ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Montana town requests that U.S. government send 100 Gitmo detainees to its prison.

A frequent attack on the closure of Guantanamo is the claim that no one in the U.S. wants detainees housed in their backyard. Last Sunday, Dick Cheney remarked, “I don’t know a single congressional district in this country that is going to say, gee, great, they’re sending us 20 Al Qaida terrorists.” But Al Jazeera’s Rob Reynolds reports that the town of Hardin, MT requesting that 100 detainees be sent to its empty prison:

hardin1Earlier this month, Hardin’s town council voted unanimously to offer the US government a deal: Send Hardin the detainees that most foreign countries and other cities the US are afraid to take.

“Why not us?” [Greg Smith, Hardin's economic development director] asks. “They’ve got to go somewhere.” He dismisses security concerns over housing inmates former Bush administration officials famously described as “the worst of the worst”. “We have some very hardened criminals in our own country that have committed some heinous crimes, and they are in communities all across this country,” Smith argues. [...]

He estimates at least 100 new jobs would come from filling the prison, a real boost to this small, beleaguered community. Smith describes the town’s quest to become a new penal colony as “a piece of the American dream.” “Like anything in America, we’re looking for opportunities,” he says.

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) has said that detainees could be tried in his Alexandria, VA district. Last month, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) asked Attorney General Holder, “Do you know of any community in the US that would welcome terrorists, would be terrorists, former terrorists incarcerated in Guantanamo?”

Climate Progress

EIA projects wind at 5% of U.S. electricity in 2012, all renewables at 14%, thanks to Obama stimulus! Now can we get a stronger renewable standard?

The renewables safe sources of energy that never run out are coming!  And if it was braggin’ time for wind when wind power hit 1.25% of U.S. electricity generation in 2008, what’ll it be in 2012, when it hits 5%, as projected by the Energy Information Administration?  Well, it’s probably time for a tougher renewable energy standard than the Senate is considering.

Significantly, the EIA, which is the DOE’s independent analytical arm, is no fan of safe sources of energy that never run out.  When I was at the DOE in the mid-1990s, we uncovered a key reason there was so little wind in EIA’s modeling of federal climate action:  Their original forecast had in fact shown a huge upsurge, so the EIA analysts tweaked the model to artificially suppress wind.  And today, the EIA is run by my old friend, Howard Gruenspecht, who was a Bush Sr. holdover at DOE’s office of policy when I started there in 1992 and a Bush, Jr. appointee at EIA.  He ain’t progressive.  Obama should replace him.  But I digress.

So it is all the more shocking that EIA’s remarkable, if little noted, report from last month, Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case Reflecting Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Recent Changes in the Economic Outlook projected this response to the Obama stimulus package:

Note that non-hydro renewables are about 9% of supply in 2020.  You can find all the year-by-year projections here (see Table 15, “Renewable Energy Generating Capacity and Generation”).

Now you can pretty much ignore the post-2012 projections by EIA since they have self-inflicted myopia — EIA’s basic forecasts assume “no further energy and climate policy” and “no peak oil.”  For instance, their analysis notes “wind capacity growth is projected to slow significantly after the expiration of the Federal tax credits in 2012.”

Slow significantly?  That’s an understatement.  EIA projects U.S. wind capacity rising from about 25 GW in 2008 to 66 GW in 2014 — but then to only 68 GW in 2030!

Anybody want to bet me that wind capacity will grow 2 GW from 2015 to 2030?  Didn’t think so.  Seriously EIA — how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

And EIA projects solar thermal power in 2014 will be … wait for it … 790 MW, and in 2030 … wait even longer and longer for it … 860 MW.  Like I said, EIA does not like renewables — even those with power purchase agreements (see “World’s largest solar plant with thermal storage to be built in Arizona “” total of 8500 MW of this core climate solution planned for 2014 in U.S. alone“).

Needless to say, they assume no climate bill and thus no price for carbon dioxide.

And here is their oil price forecast:

Read more

Politics

GOP Senator Leading Attacks Against Health Care Reform Admits Gitmo Detainees Get Better Care Than Americans

ensign121Last week, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) visited the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and declared that even if detainees are held without charge, they should remain at Guantanamo “until the war against terrorism ends.” “They are like having Charles Manson times whatever factor — these people are so dangerous,” Ensign said.

Ensign said that Guantanamo seemed so appealing to him that it would be “hard to imagine” why anyone would want to close the facility. When making this argument, however, Ensign inadvertently made a case for health care reform:

It is hard to imagine why we would ever think about closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility,” Ensign said. “I walked away very proud of what our troops are doing down there. I think any American would be proud as well.”

Ensign said the facilities at Gitmo are nicer than prisons in the United States, and said the food detainees were served was better than what he and the traveling lawmakers ate. “They get better health care than the average American citizen does,” Ensign said.

Guantanamo detainees receive care that is “as good as or better than anything we would offer our own soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines,” the general in charge of Guantanamo has said. (Veterans care is widely considered the best health care available.) Guantanamo reportedly has 19 in-patient beds, a physical-therapy area, pharmacy, radiology department, central sterilization area, an operating room, and available psychiatric care. Notably, Michael Moore made the same argument in his movie, Sicko.

