Archive for category congress

Krugman: ‘If you want to understand opposition to climate action, follow the money’

Climate change bill

The climate bill’s dead. Senate Democrats pulled the plug last Thursday on a bill that wasn’t even as good as the woefully inadequate House bill passed a over a year ago.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid trotted out the well-worn “60 votes” excuse. Funny how we never heard about the so-called “60-vote rule” during the Bush administration, when it could have helped the country avoid a series of catastrophes and record deficits. Democrats have a big problem, because it seems inevitable that any bill capable of crossing the 60-vote threshold could be worse than doing nothing.

So we lost, and the special interests won. NYT columnist and Nobel Prize economist Paul Krugman wrote the epitaph for climate legislation:

If you want to understand opposition to climate action, follow the money. The economy as a whole wouldn’t be significantly hurt if we put a price on carbon, but certain industries — above all, the coal and oil industries — would. And those industries have mounted a huge disinformation campaign to protect their bottom lines.

Look at the scientists who question the consensus on climate change; look at the organizations pushing fake scandals; look at the think tanks claiming that any effort to limit emissions would cripple the economy. Again and again, you’ll find that they’re on the receiving end of a pipeline of funding that starts with big energy companies, like Exxon Mobil, which has spent tens of millions of dollars promoting climate-change denial, or Koch Industries, which has been sponsoring anti-environmental organizations for two decades.

Or look at the politicians who have been most vociferously opposed to climate action. Where do they get much of their campaign money? You already know the answer.

What’s next? Well, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Several regulatory initiatives are underway, and the Obama administration has pledged to veto any legislation that attempts to suspend the EPA’s rulemaking authority.

It’s possible the United Nations could go ahead and do climate change mitigation without us.

As a way to salvage the 12-year-old Kyoto protocol, the United Nations has suggested amending its rules to require only four fifths of the countries to agree to a climate deal, effectively forcing the opposed nations to accept a cleaner earth. “It reflects a degree of desperation — and justifiable desperation — on the part of the UN,” says Mark Lynas, who advised the Maldives at the international climate summit in Copenhagen last winter.

If the amendment passes this August when countries meet in Bonn, Germany, it could prohibit rogue anti-climate-treaty states — such as the oil giant, Saudi Arabia, or major energy-using nations, such as the U.S. — from holding the treaty hostage. “We saw at Copenhagen how some countries blocked progress and we can’t allow that to happen again,” said Britain’s shadow secretary for energy and climate change Ed Miliband, according to The Guardian.

UPDATE: The Big Green Buy. The Nation’s Christian Parenti covers the need for government to step up and use its buying power to create economies of scale for energy conservation and renewable energy. The federal government is the world’s largest consumer of energy and vehicles, and the nation’s largest greenhouse gas emitter. President Obama can make the switch by executive order, without congressional approval. For example, why isn’t the U.S. Postal Service relying on electric vehicles?

6 Comments

How Can We Stop the Catfood Commission?

Cat food

Glenn Greenwald:

It is absolutely beyond the Republicans’ power to cut Social Security, even if they re-take the House and Senate in November, since Obama will continue to wield veto power. The real impetus for Social Security cuts is from the “Deficit Commission” which Obama created in January by Executive Order, then stacked with people (including its bipartisan co-Chairs) who have long favored slashing the program, and whose recommendations now enjoy the right of an up-or-down vote in Congress after the November election, thanks to the recent maneuvering by Nancy Pelosi. The desire to cut Social Security is fully bipartisan (otherwise it couldn’t happen) and pushed by the billionaire class that controls the Government.

If the Catfood Commission proposes a bill slashing Social Security and Medicare benefits and it comes to the House floor, Republicans and Blue Dog Dems will vote for it. Even if all the progressive-leaning Democrats oppose it on a straight vote, it will probably pass. Millions of retirees will fall out of the middle class into poverty.

Jon Walker on FDL thinks that House progressives can threaten to remove Rep. Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House if she allows such a vote. That does not seem likely. IMHO if they had that kind of cojones then Bush would have been impeached and health care would include a public option.

Here’s the question. How can we stop the Catfood Commission?

