economic Downturn Together Explain Virtually the Entire Deficit Over the Next Ten Years.” The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities recently found that, “the tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the economic downturn together explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years (see Figure 1). The deficit for fiscal 2009 was $1.4 trillion and, at an estimated 10 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), was the largest deficit relative to the size of the economy since the end of World War II. Under current policies, deficits will likely exceed $1 trillion in 2010 and 2011 and remain near that figure thereafter. The events and policies that have pushed deficits to astronomical levels in the near term, however, were largely outside the new Administration’s control. If not for the tax cuts enacted during the Presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that began during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 12/16/09]

Doug Holtz-Eakin: Give Obama Administration A Pass For Current Deficits, They Would Have Occurred Under McCain Anyway. The top economic adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign acknowledged on Monday that the U.S. would be running a historic deficits this year even if the Republican had won the White House. In an interview on MSNBC, Douglas Holtz-Eakin argued that “you simply have to give the [Obama Administration, by and large, a pass. It did inherit a very weak economy, it inherited programs that were intended to compensate for that, they're very expensive.” The former CBO Director Holtz-Eakin further acknowledged that under McCain's stewardship “we would probably still have a record deficit.” [Huffington Post, 2/1/10; MSNBC Daily Rundown, 2/1/10]

Right-Wing CATO Institute: "Don't Blame Obama For Bush's 2009 Deficit." CATO Institute: "Some critics are lambasting President Obama for record deficits. This is not a productive line of attack, largely because it puts the focus on the wrong variable...In addition to being theoretically misguided, critics sometimes blame Obama for things that are not his fault. Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama’s policies have led to an explosion of debt. But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. So is we update the chart to show the Bush fiscal years in green, we can see that Obama is partly right in claiming that he inherited a mess." [CATO Institute blog post, 11/19/09]

New York Times' David Leonhardt: Only 10% Of The Deficit Comes From Obama's Economic And Domestic Policy While Bush's Agenda Accounts For 53% Of The Deficit. David Leonhardt: "President Obama’s agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying. ... The New York Times analyzed Congressional Budget Office reports going back almost a decade, with the aim of understanding how the federal government came to be far deeper in debt than it has been since the years just after World War II. This debt will constrain the country’s choices for years and could end up doing serious economic damage if foreign lenders become unwilling to finance it. ... The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years. You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush's policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama. The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It’s a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists’ assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years. About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt. Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing. About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas." [David Leonhardt, New York Times, 6/10/09]

USA Today: National Debt “Almost Doubled” Under President Bush. “At a minimum, the GOP cries of fiscal irresponsibility would have more credibility if this weren't largely the same crowd that almost doubled the national debt during the Bush administration. And too many Republicans regard tax cuts as having magical powers that somehow don't increase the deficit.” [USA Today, Editorial, 2/12/09]

President Bush Added $5 Trillion To The National Debt. According to the Treasury Department, total public debt outstanding was $5.7 trillion when President Bush took office, and it was $10.7 trillion when Mr. Bush left office. Prior to the height of the financial crisis, since which time the government has assumed much greater obligations and liabilities, the public debt was still at $9.6 trillion. [U.S Department of Treasury, Bureau of Public Debt, Public Debt 2001-2008; Politifact.com, St. Petersburg Times, “Truth-O-Meter,” 1/18/09]

Republican-Controlled Budgets Under President Bush Added $2.8 Trillion To The National Debt. From January 2001 through October 2006 the total public debt outstanding grew from $5.66 trillion to $8.58 trillion. [U.S Department of Treasury, Bureau of Public Debt, Growth of National Debt 2001 - 2007]

Read More......

Boehner wants taxpayers to bailout BP oil disaster

Why should taxpayers fund such an enormous failure by BP? American budgets are stretched enough due to the Republican Recession and now they want everyone to contribute even more? BP makes enough money to fund their own damned cleanup program without stripping more money from the public. More from TPM:

"I think the people responsible in the oil spill--BP and the federal government--should take full responsibility for what's happening there," Boehner said at his weekly press conference this morning.