While Ensign inadvertently admitted to the dismal nature of American health care, he is currently the leader of the Republican Policy Committee (RPC), which is working to derail President Obama’s health care reforms. The AP reported this month that “Senate Republicans are already seeking and getting detailed advice on the best way to attack” Obama’s plan, and the RPC is soliciting advice from health care obstructionist Frank Luntz:

The suggestions are contained in a 28-page presentation by Frank Luntz. … Luntz reviewed his recommendations Wednesday with aides to conservative Republicans in a session organized by the Republican Policy Committee, headed by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev. A copy was obtained by The Associated Press.

“The policy committee brings in all kinds of people. He presented us with ways to communicate better and we listened,” said Rebecca Fisher, a spokeswoman for the group.

Much more on conservative obstruction of Obama’s health care plan in today’s Progress Report.

Climate Progress

Attacking Clean Energy Legislation, Gingrey Calls Green Jobs ‘Subprime’

Some Republicans really don’t like the idea of new jobs. Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) , in his opening statement on the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), attacked green jobs as “subprime” and “just like leaves on a tree” that disappear over time:

There’s little doubt in my mind that this legislation will shut down businesses and eliminate blue and white collar jobs. While I know the majority has prided its plan on the creation of green jobs mr chairman I have listened to some of our counterparts in Europe discuss their experience with these green jobs. It seems to me that green jobs, just like leaves on a tree, they may shine in the summertime when everything is sunny, but when the fall comes these leaves will fade and in winter they’ll be long gone. They may be described as “subprime” in comparison to solid traditional manufacturing jobs we’ve recently lost to other countries.

Watch it:

Gingrey and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), who also attacked green jobs by reading from a National Post hit piece (which Whitfield mistakenly called the “New York Post”), were relying on a study by Spanish libertarian Gabriel Calzada that blamed Spain’s support for its renewable industry for its high current level of unemployment. The only problem is that the study — produced by a right-wing Spanish think tank — is “completely untrue.” The Wall Street Journal has pointed out that “the study doesn’t actually identify those jobs allegedly destroyed by renewable-energy spending” and that “hard to see how” Spain’s support for green jobs “could have edged out private-sector spending, especially when the Socialist government there has reduced corporate income-tax rates, most recently this past January.”

Gingrey was right when he said that “solid traditional manufacturing jobs” have been recently lost to other countries. His mistake is in not understanding that investing in green jobs is how to keep these traditional jobs in the United States — from designing, building, and transporting wind turbines to installing insulation and solar panels in millions of homes. Gingrey needs to spend more time in his district and visit his constituents working for green companies like the industrial heating engineering firm Sigma Thermal, home refitting company Wheeler’s Windows and Doors, and the electrical design engineering firm Lunar Accents Design. I doubt they consider their work to be “subprime.”

Transcript: Read more

Politics

Matthew Yglesias discusses how the right-wing strategy on torture is backfiring.

Today, ThinkProgress’s Matthew Yglesias (who is celebrating his birthday today) wrote a column for the Daily Beast arguing that the right wing’s sideshow on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) only furthers the case for a full investigation into torture. When host Norah O’Donnell asked him about Newt Gingrich’s call for Pelosi’s resignation, Yglesias reminded her who was ultimately responsible for Bush’s torture policy:

YGLESIAS: You know, Newt Gingrich knows a lot about saying stupid things and being forced out of the job as Speaker. … But one way or the other — I mean, I wasn’t in the room, you weren’t in the room, Newt Gingrich wasn’t in the room. None of us know exactly what happened there. But whatever it is Nancy Pelosi knew about, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Yoo, Jay Bybee, they knew more. And ultimately, when we have a thorough investigation of what happened, the bulk of the blame has to lie with the architects of the policy, not with a member of the opposition party.

Watch it:

O’Donnell insisted, “There’s not going to be an investigation,” in part because — according to O’Donnell — Pelosi doesn’t want one. In fact, Pelosi repeated her calls for a full accounting for Bush’s torture policies as recently as Thursday: “Until a Truth Commission comes into being, I encourage the appropriate committees of the House to conduct vigorous oversight of these issues.”

Yglesias

George Will’s Irritable Mental Gestures

max_01-1-1

It’s probably not fair to say that conservatives have no idea, but this entire George Will column is basically the same as the column he wrote about how he hates jeans, except this time it’s about how he hates Portland. But now he wants national policy to be driven by his hatred for Portland:

LaHood, however, has been transformed. Indeed, about three bites into lunch, the T word lands with a thump: He says he has joined a “transformational” administration: “I think we can change people’s behavior.” Government “promoted driving” by building the Interstate Highway System—”you talk about changing behavior.” He says, “People are getting out of their cars, they are biking to work.” High-speed intercity rail, such as the proposed bullet train connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco, is “the wave of the future.” And then, predictably, comes the P word: Look, he says, at Portland, Ore. [...]

Where to start? Does LaHood really think Americans were not avid drivers before a government highway program “promoted” driving? Does he think 0.01 percent of Americans will ever regularly bike to work? Intercity high-speed rail probably always will be the wave of the future, for cities more than 300 miles apart.

