Apparently the recession is leaving the nation’s coastline plagued with a glut of abandoned boats.
Yglesias
Politics
Since they couldn’t have Palin, congressional GOP turn to their second choice: Newt Gingrich.
Earlier this month, the top congressional GOP fundraising committees — the NRSC and the NRCC — issued a joint press release announcing that Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) would deliver the keynote address at their annual fundraising dinner. However, Palin’s staff quickly quashed the excitement, saying that “[e]nthusiasm during a scheduling meeting…was misinterpreted as a confirmation of attendance.” Embarrassed, Republicans began trashing the governor. “She was a disaster,” said one Republican source. “We had confirmation.” The GOP has now turned to its second choice — former House speaker Newt Gingrich. The Wall Street Journal reports that Gingrich has agreed to “speak in her place.”
Conservatives Falsely Assert That Green Economy Legislation Would Impose $3,100 Tax On Families
Conservatives in Congress are resting their objections to effective green economy legislation on a bogus stat. Conservative leaders like Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are attacking the cap-and-trade proposal before Congress by claiming that it would “cost every American family up to $3,100 per year in higher energy prices.”
This is a deliberate lie.
They seem to be getting this number from an intentional misinterpretation of a 2007 study performed by a group of researchers at the MIT.
In an interview with PolitiFact, John Reilly, an MIT professor and one of the authors of the study, explained about this $3,100 claim:
“It’s just wrong. It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.”” [...]
“Someone from the House Republicans had called me (March 20) and asked about this,” Reilly said. “I had explained why the estimate they had was probably incorrect and what they should do to correct it, but I think this wrong number was already floating around by that time.”
House Republicans apparently took the total revenues from the hypothetical cap and trade system that MIT analyzed and crudely divided it by the number of households in America, getting approximately $3,100 per family.
What they don’t mention, however, is that not only did John Reilly explicitly tell them that this was an inappropriate way to do this calculation, but that MIT had determined the net welfare effect on a typical family and the burden would be less than 1/40th what they claim, and wouldn’t occur until 2015.
As PolitiFact explains: “The report did include an estimate of the net cost to individuals, called the “welfare” cost. It would be $30.89 per person in 2015, or $79 per family if you use the same average household size the Republicans used of 2.56 people.” In exchange, we’d get a clean & renewable energy economy, decreased reliance on oil, and a safer climate for the world.
The reason Boehner’s methodology is totally inappropriate?
“That’s just not how economists calculate the cost of a tax proposal, Reilly said. The tax might push the price of carbon-based fuels up a bit, but other results of a cap-and-trade program, such as increased conservation and more competition from other fuel sources, would put downward pressure on prices. Moreover, consumers would get some of the tax back from the government in some form. [In this case,President Obama wants to use revenues from cap-and-trade to fund a tax cut for 95% of working families]“
When conservatives tell you you’d see your energy bills go up $3,100 every year, it’s not distortion or spin, it’s just a lie.
Cross-posted at ThinkProgress.
Politics
Conservatives Falsely Assert That Green Economy Legislation Would Impose $3,100 Tax On Families
Cross-posted from The Wonk Room.
Conservatives in Congress are resting their objections to effective green economy legislation on a bogus stat. Conservative leaders like Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are attacking the cap-and-trade proposal before Congress by claiming that it would “cost every American family up to $3,100 per year in higher energy prices.”
This is a deliberate lie.
They seem to be getting this number from an intentional misinterpretation of a 2007 study performed by a group of researchers at the MIT.
In an interview with PolitiFact, John Reilly, an MIT professor and one of the authors of the study, explained about this $3,100 claim:
“It’s just wrong. It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.”” [...]
“Someone from the House Republicans had called me (March 20) and asked about this,” Reilly said. “I had explained why the estimate they had was probably incorrect and what they should do to correct it, but I think this wrong number was already floating around by that time.”
House Republicans apparently took the total revenues from the hypothetical cap and trade system that MIT analyzed and crudely divided it by the number of households in America, getting approximately $3,100 per family.