On Friday, Donohue made clear that he opposes efforts to stick BP, a member of the Chamber, with the bill. "It is generally not the practice of this country to change the laws after the game," he said. "Everybody is going to contribute to this clean up. We are all going to have to do it. We are going to have to get the money from the government and from the companies and we will figure out a way to do that."

Read More......

Obama announces $400 million in aid to Gaza

Now would definitely be a good time to do something to help. No one has to condone Hamas but it's immoral to make an entire population suffer because of the government. Government leaders are always fine, embargo or no embargo so it only hurts the general population and encourages more extremism when governments enforce strict blockades. And don't even talk about the lie of people picking themselves up with their bootstraps to rise against their government. Somehow that nonsense remains a popular theory in some circles even though it's completely false. As many Iraqi people learned before, the US doesn't have the best record for supporting such uprisings.

President Barack Obama said today the US would send $400m of aid to the Palestinian territories following 10 days of international focus on Gaza, which Israel has blockaded for more than three years.

The announcement came as Obama met the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, in Washington to discuss the progress of proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as the dire situation in Gaza. Most US aid currently goes to the West Bank. The international community has largely focused on building up Abbas's authority over recent years, and Gaza, whose de facto Hamas government is not recognised by the US or the UK, has been marginalised.

Read More......

Letter to FCC from PA Congressional representatives written by Comcast lobbyist

Remind me again why we vote for these people? Could they possibly be any more lazy? Philadelphia Inquirer:

As Comcast Corp. was seeking political support in Washington for its proposed merger with NBC Universal Inc. in early May, a letter of support was circulated among Pennsylvania lawmakers and later signed by most of the state's congressional delegation.

The May 13 pro-Comcast letter was authored by David Urban, a former chief of staff for Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter and now a lobbyist for Comcast, and signed by 15 of 18 Pennsylvania representatives.

Submitted into the public record at the Federal Communications Commission by Rep. Robert Brady (D., Phila.), the letter seems a raw display of Comcast's political clout in Pennsylvania, where the cable giant has its corporate headquarters, employs 11,000 workers, and contributes to political campaigns.

The pro-Comcast letter was timely, arriving as a coalition of 68 lawmakers from other states, led by Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), began calling for more public hearings on the proposed merger last month.

Read More......

Schumer pumped that Lincoln beat unions

Okay. This is getting out-of-control. On Tuesday night, an anonymous "senior White House official" took a nasty swipe at labor.

Via Dana Milbank, here's Chuck Schumer's quote in response to Blanche Lincoln's win:

Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) held up two fists and said of her primary campaign: "Fighting Wall Street with one hand, unions with the other."

Really, Chuck Schumer?

So, we get that the Democratic Senators take great glee in Lincoln's win. They're a clubby bunch, those Senators. Royalty-like. I get that. But, piling on against the unions? That seems counter-productive in the short and long run. The clucking of Democratic leaders seems to belie a disdain for their base.

As Chair of the DSCC in 2006 and 2008, Chuck Schumer should know better than anyone just how much labor has done to elect Democrats. Sure, Democrats love sidling up to hedge fund managers who bundle lots of money for them. But, it's the unions that knock on doors, make phone calls and, oh yeah, spend massive amounts on independent expenditures.

Now, of course, corporate-sponsored Third Way, which is always undermining the progressive agenda, piled on, too:

Matt Bennett, vice president of the Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank, called labor's move "a strategic error" and waste of money that might have had real impact in November. "It's difficult to send a message when you lose," Mr. Bennett said. "They're kidding themselves if they think otherwise."

That's BS. Members of Congress hate primaries. Hate them. Even if they win, they hate them. Labor and progressives almost beat Lincoln in a state that's not friendly to labor and progressives. Imagine what they can do elsewhere.

