3\/10\/17
\nPENSION? WHAT PENSION?….
\nReports from New York and Los Angeles<\/p>\n
I. PENSION MEETING REPORT – NEW YORK
\nII. PENSION MEETING REPORT – LOS ANGELES
\nIII. Member Comments and Commentary<\/p>\n
…Absolutely guaranteed anonymity – Former Musician’s Union officer
\n…The one voice of reason in a sea of insanity – Nashville ‘first call’\u2028scoring musician<\/p>\n
…Allows us to speak our minds without fear of reprisal – L.A. Symphonic musician
\n…Reporting issues the Musicians Union doesn’t dare to mention – National touring musician<\/p>\n
===================================<\/p>\n
I. PENSION MEETING REPORT – NEW YORK<\/p>\n
My experience of the local 802 meeting instigated by the Broadway
\nmusicians was as follows: The club room of local 802 was packed
\nwith people standing in the halls trying to get in. Union cards were
\nchecked at the door to make sure that only musicians attended.
\nNever the less, I saw two AFM staff members at the meeting,
\nbecause they had union cards.<\/p>\n
Ray Hair, local 802 president and IEB member Tino Gagliardi
\nwere present as were various pension fund trustees.\u00a0Their
\npresentation lasted over an hour and had many charts
\nand graphs. The upshot of their presentation was that the
\ntwo economic downturns and the increasing longevity of
\nthe members has put the pension fund in it’s present condition.
\nPart of their presentation was as justification of the funds
\npaid to staff and consultants, showing that it was in the main
\nstream of the investment industry standards.<\/p>\n
When musicians finally got to ask questions, the answers
\nwere often less than satisfactory and the crowd sometimes
\nyelled out, “Answer the Question”.\u00a0 One of the best questions
\nasked was, “Why did the pension fund say in 2015 that the
\nfund was solvent until 2040 and then say in 2016 that the
\nfund was critical”?\u00a0 There never seemed to be an adequate
\nanswer to this question.<\/p>\n
That’s about it.\u00a0 Below is an email from a local cellist Scott
\nBallantyne. He’s been analyzing the pension fund performance.
\nI’ll send you some of his other emails.\u00a0 He says it’s alright to
\nquote him.<\/p>\n
+++++++++<\/p>\n
Dear Friends,<\/p>\n
A brief note on two topics from yesterdays meeting. Note that
\nI \u00a0haven’t seen the video yet, but have had many reports on
\nwhat transpired. It sounds like the members represented
\nthemselves very well.<\/p>\n
Topic One: Pension Fund Comparisons.<\/p>\n
It is absurd for our fund managers to use other pension fund’s
\nlack of performance to justify their own. Your descriptions of
\nthis reminded me very much of the auto industry in 2008.
\nOur managers sound a lot like the ones from Detroit who
\nspent years justifying their terrible performance by comparing
\nthemselves to the terrible performance of other U.S. car makers.
\nBut these comparisons weren’t realistic, and as we all know,
\nthe auto industry ended up begging for government intervention,
\njust as our pension fund has indicated they might do.<\/p>\n
The only standard that makes any sense is to pick some kind
\nof stock index, and see how you do next to that. Much better
\ninvestors than our managers do this as a matter of course.<\/p>\n
Topic Two: Index Fund Strategies<\/p>\n
A quick word on exactly what an index strategy is. An index
\nis a list of stocks, like the index to a book. Index funds just
\ninvest mechanically in every stock on the list. The larger the
\ncompany, the more shares are purchased. They purchase
\nsmaller mounts of smaller companies. This requires no
\nexpertise. It doesn’t require the highly educated and
\nexpensive geniuses at The Fund. All you really need is a
\nhighly trained chimpanzee with a computer. Seriously.
\nI truly think you could teach a Chimp to do this.<\/p>\n
At the meeting, I am told that the Plan’s managers had
\nthe following objections to index fund comparisions and\/or use:<\/p>\n
1) Index funds have a different fiscal year than the fund,
\nso comparisons are not fair.
