ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Fox News poll asks if increasing taxes for the wealthy means ‘nobody gets to be too rich.’

By Matt Corley on Apr 2, 2009 at 7:56 pm

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics polls are known for often including a few loaded and misleading questions. In their latest survey out today, Fox’s pollsters asked a question that assumed that raising taxes would mean that “nobody gets to be too rich“:

fox-taxes1.jpg

Another question asked respondents whether they believed that President Obama “wants the financial crisis to continue so government can take over more businesses and grow the federal government.” Twenty-three percent said they thought Obama wanted it to continue while 68 percent said they think Obama wants the crisis to end.

Climate Progress

Does the Pew Center’s Eileen Claussen get the dire nature of our climate predicament — or did Duke’s Bill Chameides misquote her

By Joe Romm on Apr 2, 2009 at 7:40 pm

Impressions from National Academies Climate Summit Dr. Bill Chameides is the dean of Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He blogs at HuffingtonPost.com and his own GreenGrok.com, which is certainly worth reading.

He just posted “Impressions from National Academies Climate Summit,” in which he drops a bombshell quote from Eileen Claussen, head of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change (the two are pictured above). But Chameides treats the quote as if it were just another piece of the puzzle, rather than a stunning revelation of a lack of understanding of climate science — assuming the quote is accurate. Here is what he blogged:

Read more

Economy

Former Treasury Assistant Secretary: ‘Chronic Disorganization’ Hampered Response To Crisis

By Pat Garofalo on Apr 2, 2009 at 7:15 pm

ap0609130522742.jpgIn an essay to be presented tomorrow, former Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy Phillip Swagel outlined his experiences working for the Bush Treasury Department during the onset of the economic crisis. While claiming up front that the paper “will inevitably be seen as defensive,” Swagel wrote some serious critiques of Treasury’s actions in combating the rapidly failing economy.

Perhaps most telling was his claim that Treasury under then Secretary Henry Paulson was plagued by “chronic disorganization” that hampered the response to the crisis:

Other aspects of the decision-making were self-imposed hurdles rather than external constraints. Notable among these hurdles was chronic disorganization within the Treasury itself, and a broadly haphazard policy process within the Administration (and sometimes strained relations between Treasury and White House staff) that made it difficult to harness the full energies of the administration in a common direction.

With regard to Paulson’s now infamous TARP reversal, Swagel claimed that Paulson “truly intended to buy [toxic] assets,” but only because he believed it was politically unfeasible to suggest injecting capital into banks — which, of course, is what he eventually did:

The Secretary truly intended to buy assets—this was absolutely the plan; the TARP focused on asset purchases was not a bait and switch to inject capital. But Secretary Paulson would have gotten zero votes from Republican members of the House of Representatives for a proposal that would have been portrayed as having the government nationalize the banking system. And Democratic House members would not have voted for the proposal without the bipartisan cover of votes from Republicans.

At the time, we noted that Paulson seemed to be flailing about, with a series of misguided attempts to get a handle on the tumbling economy. This account from Swagel does little to dispel that notion.

Politics

Palin echoes Alaska GOP: Sen. Begich should step down to allow new election.

By Ali Frick on Apr 2, 2009 at 6:58 pm

Today, the Alaska Republican Party called for Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) to step down and allow for a new election, in the wake of Attorney General Holder voiding former senator Ted Stevens’s guilty verdict, due to prosecutorial misconduct. This afternoon, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) echoed those calls and pressed for a new election:

“A special election will allow Alaskans to have a real, non-biased, credible process where the most qualified person could win, without the manipulation of the Department of Justice,” the release stated.

“I absolutely agree,” Palin responded in an e-mail to the News-Miner. She said Begich should step down pending a special election.

Though Palin is now enthusiastically jumping back on the Stevens bandwagon, she was more wary when he was first convicted, backing away from an earlier call that he resign and refusing to say whether she would vote for his re-election.

