SuperFreakonomics, the forthcoming sequel to the pop-economics bestseller Freakonomics by economists Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, devotes 44 pages to a contrarian view of climate change, calling global warming a “religion.” Much of the chapter praises Microsoft billionaire and scientific dilettante, Nathan Myhrvold, whose solution to global warming is to pump acid rain pollution into the atmosphere. Levitt and Dubner also claim that prominent climate scientist Ken Caldeira does not think carbon dioxide is the “right villain”:
Caldeira is thoroughly convinced that human activity is responsible for some global warming and is more pessimistic than Myhrvold about how future climate will affect humankind. He believes “we are being incredibly foolish emitting carbon dioxide” as we currently do. Yet his research tells him that carbon dioxide is not the right villain in this fight.
Levitt and Dubner’s portrayal of Caldeira is false. As he told Climate Progress’s Joseph Romm in an e-mail interview, he believes carbon dioxide is the central villain:
Every carbon dioxide emission adds to climate damage and increasing risk of catastrophic consequences. There is no safe level of emission. I compare CO2 emissions to mugging little old ladies.
Levitt and Dubner spend much of their time channeling conservative columnist George Will, complaining about a “drumbeat of doom” growing louder from “doomsayers” even though the average global temperature, they say, “has in fact decreased.” The book also repeats Will’s obsession with a supposed consensus about “global cooling” in the 1970s.
The Hill is reporting that Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR) — who led a group of seven centrist Blue Dogs who objected to a public option that reimbursed providers based on Medicare rates — is floating a proposal to open-up Medicare to Americans under 65, “but at a reimbursement rate much greater than current Medicare rates“:
I — speaking only on behalf of myself — suggested one possible idea could be that instead of creating an entirely new government bureaucracy to administer a public option, Medicare could be offered as a choice to compete alongside private insurers for those Americans eligible to enter the national health insurance exchange, but at a reimbursement rate much greater than current Medicare rates.
The last sentence is key: reimbursing providers who treat the new enrollees at market rates satisfies the provider community and conservative politicians from rural states who argue that their hospitals would close if they were reimbursed at Medicare rates. This scheme preserves the integrity of a single national program and takes advantage of Medicare’s administrative efficiencies to lower costs and spearhead delivery reforms. Still, Ross’ solution will likely save less money than a robust public option that uses Medicare-like rates and leverage.
After cutting a deal with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to increase the public option’s reimbursement rates in August, Ross announced last month that “he will vote against health care legislation if it includes a public option.” “I have been skeptical about the public health insurance option from the beginning and used August to get feedback from you, my constituents,” Ross wrote in a newsletter to constituents. “An overwhelming number of you oppose a government-run health insurance option and it is your feedback that has led me to oppose the public option as well.”
Over the past couple of weeks, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) has been trying to sell his and Sen. Robert Bennett’s (R-UT) amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill which would require the US Census Bureau to add a question about citizenship to its 2010 survey. Today, Vitter continued claiming that states with many immigrants would steal the representatives of states with few immigrants if noncitizens are not excluded from congressional apportionment decisions. However, there isn’t any language in the amendment stipulating any change in the way representatives are apportioned. And if there was, Vitter would be directly challenging the US Constitution.
Vitter’s argument is based on the misguided premise that the founding fathers always intended that only citizens should be counted by Census officials for the purposes of congressional apportionment:
I believe that when we use the Census for Congressional re-districting for determining how many US House seats each state gets, we should count citizens, but we should not count in that context, non-citizens — including illegal aliens…I don’t think the founding fathers set up a democracy — and in many ways the most important Democratic institution in history, the US Congress — to represent noncitizens. Why aren’t we adding in the entire population of France, or Belgium, or Brazil? For obvious reasons, because this is a democracy to represent citizens of the United States.
