ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Joe Barton’s Zombie Caucus Attacks Upton’s ‘Light Bulb Ban’

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who failed in his bid to take the chairmanship of the House energy committee from Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), has begun the new congress with a new assault on his fellow Republican. In the first day of the 112th Congress, Barton led a pack of 13 anti-innovation Republicans with the introduction of legislation (H.R. 91) to strike down Upton’s 2007 lighting efficiency standard, painted by conservative activists as a “light bulb ban.” In a statement, Barton accused Upton of legislating an assault on “personal freedom” and “manipulating the free market”:

This is about more than just energy consumption, it is about personal freedom. Voters sent us a message in November that it is time for politicians and activists in Washington to stop interfering in their lives and manipulating the free market. The light bulb ban is the perfect symbol of that frustration. People don’t want congress dictating what light fixtures they can use.

“From the health insurance you’re allowed to have, to the car you can drive, to the light bulbs you can buy,” the polluter-funded Barton concluded, “Washington is making too many decisions that are better left to you and your family.”

Barton’s attack on the tyranny of energy-efficient light bulbs is consponsored by Reps. Marsha Blackburn (TN), Michael Burgess (TX), Rob Bishop (UT), Tom McClintock (CA), Howard Coble (NC), Ron Paul (TX), Todd Akin (MO), Ann-Marie Buerkle (NY), Cynthia Lummis (WY), Steve Scalise, Paul Broun (GA), Dan Burton (IN), and Cliff Stearns (FL). Of these 14 representatives, only Rep. Coble admits that global warming pollution is a real threat.

Upton has already reneged his position on light-bulb efficiency, which was supported by former speaker Rep. Denny Hastert (R-IL), Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), and the light bulb industry itself. In December, Upton told Politico “he’s not afraid to go back after an issue he once supported but that has come under withering assault on the conservative airwaves, including on Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck’s talk shows.”

There was, in fact, no bill to ban incandescent light bulbs. Because of the advanced light-bulb standards Upton helped pass in 2007, “the incandescent bulb is turning into a case study of the way government mandates can spur innovation,” the New York Times reported last year. “There have been more incandescent innovations in the last three years than in the last two decades.”

Yglesias

Endgame

Si t’as pas compris ça veux dire non merci:

— The last paragraph here is a nice distillation of conservative thinking, such as it is, about international security: basically, endless repetitions of Iraq.

— When building student housing is outlawed, only rich kids will be able to afford college.

— Outgoing Mossad chief dials back nuclear Iran alarm.

— Boehner wants $100 billion in spending cuts.

— Boehner can’t name a program he wants to cut.

My impression based on admittedly weak grasp of the language is that more things rhyme in French than in English, leading to a lot of funny lyrics (and, you know, Molière) such as in Fatal Bazooka “Parle à Ma Man.”

Economy

As Financial Reform Repeal Rhetoric Begins, Cleveland Fed Rebuts Key House Republican Talking Point

One of many items on the GOP wish-list for repeal is the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, which was passed to upgrade the nation’s regulatory structure after the 2008 financial crisis. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has even introduced a repeal bill, co-sponsored by Reps. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Todd Akin (R-MO), Tom McClintock (R-CA) and Bill Posey (R-FL). And one turn of phrase upon which Republicans rely to disparage Dodd-Frank is that it enshrines the widely-reviled bank bailouts of 2008:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN): “It makes permanent bailouts going into the future.”

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH): “It institutionalizes ‘too big to fail’ and gives far too much authority to federal bureaucrats to bail out virtually any company in America they decide ought to be bailed out.”

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN): “This so-called financial services bill is nothing more than a permanent bailout.”

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX): “When they create a perpetual bailout fund, they enshrine the policy of ‘too big to fail’, where the big will get bigger the small will get smaller and the taxpayer will get poorer.”

In fact, the new website of the House Financial Services Committee, as Mike Konczal noted, “is already plastered with murmurs of permanent bailouts.” “The Dodd-Frank Act makes the government bailout regime permanent,” the website screams (while neglecting to mention that the new Financial Services Chairman, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), voted in favor of the actual 2008 bailout).