The National Rifle Association wouldn't think twice about challenging an incumbent who veers away from its agenda. Members of Congress know that -- and it keeps them in line. The NRA doesn't always win, but they make their point. But, leading Democrats have a problem when unions challenge Democrats who have bad labor voting records. Ridiculous. And, I can't imagine any GOPer holding up two fists, cheering the defeat of the NRA like Schumer did with unions.

It looks like the unions are just another constituency that the Democrats take for granted.

One last thing: Right now, the Senate is debating Senator Murkowski's resolution to gut EPA's power. The President has threatened a veto. But guess who is a cosponsor of Murkowski's resolution. Yep. Blanche Lincoln. Read More......

House Liberal Dems. finally figured out they're getting screwed by Blue Dogs

Okay, this may be the biggest "dog bites man" story ever to come off Capitol Hill. Are the liberals in Congress really so naive? Of course they got screwed by the Blue Dogs. That's been happening for years. I guess the good news is that they've finally figured it out:

Liberal House Democrats say they’ ve been betrayed by their conservative Blue Dog colleagues.

Months after shelving their doubts and helping Blue Dog Democrats get their signature issue of statutory pay-as-you-go language signed into law, some liberals say conservative Democrats have reneged on their side of the agreement.

They say they received assurances that Blue Dogs would support “emergency” spending measures intended to bolster the economy and help the unemployed even if they added to the deficit.

Designating the measures as “emergency” spending was supposed to exempt them from the new pay-go law, which requires new government spending to be offset with other cuts.

Instead, Blue Dog objections related to the deficit forced House leaders to strip COBRA healthcare benefits and a package of aid to states prized by liberals from the tax extenders bill.

Too many people on Capitol Hill don't understand that millions of families are still suffering from the economic crisis. It's not over. Unemployment is still at 9.7% and we're not creating new jobs. That seems like an emergency to me. But, it's not to the Blue Dogs.

I just can't believe that any liberal is surprised. Read More......

Is there a reason why Obama rejected a Dutch offer to help with oil leak?

What could anyone possibly learn from others who have experience with handling such disasters? They're fuzzy foreigners, after all. It's annoying to see that the US is only now preparing to deploy the solution from the Netherlands instead of earlier when it could have made much more of a difference. This kind of rejection of foreign ideas and assistance is what we came to expect during the Bush years. What is also interesting is to read about how the Dutch government reacts to spills that occur in their territory. It makes much too much sense, though it would be nice if they applied the same rules to Dutch drilling operations in other parts of the world such as Nigeria.

Besides the Dutch offer, twelve other countries offered technical assistance and all were rejected. Why is it often so hard for the US to accept ideas from beyond the border?

Three days after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch government offered to help.

It was willing to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands.

The response from the Obama administration and BP, which are coordinating the cleanup: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,'” said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston.

Now, almost seven weeks later, as the oil spewing from the battered well spreads across the Gulf and soils pristine beaches and coastline, BP and our government have reconsidered.

Read More......

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

Today, the action is in the Senate, where Senators will be voting on S. Res. 26, offered by Senator Lisa Murkowski. The title is "A joint resolution disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment finding and the cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act." This measure would ban the EPA rule on greenhouse gases, which was announced last month. Both houses can, by a simple majority, vote to undo administrative rules.

Yes, many Senators want to block the EPA's authority to regulate carbon emissions. You'd think, given the dangers of climate change, that our leaders would be actively seeking and supporting new ways to control emissions. Nope. They like the old ways. The old ways pay. Obama threatened to veto the rule if it passes in both Houses. But, Democrat may offer an alternative that's not quite as bad. What a mess.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention that Blanche Lincoln, whose victory the White House has been celebrating, is a cosponsor of Murkowski's resolution.

The President is meeting with the Congressional leadership, which includes Reid, McConnell, Pelosi, Hoyer and Boehner, this morning. They'll be talking about the action in Congress for the next few weeks. I'm sure the President will be very forceful with the GOPers who are obstructing and undermining his agenda.