Watch it:
However, as Gabriel Winant of Salon points out, “the 18th century has something to say to the 21st.” Winant explains that the issue of counting noncitizens came up in the Three-fifths Compromise which stipulated that slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a person. After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment granted former slaves citizenship and established that representatives would be apportioned according to “the whole number of persons in each State.” It’s unlikely that our founding fathers and their predecessors naively overlooked a loophole in the 14th Amendment’s broad language that would allow noncitizens to be counted, as Vitter would like to think. Surely they weren’t blind to the fact that millions of immigrants from Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and various regions of what would become Germany were rapidly emigrating to the US during the nation’s first era of mass immigration. Children, ex-felons, legal residents, and several other nonvoters are also included in the census apportionment data. These non-voters aren’t counted due to a mistake or oversight. Their presence is acknowledged because it helps paint an accurate portrait of a state’s demographic makeup and population density that’s key to effective and adequate representation.
Vitter’s amendment only seeks to compel the US Census to include a question on citizenship because changing congressional apportionment would be unconstitutional. The truth is, Vitter is probably aware of the fact that the question in itself will dissuade noncitizens from participating. Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, explains, “Already the public fears that the Census is too intrusive.” Asking about a person’s citizenship “would raise more questions in the public mind about how confidential the Census is.”
Meanwhile, Vitter is supposedly arguing on behalf of many of the states that have benefited from a recent influx of undocumented immigrants in terms of population growth. Moreover, the non-participation of immigrants could lead to inaccurate demographic information and result in costly mistakes in infrastructure, education, and healthcare planning. Changing the census could cost hundreds of millions of dollars. For those reasons the Census Bureau, the Obama administration, and Senate leadership all adamantly oppose Vitter’s amendment. Last night, under pressure, Vitter at least dropped the language in his Amendment which would’ve required the US Census to ask participants about their immigration status.
This morning, the Plum Line’s Greg Sargent confirmed CNN contributor Alex Castellanos’ political consulting firm, National Media, is the ad buyer for the insurance industry group America’s Health Insurance Plan’s (AHIP) new ad blitz attacking Democratic health reform plans. ThinkProgress also reported that Castellanos has received fourpayments totaling $434,336 from the Republican National Committee for media work since July. In response to the mounting criticism, CNN vowed to be “vigilant” in the future. CNN political director Sam Feist sent the following statement to Sargent:
“Not only has CNN identified Alex Castellanos as working on behalf of the Republican Party and on behalf of health care clients, the network is proud of its practice of disclosing relevant information about its contributors and guests. CNN will be vigilant in our efforts to ensure both their affiliations and potential conflicts of interest are cited when contributors appear on our air.”
The policy of full disclosure should extend to other CNN pundits, including Frank Donatelli, a GOP lobbyist who represents Blue Cross Blue Shield.
Today, the House Financial Services Committee began to debate the legislation that would create a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). Predictably, Republicans — who are staunchly opposed to the agency — broke out their false arguments about the agency restricting credit and eliminating jobs, but they also decided to tap into some of the GOP-generated “czar” hysteria by claiming that the CFPA’s director will be a “financial product approval czar”:
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX): [Consumers] have to go on bended-knee to this new federal czar for financial services product approval and beg that they can have a credit card or a mortgage.
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL): The legislation gives this new agency and it’s czar-like chairman power to impose both fees and taxes on all financial products, which they broadly design.
But more importantly, the point of the agency is not to approve mortgages or credit cards for individuals. The CFPA Director will not pull up John Smith’s credit report and decide whether or not he can have a Visa. Much like the Credit Cardholder’s Bill of Rights that was signed into law earlier this year (which placed outright bans on certain unfair practices), the CFPA will be able to ban products deemed deceptive or predatory.
For instance, as Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke advocated, no-doc loans (in which mortgages are given to consumers without any documentation supporting incomes or assets) should be done away with. Ditto for pay-day loans that have interest rates that climb to 400 percent or signing up consumers for exorbitant overdraft protection without actually telling them.
And of course, a lot of the subprime lending that led to the housing bubble — essentially the kind of lending that “occurs when the lender’s business model is based on making profits based on fees and defaults, not on the normal performance of a loan” — should be banned, as they have no legitimate purpose other than driving profits for mortgage lenders at the expense of borrowers. I’m willing to bet that their aren’t many homeowners who will be saddened to find that they can no longer access loans which result in them owing more on their house five years into their mortgage, despite making monthly payments. But that’s exactly what the GOP is advocating for.
The AP reports that Louisiana justice of the peace Keith Bardwell has refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple because he believes that such marriages don’t usually last very long:
“I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house,” Bardwell said. “My main concern is for the children.”
