Archive for category congress
Krugman: ‘If you want to understand opposition to climate action, follow the money’
Posted by Richard Warnick in Climate Change, Corruption, Democracy, Disaster, Energy, Environment, Foreign Policy, Global Warming, National Politics, This Blog, congress on July 26, 2010

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?
How Can We Stop the Catfood Commission?
Posted by Richard Warnick in Deficit, Democrats, Disaster, Economic Exploitation, Economy, National Politics, This Blog, Unemployment, congress on July 23, 2010

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)
Matheson Ducks My Question
Posted by Larry Bergan in Civil liberties Infringement, Corruption, Democracy, Iraq, JIm Matheson, The Constitution, This Blog, congress on June 20, 2010
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!
Rep. Grayson: ‘The War Is Making You Poor’
Posted by Richard Warnick in Afghanistan, Democracy, Disaster, Economy, Federal Budget, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Military Industrial Complex, National Politics, Peace, Poverty, This Blog, War, congress on May 21, 2010
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.
Too Much Bipartisanship
Posted by Richard Warnick in Bush Administration, Civil liberties Infringement, Democrats, National Politics, Republicans, The Constitution, This Blog, Transparency, Wiretapping, congress on February 28, 2010
Without 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.
…and to celebrate, we will sacrifice a goat!
Posted by shane in Human Rights, congress on February 9, 2010
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 »
Republicans: Let’s Get Rid of Social Security and Medicare
Posted by Richard Warnick in 2010 Elections, Conservatives, Deficit, Federal Budget, National Politics, Republicans, This Blog, congress on February 8, 2010
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.

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.





Recent Comments