While this makes a nice talking point, it has never been true: the bill gives the government a new resolution authority to quickly resolve firms that are too big or systemically risky to go through a traditional bankruptcy. Here’s an analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland:

The new resolution authority creates a viable option to providing funds to failing firms and should send markets a clear signal of how such firms will be resolved. The provision of such authority by Congress does not, itself, end too-big-to-fail. Consistent and appropriate use of the authority, however, is an important step toward addressing the too-big-to-fail problem.

Hank Paulson, who as former President Bush’s Treasury Secretary was a key player in the government’s response to the 2008 financial meltdown, said that he “would have loved to have” the resolution authority laid out in Dodd-Frank. “We would have loved to have something like this for Lehman Brothers. There’s no doubt about it,” Paulson said.

ThinkProgress intern Paul Breer contributed research to this post.

Politics

Obama Created More Jobs In One Year Than Bush Created In Eight

This morning, the Labor Department released its employment data for December, showing that the U.S. economy ended the year by adding 113,000 private sector jobs, knocking the unemployment rate down sharply from 9.8 percent to 9.4 percent — its lowest rate since July 2009. The “surprising drop — which was far better than the modest step-down economists had forecast — was the steepest one-month fall since 1998.” October and November’s jobs numbers were also revised upward by almost 80,000 each. Still, 14.5 million Americans remain unemployed, and jobs will have to be created much faster in coming months for the country to pull itself out of the economic doldrums.

Responding the jobs report, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) noted that President Obama and the Democratic Congress have created “more jobs in 2010 than President Bush did over eight years.”

Indeed, from February 2001, Bush’s first full month in office, through January 2009, his last, the economy added just 1 million jobs. By contrast, in 2010 alone, the economy added at least 1.1 million jobs. This chart, produced by Pelosi’s office, demonstrates the difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration on jobs:

As the Wall Street Journal noted in the last month of Bush’s term, the former president had the “worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.” And job creation under Bush was anemic long before the recession began. Bush’s supply-side economics “fostered the weakest jobs and income growth in more than six decades,” along with “sluggish business investment and weak gross domestic product growth,” the Center for American Progress’ Joshua Picker explained. “On every major measurement” of income and employment, “the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms,” the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein observed, parsing Census data.

Yglesias

No Negotiations on the Debt Limit

Here’s Paul Ryan talking about the debt ceiling:

But House Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan says that tactic isn’t viable. “Just refusing to vote for it, I don’t think that’s really a strategy,” he said, noting that a failure to raise the ceiling could result in the nation defaulting on its debts to investors.

“Will the debt ceiling be raised? Does it have to be raised? Yes,” he said at an event sponsored by economics21 and the Manhattan Institute at the National Press Club Thursday.

But Ryan suggested that Republicans can tweak some specifics of the move – how many years the increase covers, for example. And, more importantly, they can tack on requirements for deep spending cuts as a condition of passage. “I want to make sure we get substantial spending cuts and controls in exchange for raising the debt ceiling,” he said.

As I said yesterday, this is why it would be foolish for Barack Obama to get sucked into any kind of negotiation over the debt limit. Barack Obama favors raising the debt ceiling. Key House Republicans such as Paul Ryan and John Boehner also favor raising the debt ceiling. To raise the debt ceiling requires two things. First the President has to ask for an increase in the debt ceiling. He’s done that. Second, Congress needs to pass an increase in the debt ceiling. Since Boehner and Ryan both favor increasing the debt ceiling, the burden now falls to them to round up the votes. There’s nothing to negotiate with Obama about.