\n2) They don’t allow the kind of diversity that the fund seeks,
\nso the fund would be more risky.<\/p>\n
Objection one is easy to fix, and objection two is simply
\nnot true. I will agree that the previous chart I sent out
\nwas quick and dirty, and did not fully show the advantages
\nto our fund of using indexing. I’ll fix all this here.<\/p>\n
To fix the fiscal year issue is easy: between 2013-2016,
\nlet’s use quarterly data to compare the exact same point
\nin time for Index funds and the Pension Fund. There aren’t
\nquarterly figures available before that, so I made certain to
\ncompare the end of year data from the index fund with the
\ncorresponding figure 3 months later from the fund. While
\nnot perfect, in practice this turns out to be extremely close.
\nAnd the comparison is 100% accurate for every point from
\n2013 on to the present.<\/p>\n
To address the diversity issue, I selected a basket of diversified
\nindex funds, covering stocks (domestic and international),
\nreal estate via REITS, and some bond funds. I make this available
\nto the fund for free. That’s just the kind of guy I am.<\/p>\n
Here’s the list:<\/p>\n
VFIAX: US Large Cap Stocks
\nVVIAX: US Large Cap “undervalued” Stocks
\nVTMSX: Small Cap, with an eye to reducing friction from
\ntaxable gains (this last not an issue for the fund)
\nVSIAX: Small cap, “undervalued” stocks
\nVGSLX: REIT (real estate) index fund.
\nVTMGX: Developed market (non-US).
\nVTRIX: International “undervalued” developed and emerging
\nmarket stocks.
\nVFSVX: Small cap non-U.S.
\nVEMAX; emerging markets (i.e. Brazil, Russia, Taiwan, China, others)
\nVGRLX: International real estate, including (but not only) international REITs.
\nVSVSX: Short Term U.S. Government Bond (non-inflation protected).
\nVSIGX: \u00a0Mid-term U.S. Government Bond (non-inflation protected).
\nVTAPX: Short-Term inflation procted U.S. Government bonds.<\/p>\n
I do not believe the fund is more diversified then this, arguably, it is less.<\/p>\n
The final issue \u00a0we need to deal with is to show the
\neffect of the re-invested savings that truly make
\nindex funds shine. \u00a0As I have said, we don’t need
\nthe high priced geniuses at the fund, we can use a
\nchimpanzee instead. I took a conservative approach:
\nI took the entire $11 million that the fund currently
\nspends on outside \u00a0investing “talent”, \u00a0added $4
\nmillion to that to get $15 million and used that as
\nour cost savings. That gives us $20 million left to
\npay the chimp, so clearly this is being conservative.
\nWe start with this figure, and reinvest it each year.
\nThe compounding of this savings leads to a truly
\ndramatic result, one which I am sure we would all
\nbe happy with today:<\/p>\n
========================================<\/p>\n
II. PENSION MEETING REPORT – LOS ANGELES<\/p>\n
Hi Editor,<\/p>\n
Thanks for posting the informational slides and graphs
\nfrom the pension fund meeting!<\/p>\n
Member Observer Notes:<\/p>\n
Really ….it was a warning meeting.<\/p>\n
Assets ( contributions \/ investments) v. Liabilities (benefits).<\/p>\n
On the panel…the folks we pay to assist the “Trustees”.
\nThey did try to provide history and context…and justify the
\ncost of their services.<\/p>\n
Upshot from the panel:\u00a0\u00a0WE need YOU…”the membership”
\nto work together…make all YOUR\u00a0\u00a0work Union…
\nWE need the money!<\/p>\n
One member analogized the problem the treatment of a
\nmedical disease.
\nWe have three basic components, 1) Expenses 2) Rate of Return
\n3) Multiplier that has been way too high. The member asked the
\npanel…’ How do we prolong our life?’<\/p>\n
While the panel claimed too much is unknown at this time to say
\nwhat will happen at the end of the March bookkeeping…If the
\nfund found in “Critical and Declining” status…a reduction in
\ncurrent and future benefits may be imposed.