Related One Utah post:
Budget Priorities Left to Catfood Commission (July 6)

Read the rest of this entry »

4 Comments

Matheson Ducks My Question

Did you know Jim Matheson used to hold actual town meetings. I have proof because I recorded one of them on September 1st 2005. It was a pretty good turn out too; I estimate between 150 to 200 people showed up. In retrospect, I think the recording of my question to Matheson is revealing. The recording is not of great quality, but you can hear what was said here:matheson and me.

I hated to even post this because I know congresspeople have to deal with things I could never imagine in relation to the harm, political or otherwise, which could be thrown at somebody who gave the wrong answer to a hot question like this one.

To exclaim that illegal wiretapping or invasion of other countries was planned before 911 is simply something that is not talked about. Period; exclamation point!

I just have a couple of points here.

An inaudible portion of the audio was after I congratulated congressman Matheson for voting against what became known as the “Patriot Act II.” He got more applause for that then anything in the first 30 minutes of the meeting and jokingly said something like: “OK, good day! We’re done here, we’re going home now!” Here’s what makes me angry about this. This was an open meeting in “red state” Utah where Matheson always says he has to vote with his constituents. I’ve always believed that Utahn’s of any stripe never liked the “Patriot Act” and this is the best proof of that I can offer, but here’s the kicker: although Matheson voted against THAT particular bill, shortly after that meeting he voted FOR another bill which included some of the worst provisions of the first one AND eventually voted for the terribly unconstitutional bill called “The Military Commissions Act of 2006.”

Concerning my question which Matheson didn’t and couldn’t answer, he did actually bring up a very good point about the phony “weapons of mass destruction” ploy which got us into the war. What makes me angry about that answer was Matheson’s saying the democrats don’t have any power in congress and gave that as the reason why nothing could be done about it.

Which party has been in power for years now Mr. Matheson? When is the “party of the people” going to let up on pushing the little guy around and get tough on the REAL crimes happening in the “greatest democracy on the face of the earth.”

I say it’s time for a change!

9 Comments

Claudia Wright for Utah

The 2008 election was a “change election” that was won by the party that promised change. They didn’t deliver. The disappointment of most Americans since then has made 2010 an anti-incumbent year.

Claudia Wright for Utah: “People want representatives to represent them, not the interests of the wealthy.”

Jane Hamsher on FDL:

[S]ince the 2008 election, the principal agenda of Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel and the Democratic Party has been to siphon off the financial patronage that the GOP has long enjoyed. And they do that by successfully fulfilling corporate ambitions that have not changed. Disgraced neoliberal corporatists are all too willing to wrap themselves in the mantle of “progressivism” as a way to re-brand a product that the public no longer wanted to buy.

Progressives thought they had won a battle for the soul of America. What they got was a battle for control of K Street.

Rep. Matheson, like the rest of the Blue Dog Caucus, was ahead of the curve when it came to betraying the people who put him in office.

John Saltas, City Weekly:

Jim Matheson entered office nearly a decade ago upon the backs of tens of thousands of formerly disenfranchised Democrats, their hopes pinned tightly to him. He turned on them. Forget the narcoleptic argument that his district is equally rural, equally Republican and his votes reflect his constituents’ wishes—he’s been consistent at licking that shoe from Day 1.

We ought to start anew. It’s an anti-incumbent election this time.

6 Comments

Rep. Grayson: ‘The War Is Making You Poor’

Somebody (Glenn?) told me today that there is no progressive agenda in Congress. So what’s this?

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL):

Next year’s budget allocates $159,000,000,000 to “contingency operations,” to perpetuate the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. That’s enough money to eliminate federal income taxes for the first $35,000 of every American’s income each year, and beyond that, leave over $15 billion that would cut the deficit.

So let’s do that instead.


More on HuffPo.

22 Comments

Health Care: Beyond Cynicism

This year’s health care debate is so hard to describe. The concept of cynicism (defined as “having a sneering disbelief in sincerity or integrity”) hardly covers it.

The word “cynic” or “dog-like” was first applied to the followers of the original ancient philosophy of Cynicism.

[T]he dog is a shameless animal, and they make a cult of shamelessness, not as being beneath modesty, but as superior to it.