Health

Blue Dogs Show Their True Colors: Vote For HCR Repeal Despite Its Deficit Increases

Politico’s Jennifer Haberkorn is reporting that four Democrats who voted against health care in March, also voted in favor of the rules package to repeal the Affordable Care Act, suggesting that the GOP’s push to undermine reform will have a bipartisan flavor. Three of the members — Reps. Dan Boren (OK), Mike Ross (AR), and Mike McIntyre (NC) — are all part of the hyper-deficit-sensitive Blue Dog Caucus, who voted against the law in March because they were concerned about spending levels. The fourth, Larry Kissell (NC), objected to the Medicare cuts in the law.

For the Blue Dog members, the repeal vote is peculiar since it suggests that their concerns about the deficit bear an inverse relationship to the conclusions of the Congressional Budget Office. That is, when the CBO found that health reform would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over 10 years, they registered their complaints about potential deficit increases. When it reported that repeal would increase the deficit $230 billion, they signaled their support for eliminating the law. Here is how they described their opposition to reform in March of 2010:

- MIKE ROSS: “Therefore, one of my concerns throughout this entire debate has been the impact this legislation will have on future deficits. After careful review and thoughtful analysis, I am unconvinced this bill will adequately address the long-term trend of rising health care costs that burden our government and every Arkansas family.” [Press Statement, 3/21/2010]

- MIKE McINTYRE: “We simply cannot afford to create a new federal bureaucracy that costs nearly $1 trillion when our national debt is $12 trillion and there is no plan in place to address it. I will not vote for it.” [Press Statement, 3/19/2010]

- DAN BOREN: “For the last 18 months I have said repeatedly that the focus of Congress should be on job creation and getting our economy moving again; not on creating a brand new entitlement program that we simply cannot afford.” [Press Statement, 3/22/2010]

I’ve called and emailed the offices of the po-repeal Democrats to ask why they’re voting for repeal in light of the CBO’s deficit projections. I will update the post as their responses come in.

Update

Ross spoke with CNN and explained that he just doesn’t agree with the CBO:

Alyssa

Cryptonomicon Book Club, Part IV: Off the Map

Same rules apply: below the jump, there will be spoilers up to, but not beyond, the section entitled “Conspiracy.” For next week, let’s read up to the section called “Golgotha.”  Previous installments in this discussion appear herehere, and here. And away we go…

I’ve said before that this is a novel about evolution. I think more precisely it’s about two moments: one where the world becomes a much smaller place to a few people, an accidental Elect, privileged and cursed by the experiences of war; and the second when technological developments have made the world even smaller to a group of nerds and visionaries, and are about to shrink it for everyone else. There’s something of the age of exploration to all of these developments, enhanced, I think, by the convergence of people and events in the Phillipines, off in the blue latitudes. Even in an easily circumnavigable world, Randy still feels the shiver of strangeness that comes from distance:

Asian news always has this edge of the fantastic to it, but it’s all dead serious, no nods or winks anywhere. Now he’s watching a story about a nervous system disease that people in New Guinea come down with as a consequence of eating other people’s brains. Just your basic cannibal story. No wonder so many Americans come here on business and never really go home again—it’s like stepping into the pages of Classics Comics.

One of the things I enjoyed about this section of the book is how Stephenson maps out the different kinds of explorers, and the hierarchies between them. To start in the present, or at least closer-to-present day, Randy, the boundary-pushing software engineer, finds himself entranced by Amy Shaftoe, who isn’t even necessarily excited by the things she does that make  Randy find her exciting:

Some time ago, Randy gave up pretending that he was not completely fascinated with Amy Shaftoe. This is not exactly the same thing as being in love with her, but it has quite a few things in common with that. He always had a weird, sick fascination with women who smoked and drank a lot. Amy does neither, but her complete disregard of modern skin-cancer precautions puts her in the same category: people too busy leading their lives to worry about extending their life expectancy. In any case, he has a desperate craving to know what Amy’s dream is. For a while he thought it was treasure-hunting in the South China Sea. This she definitely enjoys, but he is not sure if it gives her satisfaction entire.