\n(except for those over age 80)<\/p>\n
As one member commented, “a haircut today or decapitation
\ntomorrow.”<\/p>\n
One of the few younger members present addressed the panel
\n…future looks “bleak” no matter how many dollars are added.<\/p>\n
Another comment received via e-mail:<\/p>\n
the ‘genius’ of the chosen is coming back to haunt them.\u00a0\u00a0In
\nspite of their heavy contributions, the health & pension
\nfunds are primarily financed by the vast majority of members
\nwho have no hope of receiving any benefit. And since the
\n1%ers have over many years have systematically
\ndisenfranchised the 99%, as the 99%ers go away, so does
\nthe golden egg.<\/p>\n
Another member reflected on the meeting by observing that
\nin our Local many musicians are finding themselves replaced
\nby USC and Colburn students…thus new membership for
\ncontribution and freezing pension liabilities of the no
\nlonger working older players.<\/p>\n
Long Time Member<\/p>\n
================================<\/p>\n
III. Member Comments and Commentary<\/p>\n
Some is up in Seattle either doing a video game or some
\ntrailer music, but prob. a game.
\n– and what’s up with that current video game contract?
\noh wait – Ray hair doesn’t quite get the game industry
\nyet – 6 years later – fellas – I’m gonna keep sending
\nthese until I see you guys and the AFM address the
\nrunaway from LA recording sessions done by Angeleno
\ncomposers that cannot work in this town! and I’m gonna
\nstart posting these everyday on Facebook and call
\nout the parties that are not doing anything about it –<\/p>\n
BTW –\u00a0this is LA’s work John and Rick and it’s downright
\ndepressing…and the real reason the AFM EPF fund is
\nupside down – so….still think things are cool?<\/p>\n
——————————————————————-<\/p>\n
Pretty demoralizing, and there really isn’t a viable solution. However,
\ndespite yours and others warnings, unfortunately I think this was
\nimminent and bound happen regardless, and I don’t think that
\nsimply getting rid of backend will magically return all the film
\nrecording work to LA, and to think buyouts would return it to
\npre-2000 levels is very wishful thinking. And it would take a
\nLOT more buyout sessions to make the equivalent of what was
\npaid out on the backend, so as much as hate hate the stranglehold
\nmonopoly RMA has on film recording, it’s not entirely reasonable
\nto ask anyone, RMA or not, to just lightly agree to a buyout
\nafter decades of an established business model enjoyed by
\nevery other performing union that also gets backend, even
\nkey grips at IATSE. It also makes the AFM look so pitifully
\ndesperate and weak, which, well, it is, but would only add
\nto fuel to that fire, and allow the AFM to be further taken
\nadvantage of.<\/p>\n
“HELP! PLEASE! WE NEED WORK! EVEN CHEAP WORK! ANY
\nWORK! WE’LL EVEN TAKE A BUYOUT ON MEDIA WORK!!
\nWE’LL WORK FOR LESS THAN LONDON! REUSE IT AS
\nMUCH AS YOU WANT! WE DON’T CARE! WE CAN’T
\nAFFORD TO CARE!!”<\/p>\n
You can never negotiate well from a position of weakness,
\nand I don’t foresee enough of a return in work volume
\nto compensate for giving up what literally would add
\nup to millions in future backend payments, (even a
\ndecreased amount of future backend payments.)<\/p>\n
And what if AFM did agree to changing all sessions to
\nbuyouts? Eliminating backend is no guarantee of a
\nreturn to huge \u00a0amounts of work, and let’s face it,
\ngone are those glory days. As you suggest,
\nbackend is only one factor. There’s no escaping
\ntechnology, and with the ease and low overhead
\nof home studio recording eliminating the human
\nfactor. Thus, simply eliminating backend is a very
\nchancy speculative solution to saving the Union’s
\nsinking ship, would probably only cause a very
\nmarginal uptick\u00a0at best\u00a0in Union-sanctioned
\nrecording at this point, and a dubious guarantee
\nit would save the pension fund from insolvency.
