ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Louisiana Governor Jindal Unaware Katrina Caused ‘Major’ Oil Spills In His Own State

While serving in Congress in August 2006, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) slammed the Bush administration for its response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Jindal said the state suffered “trauma” from the “widespread incompetence of the federal, state and local government response.”

But yesterday on Fox News, it was Jindal who was displaying Katrina incompetence. Making a push for expanded offshore oil drilling, Jindal repeated the myth that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused “no major” oil spills in the state. Jindal called it a “great unwritten success story”:

Q: Real fast, Governor, the price of oil went up five bucks a barrel today. You’ve been drilling off the coast of Louisiana for a number of years. Any oil spills to worry about?

JINDAL: You know, that’s one of the great unwritten success stories, after Katrina and Rita, these awful storms, no major spills.

Watch it:

Jindal is clueless about the reality in his own state. As noted in the Wonk Room, the Hurricanes caused offshore oil spills so large that they could be seen from space (check out a picture here.) The Minerals Management Service reported that 113 oil platforms were “totally destroyed” — a total of 124 offshore spills.

In fact, oil seeped onshore into southeast Louisiana, which saw 44 onshore and offshore oil spills. The EPA called the spills “worse than the worst-case scenario.” Even oil industry representatives admitted: “nature can always topple you.”

It’s hard to see how this is a “great unwritten success story.”

Politics

University of Texas says Bush’s border fence would ruin mission of campus.

Recently, the Bush administration announced it would build an additional 670 miles of border fence by the end of the year. But the fence would “slice through” the University of Texas, Brownsville, which borders Mexico, cutting off the school’s golf course from the rest of the campus. The AP reports that school officials are saying the fence would undermine the university’s mission of fostering cooperation with Mexico:

The university — built close to the Rio Grande on land where the United States and Mexico traded cannon blasts during the Mexican-American War 160 years ago — recruits Mexican students, offers government and business classes in English and Spanish and turns out sorely needed bilingual teachers. [...]

“To slice off and fence off the `bi’ part of `binational’ violates the essence of this university,” said university President Juliet V. Garcia, whose office is situated in what was once the thick-walled, tan-brick hospital at Fort Brown, built shortly after the Civil War.

Health

Vitter – The Only Senator Opposing Removal Of HIV Travel Ban

apvitter.jpgThe Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan is reporting that Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), a former client of the DC Madam, “is the only Senator opposing the removal of the HIV travel and immigration ban” from the Senate version of a bill extending PEPFAR, the international health initiative dedicated to combating HIV/AIDS around the world. On Wednesday, in an editorial in the Washington times, Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Gordon Smith (R-OR) penned an editorial underlining the importance of lifting the travel restriction:

Today, HIV is the only medical condition that renders people inadmissible to the United States. In fact, we are just one of 12 countries that prohibit, almost without exception, HIV-positive non-citizens from entering the country (China has recently overturned its ban). This policy places the United States in the same company as Sudan, Russia, Libya and Saudi Arabia.

Vitter is happy to keep such company. In fact, the Senator, who himself engaged in behavior that could have placed him and his wife in danger of contracting HIV, has promoted policies that increase the likelihood that people will become infected with HIV:

- Voted in support of the “prostitution pledge” in PEPFAR which creates obstacles to reaching and serving sex workers.

- Attempted to amend PEPFAR “to reinsert the 33 percent abstinence-only earmark.”

Vitter has a long history of promoting failed abstinence-only policies and supporting legislation that undermines people’s sexual health and equal rights. Recently, Vitter, along with fellow disgraced Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), signed up to co-sponsor S.J. Res. 43, the Marriage Protection Amendment. If passed, the bill would amend the Constitution to declare that marriage “shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.”

Politics

McCain Is ‘Glad’ To Have Championed Immigration Legislation That He Wouldn’t Support Today

mccainkennedy3.jpgIn an interview with the Las Vegas Sun released yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) praised himself for sponsoring the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform legislation of 2006, which failed to pass the Senate last year due to conservative opposition:

I haven’t won on every issue. I didn’t win on immigration reform, but I’ll go back at it. And I’m glad I did it.