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
“I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves,” Bardwell said. “In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.”
If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.
“I try to treat everyone equally,” he said.
The couple said they “will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.” (HT: Right Wing Watch)
Ben Adler says we should worry less about the state of education because the outcomes are driven by poverty:
Growing up in New York City I saw a lot of public schools with bad outcomes because the student population was deeply disadvantaged. But the few wealthy kids who went to those very same public schools turned out just fine (not long ago I met one who went to Yale — I guess my parents wasted their money on sending me to private school, because Yale rejected me). Meanwhile, there are “good” public schools in wealthier neighborhoods where the main difference is just that the kids come to school with a full stomach and their parents read to them before they go to bed at night. Then there are all the private schools where some of the teachers are (unofficially) tenured and are pretty unimpressive, but the students tend to turn out (usually) OK. On the other hand, students who come to school poorly rested from a night in a homeless shelter, malnourished, or with untreated illnesses tend to do poorly. All the charter schools in the world can’t solve those problems.
This is, I think, a half-truth as best illustrated by the charts I put together for this post. To see the half that’s true and the half that’s not true, you need to look at the data from NAEP’s Trial Urban District Assessment. For example, how many kids score “below basic” in the 8th grade math assessment? Well:
Boston and New York and Washington all look bad. But they also all have above-average numbers of poor kids. So what happens if we look just at the poor kids?
The New York and Boston data illustrate the half of the demographic determinism thesis that’s true. What at first glance appears to be low performing schools in New York and Boston looks, when you look just at the poor kids, to merely be a reflection of the fact that these schools have more challenging populations. On the other hand, look at the Washington data and you’ll see the half of the demographic determinism thesis that’s not true. Poor kids in Washington do much worse than poor kids a few stops north on the Acela.
And you see this pretty consistently if you look at the TUDA data. No matter how you slice the information demographically, New York and (especially) Boston are performing pretty well and Washington is doing terribly. It’s also true that no matter how you look at it, poor kids do worse than non-poor kids. Unfortunately, TUDA participation is purely voluntary and not all that widespread. So while the available information pretty clearly establishes a large, but far from complete role for demographics we can’t say much specifically about the situation that exists in the vast majority of American cities.
The Hill is reporting that Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR) — who led a group of seven centrist Blue Dogs who objected to a public option that reimbursed providers based on Medicare rates — is floating a proposal to open-up Medicare to Americans under 65, “but at a reimbursement rate much greater than current Medicare rates“:
I — speaking only on behalf of myself — suggested one possible idea could be that instead of creating an entirely new government bureaucracy to administer a public option, Medicare could be offered as a choice to compete alongside private insurers for those Americans eligible to enter the national health insurance exchange, but at a reimbursement rate much greater than current Medicare rates.
The last sentence is key: reimbursing providers who treat the new enrollees at market rates (which are, on average, about 20-30% higher than Medicare rates) satisfies the provider community and conservative politicians from rural states who argue that their hospitals would close if they were reimbursed at Medicare rates. This scheme preserves the integrity of a single national program and takes advantage of Medicare’s administrative efficiencies to lower costs and spearhead delivery reforms. Still, Ross’ solution will likely save less money than a robust public option that uses Medicare-like rates and leverage.
Health reformers have long advocated opening Medicare to select populations. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that allowing uninsured Americans 62 to 64 to buy into the Medicare program and charging the buy-in population a regular premium plus a 5 percent administrative fee, would not add to long-term Medicare outlays. Dick Gephardt and John Edwards both offered a buy-in option during the 2004 presidential campaign and, in November 2008, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) proposed expanding Medicare in the short term and phasing it out once the Exchange became operable (in 2013):
The Baucus plan would make health care coverage immediately available to Americans aged 55 to 64 through a Medicare buy-in. People in this age group face greater risk of illness than their younger counterparts. And while they may require increased access to medical care, they continue to have fewer and fewer affordable insurance options as retiree health care coverage erodes and pre-existing conditions make private insurance prohibitively expensive or impossible to obtain altogether. [...]