\nOnce you try changing all recording work to a
\nbuyout, there is definitely NO going back. Union
\nproducers and studio signatories NEVER give
\nsomething back that a Union agrees to give up
\nwhich is why SAG-AFTRA, WGA, DGA, and IATSE
\nfiercely hold on to their backend no matter what
\nand with the help and support of their sister
\nperforming unions. Unfortunately, the AFM
\ndoesn’t get that same kind of fellow-union support
\nand most composers really don’t have the clout
\n(or the balls) to demand LA recording.
\n(Some could fight a little harder, frankly.)<\/p>\n
So what happens if agreeing to a buyout doesn’t
\nresult in an appreciable increase in live recording?
\nIt spells a lose-lose. I don’t care how much some
\nemployers claim they’d record here if they didn’t
\nhave to pay backend. Talk is cheap. Prove it-
\nmake this argument less speculative. Lets see the
\nPGA put forward an actual\u00a0musicians session
\nbuyout proposal requiring their scoring be
\nrecorded on an AFM contract if they’re serious
\nthat they would discontinue outsourcing recording
\nsessions to Europe under a buyout agreement.
\nLet’s not wait for the AFM to propose amount.
\nLet’s FIRST find out what the PGA proactively would
\nbe willing to pay on a supposed buyout that
\nwould be low enough to incentivize for them a
\nserious return to record all of the London, etc.
\nwork to LA or at least the US. If they all claim
\nthey’d record more here if there were no backend,
\nwhy don’t we see real specifics proposed and
\nnegotiated and put their money where their
\nmouth is? \u00a0Because proposing a buyout based
\non raw NUMBERS, FACTS and REAL PROPOSALS
\nvs. get rid of buyouts first and just “hope-for-the-
\nbest SPECULATION” later \u00a0would most likely expose
\nthat a buyout scale producers would even begin
\nto consider would be so low as to be unacceptable,
\namounting to little more than a fraction of what
\nmusicians are currently earning between session
\nfees and backend. Even if one might complain
\nthat a disproportionate number of members make
\nthe lion’s share of backend, a drastic paycut
\nultimately helps no one, including rank and file.
\nI think it is a fallacy to believe that an increased
\nvolume in 3 hr. session buyouts would be enough
\nto make up for the amount of earnings musicians
\nare being asked to give up.<\/p>\n
For all the cynics in our community about LA LA Land,
\n(which I happened to like apparently more than most
\nall my music colleagues,) we should be grateful
\nfor it’s success, employing over 100 LA musicians,
\nand vocalists, and should be cheerleading the success
\nand popularity of this film in order to encourage studios
\nto do more of the same. More large-in-scope “original
\nmovie musicals” employing 100’s of musicians for
\nmany recording hours, arranging, orchestrating,
\nmusic prep, etc., would be nice. Somehow Chazelle
\nand composer Hurwitz managed to convince a studio
\nto do this, despite their thin resumes, and without any
\ncrying over backend payments from their producers.
\nSo let’s cheer for it’s success rather continually artistically
\nbashing it. It’s self-defeating.<\/p>\n
As far as buyout, simply put, no one can make a decent
\nliving on session wages alone even if the volume were to
\nmarginally increase by eliminating backend. Would more
\nsessions on a buyout mean more work for more members?
\nI doubt it. Maybe more work, but not more income,
\nconsidering how paltry an agreed upon buyout wage
\nwould probably have to be to producers. The only
\nmembers who could actually make a living under a
\nbuyout model would still have the lion’s share of the
\nwork going to \u00a0that same relative few rather than
\ndiluted and spread amongst many. There still wouldn’t
\nbe enough work to open it up for 1000’s of rank and
\nfile musicians even when you remove the backend
\npayments. The amount of such buyout sessions would
\nsimply be too low in pay and still too infrequent to
\nkeep enough members busy enough to make living wage.<\/p>\n
At least that’s how I see it, and I’m sure many disagree.
\nTo be clear, this is not me defending the Union by no
\nmeans. They have to answer for where we are.