What they don’t mention, however, is that not only did John Reilly explicitly tell them that this was an inappropriate way to do this calculation, but that MIT had determined the net welfare effect on a typical family and the burden would be less than 1/40th what they claim, and wouldn’t occur until 2015.
As PolitiFact explains: “The report did include an estimate of the net cost to individuals, called the “welfare” cost. It would be $30.89 per person in 2015, or $79 per family if you use the same average household size the Republicans used of 2.56 people.” In exchange, we’d get a clean & renewable energy economy, decreased reliance on oil, and a safer climate for the world.
The reason Boehner’s methodology is totally inappropriate?
“That’s just not how economists calculate the cost of a tax proposal, Reilly said. The tax might push the price of carbon-based fuels up a bit, but other results of a cap-and-trade program, such as increased conservation and more competition from other fuel sources, would put downward pressure on prices. Moreover, consumers would get some of the tax back from the government in some form. [In this case,President Obama wants to use revenues from cap-and-trade to fund a tax cut for 95% of working families]“
When conservatives tell you you’d see your energy bills go up $3,100 every year, it’s not distortion or spin, it’s just a lie.
White House endorses Waxman-Markey, Senate Majority Whip Durbin says he doesn’t have 60 votes for it — House GOP keeps lying
The White House today offered its endorsement to the 648-page draft climate and energy bill unveiled by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman of California and Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts.”President Obama is committed to an energy policy that launches a new sector of clean energy jobs, makes our economy more competitive, and weans the nation off its dependence on foreign oil,” White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said in an e-mail. “While we are still reviewing the details, it is clear that Chairman Waxman’s legislation would advance all of those goals, and the president looks forward to working with members of Congress in both chambers to pass a bill that would transition the nation to a clean energy economy.”
So reports E&E News PM (subs. req’d, excerpted below) reports on the new House climate bill (see “First impression of Waxman-Markey” for more details).
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she’d try to get GOP votes, but wouldn’t hold the bill up waiting for them.
“We would hope to have Republican votes as we go forward on this,” Pelosi said. “Will I not put it forth unless I do? No. No. There’s an inevitability to this that everyone has to understand.”… House Republican leaders signaled little interest in working with Democrats on the climate and energy bill.
Duh. Then E&E News PM reprinted the standard conservative lie:
Sebelius: As Insurance Commissioner, I Saw Rationing Of Care ‘On A Regular Basis By Private Insurers’
Today, the Senate HELP committee held confirmation hearings for Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) to head the Department of Health and Human Services. Sebelius sparred with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) — who proposed the administration adopt his hackneyed campaign health care plan — and pushed back against Republican concerns that comparative effectiveness research would tie doctors’ hands:
Watch a compilation:
Sebelius stressed that as insurance commissioner in Kansas, she fought private insurer efforts to ration care:
I can’t tell you that I’m not concerned, ultimately, not with comparative effectiveness research but ultimately reaching a point where in order to control costs there is some effort to ration health care. I frankly, as insurance commissioner where I served for eight years saw it on a regular basis by private insures, who often made decisions overruling suggestions that doctors would make for their patients that they weren’t going to be covered. And a lot of what we did in the office of the Kansas Insurance Department was to go to bat for those patients to make sure that the benefits they had actually paid for were ones that were delivered.
Politics
After Flip-Flopping On Recovery Package, Rep. Cao Suggests He Might Support Obama’s Budget
Several days before the House voted on President Obama’s economic recovery package, freshman Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) told the Times-Picayune that he would “more likely than not” vote for the legislation because the “2nd Congressional District needs a stimulus package.” When it came time to vote, however, Cao gave into pressure from his party and voted no.
Now, Cao appears to be flirting again with the idea of bucking his party, telling the Hill earlier today that he may vote for Obama’s proposed budget:
Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.) may buck his party when the House votes on President Obama’s budget proposal later this week. The freshman lawmaker told The Hill that his constituents are split, adding that he wants more information before deciding whether to stick with his party or side with the president. [...]