McCain’s praise for comprehensive reform is a reversal of rhetoric he used when speaking of his own legislation when seeking the GOP nomination. In fact, in a Jan. 30 GOP debate, McCain said he would not vote for his own bill today:

Q: At this point, if your original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, would you vote for it? [...]

McCAIN: No, I would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the borders secured first.

McCain maintains he has not changed his position on immigration reform, claiming his policy is still “secure the border first.” But in a scathing op-ed today, Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), whose district borders Mexico, notes that McCain once thought “securing the borders” was a secondary consideration to comprehensive reform:

On the floor of the United States Senate in September of 2006, Sen. McCain praised that the Senate had “rejected the argument for an ‘enforcement first’ strategy that focuses on border security only, an ineffective and ill-advised approach.” He went on to add that, “the only way to truly secure our border and protect our nation is through the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform.”

As Reyes noted, McCain can’t have it both ways. Being for “securing the borders first” and also being pro-comprehensive reform “are two very different approaches.” This weekend, McCain will address the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials “and will have a chance to clarify which position he holds. It can be only one,” Reyes pressed.

Only in McCain’s world of regular immigration flip-flops is it possible to be “glad” to have championed legislation that he wouldn’t support today.

Update

Ben Smith notes that on a McCain conference call this afternoon, a spokeswoman said, “It’s fairly significant that Senator McCain worked on the immigration reform legislation while he was pursing the nomination of his party,” claiming McCain “reached across the aisle despite a heated primary campaign.”


Update

,Conservative bloggers react. Allahpundit: “Exit question: Why on earth would he feel compelled to say he’s glad he pushed for a bill that the base hates with a nuclear passion?” The Other McCain: “He’s sticking his thumb in the eye of conservatives now for the same reason: Because he hates conservatives.”


Update

[/up

Politics

Pentagon: Taliban growing into a ‘resilient insurgency.’

According to a new Pentagon report released today, “the Taliban has regrouped after its initial fall from power in Afghanistan. The new report offers a rather dim view of progress in the nearly 7-year-old war, declaring that the Taliban has ‘coalesced into a resilient insurgency’”:

Noting that insurgent violence continues to climb, the report said that despite efforts to capture and kill key leaders, the Taliban is likely to “maintain or even increase the scope and pace of its terrorist attacks and bombings in 2008.” At the same time, the Afghan Army and national police are progressing slowly, and still lack the trainers they need.

The report comes as the “number of foreign forces in Afghanistan killed in June has reached 39, the highest monthly toll of the war,” as CNN reported yesterday. More on Afghanistan in today’s Progress Report.

Economy

John McCain: Corporations First

McCain’s new ad touting his deeply flawed energy strategy contains (yet another) new campaign slogan as well: “Country First.”

Watch the ad:

Unfortunately for our country, however, John McCain’s economic plan puts corporations first.

The central plank of his economic plan is a $175 billion corporate tax cut that would slash taxes for the Fortune 200 corporations by $45 billion every year. That includes $6.5 billion for Fortune 200 energy companies, $6.3 billion for Fortune 200 banks and financial institutions, and $5.6 billion for Fortune 200 merchandising and retailing companies.

The overwhelming benefits of this tax cut, approximately 59%, would flow to the top 1% of income earners.

The same $45 billion that John McCain sets aside for the Fortune 200 could be used to lift 9 million American families out of poverty.

So…who exactly is John McCain putting first?

Politics

The Mainstream Tour

1675447953_78291acaa7.jpg

I’m heading off this afternoon to Chicago for the weekend where Sara’s going to be speaking at the DLC National Conversation and I intend to return believing that only spending cuts and endless war can save the Democratic Party from the McGovernite wilderness (actually, surely liberals and centrists alike can agree on the national popular vote), so expect weekend blogging to be perhaps lighter than usual.

Then after that, I’ll be continuing my jetset lifestyle by going directly from Chicago to Aspen, Colorado for the Aspen Ideas Festival co-sponsored by The Atlantic (or as we like to think of it, the Atlantic Ideas Festival in Some Town in Colorado) so expect a lot of posts about what the famous people say. Also stuff about how you should make Allstate, Altria, Boeing, Booz Allen Hamilton, Chevron, Ernst & Young, JP Morgan, Mercedes Benz, and Thompson Reuters your choice for fine insurance, tobacco, aerospace, government contracting, oil, accounting, financial services, luxury cars, and “intelligent, information-based solutions, software tools, and applications” products respectively.