\n(I didn’t see any reference to salary cuts as a cost-saving
\nmeasure in their presentation, for example.) It’s more
\nabout asking ourselves the question, “will getting rid
\nof backend really make anything better for everyone,
\nor just hurt those members who are backend
\nparticipants?”<\/p>\n
[EC: If the filmmakers are saving the money it would
\ntake to travel to another country, it would be more
\nlikely they would record here. And MANY currently
\nnon-union sessions going on are paying above scale.<\/p>\n
It comes down to this. Change nothing, you can say
\nyou’re protecting the system as you DON’T work. Or
\nchange the system and definitely increase work.<\/p>\n
The best solution would be a new contract that says,
\nperhaps, “Any film considered BIG BUDGET by the AFM
\nsignatories (Perhaps above 80 million) Must be done
\nunion IF they are done here, which is no guarantee.
\nAnything below that should have a buyout option,
\nwith higher pay up front. If they DON’T go overseas
\nanyway that could make some of the current none
\nunion work union.<\/p>\n
As to the pension. There are thousands more taking
\nout than putting in. If we have the hope of even
\nslowing down the demise of the AFM, there must be
\nmore work. In Los Angeles that leaves only one option.
\nBuyouts. without them no increase in union recording
\nwork is possible and everyone’s pension is screwed
\nwithin a decade.<\/p>\n
And who can you blame for the loss of work?<\/p>\n
You know who.<\/p>\n
THE COMMITTEE]<\/p>\n
—————————————<\/p>\n
Far less than 20 years much quicker than that it’s
\nin the next five most likely<\/p>\n
—————————————-<\/p>\n
I got up and blasted the investment advisors and
\nproposed the AFM EPF do a trial basis of INDEX
\nfunds only for a few years to see if they can match
\nor outperform the actively managed investment
\nadvisors – I basically looked right at them and
\nsaid they were not providing a good return on
\ninvestment in the biggest bull run since AFTER
\nthe great collapse from the late 1920’s – INDEX
\nfunds have low fees and costs and mirror the
\nmarket –<\/p>\n
we’re spending 11 mil a year for underperformance? –
\ni said sorry guys – if we can do index funds we wont
\nbe \u00a0needing you for awhile – I received a round of
\napplause from the audience – ask anyone that was there –<\/p>\n
======================================<\/p>\n
IV. EVENTS
\nDEAN AND RICHARD
\nare now at Culver City Elks the first \u2028Friday of \u2028every month.
\n7:30pm-10:30pm,
\n11160 Washington Pl.
\nCulver City, 90232
\n310-839-8891<\/p>\n
————————————-<\/p>\n
LA WINDS JAZZ KATS 584
\nNO COVER, NO MINIMUM.
\nEvery 2nd and 4th Tuesday of the month at
\nViva Cantina
\n7:30-10:00.
\n900 Riverside Drive, \u2028Burbank.<\/p>\n
Free parking across the street at Pickwick Bowl.
\nCome hear your favorite charts played the way
\nthey \u2028should \u2028be. \u2028\u2028We are in the back room called
\nthe Trailside Room. \u2028\u2028\u2028Come on down.<\/p>\n
Guaranteed to swing.<\/p>\n
———————————-<\/p>\n
3\/15\/17<\/p>\n
Free Admission GLENDALE NOON CONCERT
\nWed MARCH 15, 2017 at 12:10-12:40 pm<\/p>\n
ARTHUR OMURA Harpsichord Recital.
\nThank you!<\/p>\n
Sanctuary of Glendale City Church,
\n610 E. California Ave. (at Isabel St), Glendale, CA 91206.
\nFor more information, email glendalesda@gmail.com
\nor call (818) 244- 7241.<\/p>\n
Thank you!