Where to start? LaHood didn’t say that Americans didn’t drive before we built the interstate system. He said that building the interstate system promoted driving. I don’t see how you could possibly deny this. Had we spent less money on highway construction and more on mass transit or intercity rail, then there would be less driving. That seems obvious. In a different context, completing WMATA’s Green Line promoted use of Metro. And this is true even though Washingtonians were avid Metro riders even before the Green Line was complete. A seven year-old ought to be able to master this.

american_commute_sm-2

Will claims to find it unbelievable that as many as 0.01 percent of Americans would ever bike to work regularly. But rather than tossing off ridicule, he might have looked up the Census Bureau’s statistics on commuting patterns and seen that right now 0.4 percent of commuters normally get to work on bicycles. Now that’s a small percentage. But it’s forty times larger than a percentage that Will deems unrealistically utopian. This would be like saying Dwight Howard is 2 feet tall.

As for high-speed rail, San Francisco and Los Angeles aren’t that much more than 300 miles apart. Indeed, they’re about as far apart as Barcelona and Madrid, which are currently served by a very successful high speed rail link. What’s more, while metropolitan San Francisco is about the same size as metro Barcelona (4.2 million people, give or take), metropolitan Los Angeles’s 12.8 million residents is a much larger city than Madrid with its 5.3 million.

But even if you accept Will’s idea that LA-SF HSR can’t succeed because it’s over the magic 300 miles line, the United States has plenty of city-pairs closer than that. For example, there’s Seattle and the dread Portland, Oregon. And Vancouver’s less than 300 miles from Seattle. Milwaukee to Chicago, Chicago to Indianapolis, Chicago to Saint Louis, Miami to Orlando and Orlando to Tampa, and Houston to Dallas—all fitting under the Will line.

Why does Newsweek want to offer its audience a columnist who wants to write about transportation polic but can’t be bothered to bring any facts or logic to the table?

Economy

Don’t Pull Back That TARP Oversight Just Yet

Our guest blogger is David Min, Associate Director for Financial Markets Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

statestState Street Bank announced today that it would issue $1.5 billion in new stock, with the proceeds intended to be used to repay the $2 billion in preferred stock and warrants it issued the government under the terms of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. State Street is just the latest bank (joining Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, and others) to announce its intention to try to exit the TARP program, which imposes some additional requirements on banks, including executive compensation caps and additional reporting requirements. However, with forecasters predicting additional downpours, it’s too early to pull back the TARP.

Even if we wish away the myriad criticisms about the results of the stress tests, including reports that banks were able to negotiate their results with the regulators, it’s not clear to me that we should allow the banks deemed “healthy” by the stress tests to so easily escape the additional oversight requirements that have been imposed on them in exchange for their participation in TARP.

Instead, the true test for whether banks are healthy enough to stand on their own should be that they can survive without access to the $12 trillion “alphabet soup” of federal subsidies, guarantees, and cheap financing that is currently providing easy profits for the financial sector. We should not be defining “healthy” banks as those that can “earn their way out of trouble,” when those earnings are entirely subsidized by the taxpayer.

At a bare minimum, banks seeking to opt out of the TARP oversight regime by repaying their TARP obligations should also be forced to opt out of the FDIC’s Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, which provides an explicit government guarantee on senior bank bonds (the FDIC ordinarily only guarantees deposits, and in return for this, they have extensive regulatory powers over the risks being taken by banks with these deposited funds), and a number of Fed programs which provided subsidized financing to troubled banks, secured by distressed assets such as toxic MBS and CDOs.

The principle governing banks right now ought to be this: if the taxpayer is helping you out, then you can’t opt out of the relatively minor restrictions imposed by TARP oversight. And the other side of the coin is this: if you want to opt out of those TARP oversight restrictions, then you also need to stop taking taxpayer money, both from TARP and elsewhere.

Politics

Limbaugh responds to Price: ‘How the hell’ can Price say Powell is better for GOP than Cheney?

This morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough asked Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) if he believed that Rush Limbaugh and former Vice President Cheney were “somehow better Republicans than Colin Powell.” “Goodness, no,” Price responded. On his radio show today, Limbaugh respond to Price, asking, “How in the hell can you say that Dick Cheney was worse for the Republican Party than Colin Powell!?” Limbaugh reiterated his claim that Powell endorsed Obama entirely because of his race and proclaimed that Cheney was a model Republican because he “gets results”:

LIMBAUGH: How in the hell can you say that Dick Cheney is worse for the Republican Party than Colin Powell? It was Colin Powell who endorsed Barack Obama after the Republican party gave Colin Powell the exact kind of nominee he claims to want. [...]

The Vice President gets results! Do you not see what Dick Cheney was able to pull off last week? You basically have the Bush policy on Gitmo and interrogations intact. … And [Price] says that Dick Cheney is not as good a Republican as Colin Powell is?

Watch it:

The question now is if Price will, like other Republicans before him, deliver a mea culpa for publicly disagreeing with El Rushbo. But disagreements within the conservative movement aside, the “Bush policy on Gitmo and interrogations” is by no means “intact.”

Older

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

Sign Up