Media

George Will Doesn’t Understand What a Trend Is

By Matthew Yglesias on Apr 2, 2009 at 6:26 pm

180px_energiesparlampe_01_retouched.jpg

Another doozy from George Will on climate change:

Reducing carbon emissions supposedly will reverse warming, which is allegedly occurring even though, according to statistics published by the World Meteorological Organization, there has not been a warmer year on record than 1998.

I really think anyone working at The Washington Post or in conservative journalism who has a shred of intellectual conscience has a duty to stand up to this kind of nonsense. As the Secretary General of the World Metereological Organization wrote in The Washington Post two weeks ago:

Data collected over the past 150 years by the 188 members of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) through observing networks of tens of thousands of stations on land, at sea, in the air and from constellations of weather and climate satellites lead to an unequivocal conclusion: The observed increase in global surface temperatures is a manifestation of global warming. Warming has accelerated particularly in the past 20 years.

It is a misinterpretation of the data and of scientific knowledge to point to one year as the warmest on record — as was done in a recent Post column ["Dark Green Doomsayers," George F. Will, op-ed, Feb. 15] — and then to extrapolate that cooler subsequent years invalidate the reality of global warming and its effects.

I’m beyond caring what Will is thinking or doing here. But what on earth are the Post‘s editors doing? This is an obvious fallacy, and the Post itself has run a thorough debunking of this talking point. Why did they do that if they intend to keep using their brand to enhance the credibility of Will’s misrepresentations? It’s unfathomable. Why would you expect anyone to pay money to read a newspaper that publishes willfully misleading information?

Politics

Leahy suggests that truth commission is ‘not going to happen.’

By Ali Frick on Apr 2, 2009 at 5:55 pm

In a meeting on Monday with Vermont citizens, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) admitted that the truth commission he has advocated to examine Bush administration crimes like torture most likely won’t happen. Reporter Charlotte Dennett writes that Leahy said political opposition was too strong to overcome:

Halfway through the allotted 30 minute meeting (with him taking up much of the time explaining why he was not generally opposed to prosecution, since he had been a DA for eight years and had the highest conviction rate in Vermont), he told us that his truth commission had failed to get the broad support it needed in Congress, and since he couldn’t get one Republican to come behind the plan, “it’s not going to happen.”

Emphasizing that Leahy takes seriously his commitment to defend the Constitution, Leahy’s aide Chip Ross told the group, “He’s all you’ve got.” However, Leahy’s office sent an e-mail to reporters today objecting to “reports circulating on the internet” and claiming Leahy is “continuing to explore” the idea of a truth commission:

In contrast to reports circulating on the Internet, Leahy said he is continuing to explore the proposal.

“I am not interested in a panel comprised of partisans intent on advancing partisan conclusions,” Leahy said. “I regret that Senate Republicans have approached this matter to date as partisans. That was not my intent or focus. Indeed, it will take bipartisan support in order to move this forward. I continue to talk about this prospect with others in Congress, and with outside groups and experts. I continue to call on Republicans to recognize that this is not about partisan politics. It is about being honest with ourselves as a country. We need to move forward together.”

Yglesias

Pipes Hails Avigdor Lieberman’s Rejectionism

By Matthew Yglesias on Apr 2, 2009 at 5:44 pm

861.jpg

Daniel Pipes, head of the Middle East Forum outfit that recently took a victory lap over its role in spiking Chas Freeman’s nomination, is also psyched about Avigdor Lieberman as Foreign Minister:

Avigdor Lieberman became foreign minister of Israel yesterday. He celebrated his inauguration with a maiden speech that news reports indicate left his listeners grimacing, squirming, and aghast. The BBC, for example, informs us that his words prompted “his predecessor Tzipi Livni to interrupt and diplomats to shift uncomfortably.”

Too bad for them – the speech leaves me elated.

Pipes is more right-wing than the bulk of the “pro-Israel” establishment. But it’s telling that that establishment regards Pipes as a perfectly acceptable comrade-in-arms, while seeking every opportunity to trash the pro-peace J Street. It’s a telling indication of where things really stand, and a welcome pretext to link to J Street’s rather different take on Lieberman.