\nJacqueline Suzuki
\nCurator, Glendale Noon Concerts
\n818-249-5108<\/p>\n
Jacqueline Suzuki
\nCurator, Glendale Noon Concerts
\n818-249-5108<\/p>\n
—————————
\n3\/18\/16
\nSFV SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA
\nMar. 18, 2017 \u2013
\nAgoura Hills\/Calabasas Community Center
\nTuttle: By Steam or By Dream Overture
\nInaugural Performance
\nProkofiev: Symphony #1 in D major (Classical)
\nBen-Haim: Pastorale Vari\u00e9e for
\nClarinet, Harp and Strings
\nGeoff Nudell, clarinetist
\nBeethoven: Romance for Violin and Orchestra
\nRuth Bruegger, violinist
\n++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
\nOther concerts in the series<\/p>\n
May 13, 2017 \u2013<\/p>\n
Agoura Hills\/Calabasas Community Center<\/p>\n
Saint-Saens: Bacchanale from \u201cSamson and Delilah\u201d
\nTchaikovsky:\u00a0Orchestral Suite No. 2 in C major
\nEgizi: Orchestral Suite \u2028\u201cIn Memoria di Mio Padre”
\nInaugural Performance<\/p>\n
Programs subject to change<\/p>\n
——————————————<\/p>\n
3\/22\/17<\/p>\n
THE PHIL NORMAN TENTET<\/p>\n
Herb Alpert’s Vibrato Grill Jazz
\n2930 Beverly Glen Circle
\nLos Angeles, CA.90077
\nResevations call 310-474-9400<\/p>\n
MARCH 22nd @ 8:00pm<\/p>\n
Click here to visit Herb Alpert’s Vibrato Grill Jazz<\/p>\n
PLAYING THE MUSIC OF JAZZ GREATS<\/p>\n
Stan Kenton, George Shearing, Quincy Jones
\nGerry Mulligan, Dave Brubeck,
\nHorace Silver, Dizzy
\nand other jazz giants<\/p>\n
Performed by some of Los Angeles
\nfinest musicians<\/p>\n
————————————-<\/p>\n
3\/25\/17<\/p>\n
The Musicians at Play presents
\nPatrick Williams Big Band Live at the Moss
\nwith special guests Arturo Sandoval and Peter Erskine
\nSaturday- March 25th, 2017 8:00PM<\/p>\n
\ufffc
\nClick “Buy Tickets” to reserve your tickets\u00a0up to 12:00 p.m. on the
\nday of the show (Remaining tickets will be available at door at show time.)<\/p>\n
Award-winning composer Patrick Williams presents The Big Band Live!
\nfeaturing special guests Arturo Sandoval and Peter Erskine.<\/p>\n
VIP – Doors 7:00 p.m. early entry – refreshments<\/p>\n
General & Premium – Doors open 7:30 p.m.<\/p>\n
Concert starts: 8:00 p.m.\u00a0(there will be a brief intermission)*<\/p>\n
www.musiciansatplay.org<\/p>\n
——————————————<\/p>\n
3\/26\/17<\/p>\n
LOS ANGELES SYMPHONIC WINDS
\nSubscription Concert 3 \u2013 Calabasas High School
\nStars of the Los Angeles Symphonic Winds
\nRevel in the artistry of some of the LA Winds\u2019 most
\nacclaimed performers.
\n-Geoff Nudell and Parker Gaims (now a member of the US Marine Corps Band) play Felix Mendelssohn\u2019s virtuosic Two Concert Pieces. Also on the program will be two works by the LA Winds\u2019 resident composer,
\n– Charles Fernandez\u2028\u2022 Sunday March 26, 2017\u2028\u2022 2:30 p.m.\u00a0 Performing Arts Education Centers.<\/p>\n
——————————————
\nYou can read all previous offerings at:
\nhttp:\/\/www.responsible47.com
\nUNTIL NEXT TIME,\u2028\u2028THE COMMITTEE FOR A MORE RESPONSIBLE LOCAL 47<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
3\/10\/17 PENSION? WHAT PENSION?…. Reports from New York and Los Angeles I. PENSION MEETING REPORT – NEW YORK II. PENSION MEETING REPORT – LOS ANGELES III. Member Comments and Commentary …Absolutely guaranteed anonymity – Former Musician’s Union officer …The one voice of reason in a sea of insanity – Nashville ‘first call’\u2028scoring musician …Allows us […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-366","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/366","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=366"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/366\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=366"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=366"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=366"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}