“At this point, I’m not sure which is approach is better,” Cao said Tuesday morning. If he votes yes, Cao would be the first Republican in recent memory to support a Democratic budget resolution.
Despite Cao’s wobbly position on Obama’s agenda, his constituents appear to support it whole-heartedly. Not only did Cao’s district vote 75 percent in favor of Obama last November, but after Cao voted against the recovery package, several of his constituents initiated a recall campaign.
Obama’s budget offers significant benefits to the people of Louisiana. The Center for American Progress Action Fund found that approximately 1.5 million Louisiana families would benefit directly from Obama’s proposal to extend the Making Work Pay tax cut. As Cao himself noted, Obama’s proposal also includes one billion dollars for the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Housing Voucher Program and Affordable Housing Trust Fund, a portion of which will go to his most needy constituents.
Finally, because a significant number of his constituents live in New Orleans, Cao should consider the fact that Obama’s budget includes money to continue and accelerate recovery from Hurricane Katrina. The question now is whether or not Cao can begin to put the long-term interests of his constituents before his own short-term interests within the House Republican Caucus.
Yglesias
Central City Home Values Holding Up Amidst Collapse?
Alejandro Lazo writes about the decline in home prices in the Washington, DC metro area in 2008, writing that “By any measure, 2008 was a brutal year for the local real estate market, as gains made during the housing boom continued to unravel.” Except it actually wasn’t so brutal in the District itself where prices went up. Ken Baidfeld offers this chart and hypothesizes that “strong central cities” may be weathering the housing bust better than sprawling exurbs:
I think this is probably correct in broad terms. Housing overcapacity, almost by definition, exists on the far-flung fringes of metro areas. On the other hand, the ZIP-by-ZIP analysis of changes in the District doesn’t show a particularly clear pattern.
Yglesias
Making the G20 Mean Something
The idea of a G-20 summit is a good idea. Relative to other, more established international institutions, it’s a better set of countries to tackle the world’s overarching need to get on track to a pattern of growth and prosperity that’s sustainable for the long haul. But nobody’s actually expecting anything incredibly useful to come out of this week’s meetings. The world would, however, be a better place with a high-functioning G20 and this CAP report recommends some ways we could make that a reality.
Ultimately, however, in economic terms the world is suffering not just from a lack of institutions but from something of a leadership gap. The United States is a major economic player. But the economic realm isn’t like the military realm where we have a hegemonic position. By some measures, the European Central Bank actually presides over a larger economic unit than does the Federal Reserve and by all measures the European Union as a whole is bigger than the United States. Then beyond the two economic superpowers, there are a number of other really major players. That means the world really can’t just assume the U.S. is going to pull a rabbit out of a hat and put everything back together. But at the moment, nobody else seems especially interested in stepping up.
Politics
Sanford: It would be ‘fiscal child abuse’ to accept millions of stimulus dollars for education.
As Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) continues to wage an ideological war against $700 million of sorely-needed stimulus funds for his state, he has become more and more desperate to stave off his critics. Tonight on Glenn Beck’s Fox show, Sanford claimed that accepting the funds — 80 percent of which would fund education in his state — would be akin to “fiscal child abuse”:
BECK: But your point, if I’m not mistaken is, no, no, no, you’re taking care of the children in South Carolina by not taking it. Can you explain that? [...]
SANFORD: Since we don’t have any of this money that’s now being dispensed from Washington, DC; since we’re going out and printing money and we’re issuing debt to solve a problem that was created by too much debt; since that’s taking place, and since those costs will be borne by the next generation, in fact it is sort of fiscal child abuse to do what we’re doing.
BECK: Yes.
Watch it:
It’s unclear whether South Carolina student Ty’Sheoma Bethea will agree that denying her crumbling school the stimulus cash it needs to rebuild — or that firing 4,000 state teachers — is protecting her from child abuse.