Climate Progress

By Overwhelming Margins, Senate Accepts Conservative Lies About A Green Economy

By Brad Johnson on Apr 2, 2009 at 5:43 pm

Ever since President Obama introduced a budget that included his cap-and-trade plan to invest in a green economy and make work pay instead of pollution, conservatives have falsely attacked it as a $3100 light-switch tax, despite their lack of an alternative plan. On Tuesday, the Senate bowed to the barrage of propaganda and passed two amendments to the budget that imply any move to clean energy is a risky tax on consumers. On Wednesday, the Senate explicitly preserved the filibuster for green economy legislation (67-31 vote), even if “the Senate finds that public health, the economy and national security of the United States are jeopardized by inaction on global warming” (42-56):

SUPPORTING THE FALSE CHOICE OF ECONOMY V. ENVIRONMENT

Amendment No. 749, introduced by Sen. Boxer (D-CA): Requires that green economy legislation does not “increase electricity or gasoline prices or increase the overall energy burden on consumers, through the use of revenues and policies provided in such legislation.”

Passed 54-43; Bingaman (D-NM) and Byrd (D-WV) joined every Republican in voting against; Gillibrand (D-NY) and Kennedy (D-MA) not voting.

Amendment No. 731, Sen. Thune (R-SD): Requires that green economy legislation does not “increase electricity or gasoline prices.”

Passed 89-8: Bingaman, Cardin (D-MD), Corker (R-TN), Durbin (D-IL), Feinstein (D-CA), Menendez (D-NJ), Udall (D-NM) and Whitehouse (D-RI) voted against, Gillibrand and Kennedy not voting.

PRESERVING GREEN ECONOMY FILIBUSTER

Amendment No. 869, Sens. Whitehouse (D-RI) and Boxer: Allows non-filibusterable budget reconciliation for green economy legislation, if “the Senate finds that public health, the economy and national security of the United States are jeopardized by inaction on global warming.”

Rejected 42-56: Begich (D-AK), Byrd, Cantwell (D-WA), Dorgan (D-ND), Feingold (D-WI), Hagan (D-NC), Landrieu (D-LA), Levin (D-MI), Lincoln (D-AR), McCaskill (D-MO), Murray (D-WA), Nelson (D-NE), Rockefeller (D-WV), Stabenow (D-MI), Webb (D-VA) joined every Republican in voting against, Kennedy not voting.

Amendment No. 735, Sen. Johanns (R-NE): Prohibits the use of reconciliation in the Senate for green economy legislation.

Passed 67-31: Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Begich, Bennet (D-CO), Bingaman, Byrd, Cantwell, Casey (D-PA), Conrad (D-ND), Dorgan, Feingold, Hagan, Klobuchar (D-MN), Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu, Levin, Lincoln, McCaskill, Murray, Nelson, Pryor (D-AR), Rockefeller (D-WV), Stabenow, Tester (D-MT), Warner (D-VA), Webb joined every Republican in voting for, Kennedy not voting.

The budget language affected by these amendments calls for green economy legislation that “would invest in clean energy technology initiatives, decrease greenhouse gas emissions, or help families, workers, communities, and businesses make the transition to a clean energy economy.”

Of course that legislation will affect electricity and gasoline prices in some way — any plan to end our pollution Ponzi scheme will. There’s no way to write energy legislation that guarantees prices don’t go up, just as there’s no way to write legislation that guarantees prices don’t go down. However, thanks to President Bush, we do know what happens without clean energy policies — electricity and gasoline prices skyrocket, polluters profit, pollution rises, and the economy tanks. And we also know that the sun, the wind, and efficiency are free. Conservatives want to maintain the Bush-Cheney policy of letting oil and coal companies write our laws, demolish our economy, and ruin our planet. Unfortunately, it seems there are few in the Senate who are able or willing to stand up against them.