Photo by Flickr user cesposito 2035 used under a Creative Commons license

Media

National Review Falsely Accuses NASA Scientist James Hansen Of Violating The Hatch Act

hansenweb.jpgOn Monday, NASA scientist James Hansen commemorated the 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking testimony declaring that “the greenhouse effect is here” by again speaking on Capitol Hill. Though he reiterated much of what he’s said many times before about climate change, Hansen sparked controversy when he said that if CEOs of fossil fuel companies “don’t change their tactics they’re guilty of crimes against humanity and nature.”

In an article for National Review Online today, Cato Institute Senior Fellow and prominent climate change skeptic Patrick J. Michaels attacks “Inquisitor Hansen” and accuses him of “terrorizing the American people.” Pivoting off of Hansen’s CEO comment, Michaels also explicitly accuses Hansen of breaking federal law:

Speaking of crimes, what about the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from electioneering? In the hotly contested state of Iowa, on October 26, 2004, Hansen gave a public speech in which he stated that “John Kerry has a far better grasp than President Bush on the important issues that we face.” Kerry lost Iowa by a mere 10,000 votes.

Michaels’s claim is flagrantly false. The Hatch Act, which restricts the political activity of executive branch employees of the federal government, specifically allows federal employees to “express opinions about candidates and issues” and even “make campaign speeches for candidates in partisan elections.”

But Hansen’s speech wasn’t even a campaign speech. It was a lecture on “Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference.” In fact, after Hansen gave the speech in which he did acknowledge he would vote for Kerry, he specifically told the AP that he was “speaking as a private citizen” and that he had “paid his own way for the Iowa appearance.”

Update

In 2006, the state of Virginia sent a letter to Michaels asking him to stop referring to himself as the “state climatologist” because it isn’t a legitimate state position.

Politics

Conyers subpoenas DoJ for scandal documents.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) issued a subpoena today to the Department of Justice for documents related to a variety of Bush administration scandals, including the Valerie Plame leak investigation, the U.S attorney scandal, the politicization of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, and the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman. Read the full subpoena here.

Yglesias

Market Forces

Ian Dew-Becker and Robert J. Gordon take an interesting look at the growth in inequality in the United States:

Within the top 10 percent, SBTC has certainly still been an issue, and there is a role of SBTC in contributing to pay premia of entertainment and sports superstars. In a variety of settings, technology has allowed superstars to distribute their talent to a wider variety of consumers. This has driven their incomes up exponentially. Their earnings are an outcome of market forces, and the only policy measure available to achieve greater after-tax equality is an increase in tax rates at the top balanced by a decrease at the bottom. However, for top corporate executives, there is strong evidence that incomes have been driven by non-market forces. This is where policy can have the most positive impact on inequality; increased disclosure and improved corporate governance laws can not only raise firm value but help distribute economic gains more evenly across society.

This treatment of the “superstar” issue seems wrongheaded to me. The point of understanding the causes of the growth in inequality isn’t to assemble a prosecutor’s brief against very rich people and then dole out appropriate punishment. If that was the point then, yes, we’d have to deem superstar athletes and entertainers (and presumably the agents, managers, and lawyers who take home a percentage of their gross) who’ve taken advantage of the globalization of the entertainment space to become richer than ever “innocent.” But the point of understanding the situation is to enable us to think clearly about forward-looking policy options.

It seems to be the case at first blush, for example, that policies which tax the incomes of the very rich in order to pay for widely used public services are very appealing policies. But, an opponent may counter, such policies will actually crush economic growth and make us all worse off! To the extent that the super-rich class is composed of superstar entertainers and their hangers-on this counterargument seems to me to be weaker — ever-growing after-tax income for movie stars is not integral to the long-term future of the American economy in the way that potential uses of the money to provide for adequate infrastructure and a healthy, well-educated population are.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up