The Blue Dogs of the U.S. Congress might not follow all the dictates of the ancient Cynics, but they embrace shamelessness wholeheartedly. And the same can now be said for most other Democrats. Of course, Republicans already repeatedly upped the ante on cynicism during the Bush administration.

Health care politics
Source: Poll: Most Say Health Care Fight About Politics, Not Policy

Candidate Barack Obama campaigned FOR the choice of a public option in health care. He was AGAINST the individual mandate, and AGAINST the Hyde Amendment. Only a month before the election, Obama severely criticized Senator John McCain’s proposal for an excise tax on health benefits for what it is, a new tax on the middle class.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not even pretend that the AHIP/PhRMA giveaway bill signed into law yesterday includes progressive policy ideas. No, she credits the conservative Heritage Foundation and quotes WaPo’s E.J. Dionne to say the legislation “built on a series of principles that Republicans espoused for years.”

Jane Hamsher:

If Bush had tried to pass this bill the entire progressive movement (such as it is) would have squealed like stuck pigs, with the volume and intensity they responded to Bush’s privatization of Social Security. …The question is why anyone was ever hoodwinked into thinking this was a “progressive” victory simply because the Republicans were against it. It was a Democratic party victory.

The White House is betting that those who committed themselves to Obama during the campaign won’t be bothered if he triangulates against his own campaign rhetoric and passes a right-wing health care bill — that their commitment to the ideals of the campaign will be trumped by their commitment to him as a personality. They may well be right.

UPDATE: Obama Hosts Anti-Abortion Signing Ceremony

UPDATE:
Republicans Block Senate Committee Hearings, Including On National Security Matters, For Second Day In A Row

UPDATE: Viagra, ACORN and Gay Marriage: The 10 Most Ridiculous GOP-Proposed Health Care Amendments (Senator Bennett wrote one of them).

UPDATE: The prize for the lamest excuse has to go to Senate Democrats. They deliberately missed the chance to add in the public option to reconciliation, because then the legislation would have to go back to the House for another vote. Which it did anyway. Jon Walker on FDL runs down the list of now-inoperative Democratic excuses for why we can’t have the public option.

UPDATE: The prize for the worst bald-faced lie goes to President Obama today in Iowa City:

Challenged by a young man in the audience who shouted several times, “What about the public option,” a liberal-backed proposal for the creation of a government-sponsored plan to compete with private insurers, Obama said: “We couldn’t get it through Congress.”

How stupid does the President think we are?

2 Comments

Michael Moore: Obama’s Health Insurance Bill Would Be a ‘Death Sentence for Literally Tens of Thousands of People’

Last night on MSNBC’s “Countdown,” Michael Moore talked about Natoma Canfield, Keith Olbermann and the fatal flaws in the Obama administration’s final health insurance “reform” proposal.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Yesterday, President Obama used the plight of Natoma Canfield of Ohio to underscore yet again how everyone with private health insurance (or no insurance, due to unaffordable premiums) is just one illness or accident away from bankruptcy.

What progressives are now calling the AHIP/PhRMA bailout does not resolve the health care crisis. It makes it worse by forcing people to buy private insurance they don’t want and can’t afford. The bill offers no meaningful cost controls, and no choice of a public option.

UPDATE: Interviewed by TPM, Moore predicts what will happen to Democrats in November:

“I can only sit here and imagine how they’re gonna run,” he said. “They were handed the ball and couldn’t take it 10 yards down the field. They’re in for a huge ass-whooping.”

UPDATE: This is getting really ugly. Jane Hamsher reports the Obama administration is threatening pro-choice Democrats in an attempt to make them vote for the Senate’s anti-abortion health insurance bill.

UPDATE: Rep. Dennis Kucinich got a ride on Air Force One, and lost his principles. Should have kept them in his carry-on. Liveblogging the Kucinich Announcement: Flips to “Yes” on Health Care Bill, Appears to Get Nothing in Return.