To fill this gap in coverage, the Baucus plan would allow individuals aged 55 to 64 to buy Medicare coverage. The option would be available to any individual in this age group who otherwise did not have access to health coverage through a public plan or a group health plan. The benefits would be the same as those available to current Medicare beneficiaries.
After cutting a deal with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to increase the public option’s reimbursement rates in August, Ross announced last month that “he will vote against health care legislation if it includes a public option.” “I have been skeptical about the public health insurance option from the beginning and used August to get feedback from you, my constituents,” Ross wrote in a newsletter to constituents. “An overwhelming number of you oppose a government-run health insurance option and it is your feedback that has led me to oppose the public option as well.”
Hate radio show host Rush Limbaugh’s bid to purchase a minority stake in the St. Louis Rams failed yesterday, after players, a team owner, the head of the players union, and the commissioner publicly expressed concern about his joining the league based on racist comments he had made in the past. Today, Limbaugh addressed the controversy on his show, saying it was all a ploy by Democrats to villainize him and calling the NFL “outpost of racism and liberalism”:
LIMBAUGH: They [Democrats] have to have a villain to advance everything, because they cannot sell their ideas. They had to demonize me with false, fake, made up quotes. To protect their precious little — National Football League as an outpost of racism and liberalism, which is what it is.
Listen here:
But as Media Matters points out, NFL teams, owners, players and personnel gave overwhelmingly to GOP since 1989. Limbaugh fans are rallying behind him, with some proposing a boycott of the NFL. A RedState blogger strongly supported the hate radio host in a post titled “Tonight… We Are All Rush Limbaugh.”
Midwesterners are operating under the misimpression that the allocation formula in the House bill is unfair to them. It doesn’t, although a new, flawed EPA “analysis” (“here“) suggests otherwise.
Certainly the formula is a tad ambiguous and that will no doubt be fixed in the Senate. The figure above shows the results of analysis by MJ Bradley (click to enlarge, methodology here).
I would note that the Bradley analysis does not appear to include the energy efficiency provisions in the bill, which are projected by independent analysts and EPA to deliver major savings (see “Waxman-Markey could save $3,900 per household and create 650,000 jobs by 2030“). So even the small increase in bills that you see in 2012 would in reality be lower if the House bill became law. But I digress.
The analysis is tricky for two reasons that the EPA appears to get wrong:
First, the House bill forbids a utility from getting more allowances than are required to offset their increased costs, but doesn’t quite spell out how to account for that. The obvious thing to do is what MJ Bradley does: “Excess allowances are withheld from states that receive more allowances than their delivered electricity related emissions. These withheld allowances are redistributed to the remaining states on the basis of their emissions.”
The EPA offers a long explanation for why the prohibition against excess distributions would be tricky to implement in practice — and then it seems like they just ignore the provision entirely. So, as you can see, they claim California would get more allowances than it needs to cover its emissions. But preventing that outcome is precisely why that provision was put in the House bill in the first place.
Second, states import power — sometimes power that is more carbon-intense than the importing state as a whole. An analysis must take into account. It does not seem that EPA’s calculations of emissions of a state like California included its imported coal-fired electricity.
So I just think EPA got this is doubly wrong in a way that happens to fit the misperception of the Midwesterners. I have also spoken to other independent utility modelers who say their results do not match EPA’s.
Bottom Line: The allocation formula appears to be pretty fair, if a tad ambiguous. EPA needs to spell out exactly how they did their analysis, and explain if they made one or both of these two major analytical errors. The Senate needs to be clearer on how the prohibition-against-excess-distributions provision works.
For more background, here are some excerpts from Tuesday Climate Wire (subs. req’d) story:
SuperFreakonomics, the forthcoming sequel to the pop-economics bestseller Freakonomics by economists Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, devotes 44 pages to a contrarian view of climate change, calling global warming a “religion.” Much of the chapter praises Microsoft billionaire and scientific dilettante, Nathan Myhrvold, whose solution to global warming is to pump acid rain pollution into the atmosphere. Levitt and Dubner also claim that prominent climate scientist Ken Caldeira does not think carbon dioxide is the “right villain”:
The Hill is reporting that Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR) — who led a group of seven centrist Blue Dogs who objected to a public option that reimbursed providers based on Medicare rates — is floating a proposal to 
This morning, the Plum Line’s Greg Sargent 