This afternoon, Obama has the solemn task of meeting with the families of the men killed in the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig on April 20.

Lots of stuff going on... Read More......

BP shares fall another 16% after Obama tells BP to pay

Ahh, corporate responsibility. Stock prices are overinflated for a variety of reasons including when entire industries are allowed to ignore costs and pass them along to everyone else. What would the industry share values be (and "profit" margins) if they really had to build in costs for real safety and cleanup? Ask them to pay their fair share and suddenly it's you who are the socialist as opposed to them. Even with the administration asking for more payments one gets the distinct feeling that like Wall Street, BP is going to pay but not nearly the full amount. Once again, you know if the tables were turned, BP would squeeze every single penny out of someone else whether they had it or not. Being timid with the likes of BP does not work.

The only "drill baby, drill" that we need today is drilling into BP's coffers.

The political and financial pressure on BP escalated sharply yesterday as the US government demanded compensation for thousands of oil industry workers laid off as a result of a freeze on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The demand sent the company's shares plummeting on Wall Street amid worries over long-term survival prospects.

In an unexpected addition to BP's already huge liabilities from America's worst ever oil spill, the White House said it would press the company to pay the salaries of staff laid off as a result of a six-month moratorium imposed by the Obama administration on exploration activity in the Gulf. The freeze means a halt to work on 33 existing oil rigs, affecting thousands of jobs.

The warning, together with fears that the gush of oil in the gulf could be even worse than estimated, sent BP's American shares down 15.8% in a late fall on the New York Stock Exchange, pushing them to their lowest level since 1996. This was despite hopeful news from BP's operation to plug the undersea leak as it was revealed that the company collected 15,000 barrels of oil on Tuesday.

Read More......

British Conservatives to raise university costs

Because those pesky students are living off the fat of the land as the Tories are suggesting. Obviously the American system is much better, where costs are dramatically higher and students are saddled with decades of debt. Well, that and the comfortable kickback system between universities and lenders that worked out so well for the banks. Moves like this are always false arguments because it's always a matter of higher costs with profits going to friends of the politicians who make these decisions.

On the surface it sounds fine because the state simply can't afford to carry the load any longer. But when costs are increased and pushed out to consumers (students or their parents or both) is there really a benefit to voters? And how does this help the system when those with less money are blocked out because they can't afford higher education?

Tories, with the possible help of the Lib Dems, continue to bring on the brutal spirit of Thatcher. The Lib Dems can forget about that middle class support they had for a very long time if they go along with this garbage. Much like Blair was the enabler for Bush, they are the enablers for the ugly Conservative policies.

In an interview with the Guardian, David Willetts warned that the cost of hundreds of thousands of students' degree courses was a "burden on the taxpayer that had to be tackled".

Willetts said he did not want to pre-empt the recommendations of Lord Browne's independent review into whether fees should rise from £3,225 a year. But he added that students should consider university fees "more as an obligation to pay higher income tax" than a debt.

His words angered the National Union of Students (NUS), whose president-elect, Aaron Porter, said Willetts had failed to understand that graduates were leaving with debts of £22,000 on average and that this felt "very much like debt to them".

Read More......

Why would anyone put perfume in Clearasil?

I've written before about America's, and the world's, penchant for putting perfume in everything you come in contact with all day long, from deodorant, to soap, to kleenex and toilet paper, and beyond. But Clearasil? What brainiac at Reckitt Benckiser (Clearasil's parent corp) thought that one up? But it gets better - it's that citrusy perfume that, at least for me, triggers my asthma.

I'll say it again, what idiot came up with the brilliant idea of putting perfume - perfume! - in a product that's been around for decades and, until now, simply worked?

I called the company and was told that the box does indeed mention "fragrance" - not clearly enough because I never said it (not to mention, who'd have even thought to look for it?) I truly believe that our perfume culture is helping add to the allergy and asthma epidemic we're seeing in this country. It has to stop. Read More......