UPDATE: Jane Hamsher reports that Rep. Kucinich plans to return the money donated to his campaign by public option supporters, and concludes:

If indeed this bill passes, people across the country will have to start examining the basic assumptions with which we have heretofore approached politics. The thing I have learned above all else in this campaign is that the corporate control of government is much more extensive than I ever imagined, and the tools we have to fight its influence are ineffective.

UPDATE: Without the public option, the Dems can’t make the AHIP/PhARMA bailout pay for itself. So they are trying to raise taxes on the middle class.

64 Comments

Did Speaker Pelosi Just Kill the Public Option?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi

It’s hard to believe the Democratic leadership is as dumb as they appear. From yesterday:

In her weekly news conference, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed confidence that health-care reform would pass. But she also rang a death-knell for the persistent hopes of progressive Democrats that a public option could make an appearance in the final bill, despite months of evidence to the contrary.

…Pelosi said there would be no public option in the legislation. “We had it; we wanted it,” she told reporters. “It’s not in reconciliation … We’re talking about something that’s not going to be part of the legislation.”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said that senators would whip aggressively for a public option — but only if it was included in the bill sent over by the House.

David Swanson on FDL sums up:

Let me get this straight. The Senate will pass a public option if the House will. And the House will, because it already did. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi won’t allow it.

Of course, Senator Durbin knows that Senate Dems are afraid to hold an up or down vote on the public option. A “no” vote would anger constituents. A “yes” vote would make the health insurance lobbyists unhappy. Why not call Durbin’s bluff?

Democratic Party leaders are battling one another over who will get the blame for killing the public option. Instead, why not share the credit for doing the right thing? They have to know the for-profit health insurance industry isn’t sustainable. Fewer and fewer Americans can get coverage, as costs skyrocket uncontrollably. Eventually, single-payer or Medicare buy-in will have to happen.

Sixty members of Congress have pledged to vote against any health care bill that doesn’t have a public option. It is now up to them to prevent a breakdown of representative democracy.

UPDATE: On FDL, Scarecrow speculates:

The current plan is for the House to take a dive. They’re expected to vote for an unpopular Senate bill at the risk of their careers. In exchange, they get to vote on a reconciliation fix they fear will not be sufficient to save them, while leaving out key elements they know they’ll need to sell the plan.

I would tell House progressives: Don’t vote for this, they are unfairly setting you up to take the fall for not passing the public option!

UPDATE: Jane Hamsher on HuffPo:

The White House is telling people that if they don’t pass this bill, it will be a disaster for Democrats in the fall. That’s abject nonsense — their “fallback plan” for health care doesn’t have the toxic mandate that makes the IRS the collection agency for Blue Cross/Blue Shield, or any of the abortion issues that inflame both pro- and anti-choice groups. It is quite frankly a better plan, but most of the country wouldn’t know the difference over a bill that doesn’t kick in until 2014 anyway.

More info:
Tell Progressives to Honor Their Pledge: Insist on a Public Option (FDL)
The Democrats’ scam becomes more transparent (Glenn Greenwald)

Previous One Utah posts:

New Health Care Bill = Corporate Serfdom (February 22, 2010)
Can the Public Option Survive? (July 20, 2009)

22 Comments

Senator Hatch Switches to Playing a Different Tune

Senator Orrin Hatch

Senator Orrin Hatch now claims that the reconciliation process (Senate-speak for passing legislation by a simple majority vote) has suddenly become unconstitutional. Never mind that the Republicans have employed reconciliation 16 times since 1980. Via TPM:

On April 16, 2001, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) took to Fox News to boast about the GOP’s first major use of the budget reconciliation process in the Bush-era. “I think we can do a reconciliation bill that’ll have an overwhelming number of senators and congresspeople voting for this $1.3 trillion to $1.6 trillion tax cut,” he said.

Today, he has a somewhat different take.

“To impose the will of some Democrats and to circumvent bipartisan opposition, President Obama seems to be encouraging Congress to use the “reconciliation” process, an arcane budget procedure, to ram through the Senate a multitrillion-dollar health-care bill that raises taxes, increases costs and cuts Medicare to fund a new entitlement we can’t afford,” Hatch writes in a Washington Post op-ed today. “This is attractive to proponents because it sharply limits debate and amendments to a mere 20 hours and would allow passage with only 51 votes (as opposed to the 60 needed to overcome a procedural hurdle). But the Constitution intends the opposite process, especially for a bill that would affect one-sixth of the American economy.”