We need a plan for a green economy, not political gimmicks without answers.

Update

Matt Yglesias comments on the filibuster votes:

This is good for Republicans, since it helps them achieve their goal of destroying the planet. And it’s good for Democrats, since it helps them achieve their goal of pretending to try to avoid the destruction of the planet while ensuring that, in practice, the planet is destroyed. And Senators Johanns was born in 1950, so he’ll almost surely be dead by 2050 (along with countless residents of flood-prone areas of the developing world) so it’s basically all good.

Security

Gingrich’s Fantasy War: Taking ‘Preemptive Actions’ Against North Korean Missiles With Lasers

By Ben Armbruster on Apr 2, 2009 at 5:00 pm

Late last February, North Korea announced that it was preparing a rocket launch in order to — allegedly — put a communications satellite into space. While U.S. and allied officials widely believe “the launching is a cover for testing technology for a long-range missile that could carry a nuclear warhead,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said last Sunday that the U.S. has no plans to militarily disrupt the launch.

But Newt Gingrich believes military action is necessary. Last night on Fox News, Gingrich said “we should be very worried,” referencing a “novel” he read about a nuclear electromagnetic pulse attack which “could eliminate all electricity production” in the U.S. “[W]e would go back to a pre-industrial era overnight, in seconds,” Gingrich warned. “It’s a very serious threat”:

GINGRICH: I don’t think North Korea should be allowed to launch missiles. I think we should take whatever preemptive actions are necessary. The idea that we’re going to suddenly be shocked one morning as one of these missiles has a nuclear weapon and does something that dramatically changes America I think is a very dangerous idea.

Continuing his fantasy, Gingrich then likened a lack of action on North Korea (and Iran and Hamas) to what “we did in the 1930′s about Adolf Hitler and Nazism.” He argued that “changing the regime is the only way to change the behavior,” but if all else fails, the U.S. should use lasers to wipe out the missile. Watch it:

As the Washington Post noted, “North Korea’s missiles are inaccurate and decades out of date,” and experts “agree that North Korea is probably years away from putting nuclear warheads on long-range missiles that could hit the United States.”

Moreover, the International Crisis Group has warned against overreactions of the type Gingrich displayed:

“[A]n overblown response would likely jeopardise the Six-Party Talks to end North Korea’s nuclear program. What is needed is a calm, coordinated response from the key actors to raise pressure on Pyongyang to return to the talks rather than a divided reaction that only fulfils the North’s desire to widen splits among its neighbours. [...] An overreaction to the test that prompts the North to abandon the Six-Party Talks would strengthen hardliners in Pyongyang.”

Gingrich appears to enjoy engaging in hyperbole as of late. Just last week, he warned that President Obama’s policies are taking the U.S. toward “dictatorship.”

Yglesias

Lincoln and Kyl Team Up to Offer Tax Cut for the Super-Rich

By Matthew Yglesias on Apr 2, 2009 at 4:58 pm

blanche.gif

John Kyl (R-Arkansas), who has a lot of odd policy views, and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), who seems to really love the Walton family, have apparently introduced a bill to offer $249.5 billion worth of tax cuts to the inheritors of estates worth over $7 million. This is just abysmal public policy for reasons amply summarized by Ben Furnas and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. I’m actually a bit inclined to wonder if there are even any non-Waltons in Arkansas with estates this valuable. Note that $7 million is approximately 155 times the median household income of Arkansas.

I’m especially fake-surprised to see Senator Lincoln leading the charge for this, since she’s a charter member of Evan Bayh’s “practical caucus” which fake-believes that fiscal discipline is so important that it’s necessary to curtail progressive priorities. Apparently, deficit reduction is more important than affordable health insurance but less important than giveaways to multi-millionaires. Indeed, Lincoln’s alleged commitment to fiscal responsibility looks even more dubious in light of her support for the 2001 Bush tax cuts.

Older

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

Sign Up