(1) The Constitution says nothing about filibusters. It does allow the Senate to make its own rules, and one of the rules the Senate made for itself is the budget reconciliation process.

(2) The Senate health care bill already passed with a 60-vote supermajority. Democrats are only talking about amending the bill with a simple majority vote.

UPDATE: Hatch Forgets About The Bush Years, Claims Reconciliation Is Meant To ‘Balance The Budget’

17 Comments

Too Much Bipartisanship

PATRIOT Act warningWithout any debate, another year-long extension of the unconstitutional USA PATRIOT Act was approved by Congressional Democrats earlier this week and signed into law by President Obama on Saturday.

It was either an act of pure political cowardice, or else the act of a party and a president who simply do not care about the Constitution and civil liberties. Are they afraid that commentators on Faux News might say something bad about them (like they do every single day anyway)? Are they afraid of people reading library books? Are they afraid of what people might say in private about the government (we say plenty in public)?

Contrary to the rhetoric, the USA PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with terrorism or national security. It gives federal agencies super investigative powers they have wanted for many years — to be used against anybody, whether or not thought to have any association with terrorism.

Glenn Greenwald called the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act “excessive bipartisanship.”

One of the strangest prongs of conventional Beltway wisdom is the lament that there is not enough bipartisanship. The opposite is true: many of the most damaging acts inflicted on the country by Washington are enacted on a fully bipartisan basis — the most destructive political act of this generation, the invasion of Iraq, was fully bipartisan, as were most of the post-9/11 civil liberties abuses and other Bush-era initiatives– and, at least in certain areas, the harmonious joining together of Republicans and Democrats continues unabated.

7 Comments

…and to celebrate, we will sacrifice a goat!

It always scares me when Utah makes the national news circuit, in the same way it scares me when scientology makes the news. It generally because someone is being even dumber than usual.

So it is with trepidation that I clicked on the link I found this morning leading to the news about the Utah legislature passing another in their moron attempts at forcing their own lack of morality on everyone else. The subject? Abortion.
Read the rest of this entry »

No Comments

Republicans: Let’s Get Rid of Social Security and Medicare

Republicans have been trying to get rid of this country’s social safety net ever since it was first enacted. Now, they have a new proposal to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the working/middle class.

Social Security canceled

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, recently introduced the Roadmap for America’s Future Act of 2010. In a nutshell, this plan would:

  • Privatize Social Security and Medicare for everyone under age 55, and increase the retirement age to 70
  • Impose a freeze on non-security discretionary spending from 2010-2019
  • Cap the top income tax rate at 25 percent for everyone who makes $50,000 or more
  • Eliminate income and payroll tax exclusions for employment-based health insurance starting next year

“The Roadmap would put the federal budget on a sustainable path, generating an annual budget surplus of about 5 percent of GDP by 2080,” the CBO wrote in its analysis. Hey, that’s only 70 years from now! [It turns out that the CBO analysis is actually bogus - see update below]

Ironically, the spending freeze is similar to the one President Obama recently proposed, that Republicans and Democrats immediately denounced.

The House will vote down Rep. Ryan’s proposal, but really I think it deserves a series of town hall meetings. Let’s take this plan to the people and let them express their candid opinions in open forums across the nation!

Michelle Bachmann thinks the Republican Party ought to go all the way with this. Over the weekend she said, “[W]hoever our nominee is, is going to have to have a Glenn Beck chalkboard and explain to everybody this is the way it is.”

UPDATE: Josh Marshall speculates on whether the Dems can make this year’s election a choice between Ryan’s ideas and their own.

UPDATE:
The CBO analysis of Rep. Ryan’s proposal is bogus. The right-wing fantasy of supply-side benefits resulting from tax cuts for the rich were simply assumed without evidence.

For their analysis Ryan provided CBO with a remarkable assumption: he asked CBO actuaries to assume that the major tax cuts he calls for won’t create any change in federal revenue over the next two decades–at all.

34 Comments