Aurora Taal is an explorer in reverse, someone who “has lived in Boston, Washington, and London, and seen it all, and come back to live in Manila anyway,” is globalized enough not to find the first world a priori compelling, who knows that living in the Wild East is no barrier to outshining places and people who think of themselves as civilized. Prag is the same way, though he’d returned home changed by contact with people like Randy and Avi: ”The virus of irony is as widespread in California as herpes, and once you’re infected with it, it lives in your brain forever. A man like Prag can come home, throw away his Nikes, and pray to Mecca five times a day, but he can never eradicate it from his system.”

In the age in which Randy lives, there are a lot more people who are capable of exploration and attainment, in many more categories. ”Divers have mastered a large body of occult knowledge,” he reflects at one point. “That explains their general resemblance to hackers, albeit physically fit hackers.” The accomplishments of their forebears have made more of the world known, and given more people the skills to make the world knowable. Not that stumbling onto the unknown is any less exciting or compelling in this blazing modern age, as Randy learns from Doug when they discover a sunken German treasure submarine:

‘Why do you say it’s a good time to smoke?’ ‘To fix it in your memory. To mark it.’ Doug tears his gaze from the horizon and looks at Randy searchingly, almost beseeching him to understand. ‘This is one of the most important moments in your life. Nothing will ever be the same. We might get rich. We might get killed. We might just have an adventure or learn something. But we have been changed. We are standing close to the Heraclitean fire, feeling its heat on our faces.’ He produces a flaring safety match from his cupped palms like a magician, and holds it up before Randy’s eyes, and Randy puffs the cigar alive, staring into the flame.

Lawrence and Bobby’s era has its own taxonomy of explorers. There are people who are simply convinced of their own exceptionalism, like Mrs. McTeague, who is certain that her children “grew from the brightest and most beautiful children ever born into the finest adults who walk the earth except for the King of England, The General, and Lord Mountbatten.” There are people like Bobby Shaftoe, who have been elevated by experience. At home, Bobby might have simply been a quite outstanding specimen of American manhood, but bouncing across the world, into circumstances unprecedented before the world started tearing itself apart, Shaftoe became extraordinary by thriving, by getting addicted to morphine, by surviving the lizards, by loving Glory, by accepting that the world as he knows it includes men like Lawrence Waterhouse and Enoch Root. There are people like Douglas McArthur, who understand themselves to be, and make it clear to others around them, that they are an updated model of a certain kind of historical figure, engineered for this particular upheaval:

The major continues. ‘See, we’ve gone over the watershed line of this war. We won Midway. We won North Africa. Stalingrad. The Battle of the Atlantic. Everything changes when you go over the watershed line. The rivers all flow a different direction. It’s as if the force of gravity itself has changed and is now working in our favor. We’ve adjusted to that. Marshall and Churchill and all those others are still stuck in an obsolete mentality. They are defenders. But The General is not a defender. As a matter of fact, just between you and me, The General is lousy on defense, as he demonstrated in the Philippines. The General is a conqueror.

And then there are men like Lawrence Waterhouse, who exist outside the frameworks that men like Bobby Shaftoe (and probably Douglas McArthur) use to divide up and render comprehensible the world. Lawrence Waterhouse is the shape of things to come, a member of a fraternity of men whose minds work in an exceedingly particular way that the rest of us will reroute ourselves to at least partially understand, but that is, at the time, “a clearance that is rarer, harder to come by, and more mysterious than Ultra Mega.” Seeing the world that way, daring to look beyond the horizon, to sail off the understood map, is alienating even for men like Lawrence who see its rightness:

The last time he was in California, before Pearl Harbor, he was no different from all of those guys on the pier—just a little smarter, with a knack for numbers and music. But now he understands the war in a way that they never will. He is still wearing the same uniform, but only as a disguise. He believes now that the war, as those guys understand it, is every bit as fictional as the war movies being turned out across town in Hollywood.

And it’s a mark of Bobby Shaftoe’s extraordinariness that even though he fits neatly into the categories that explained the whole world to him before the war began, that he can see that there’s something beyond what he knew to be the end of the universe, even if unlike Lawrence, he can’t quite see the details:

The Second World War has led him into all sorts of uncouth behavior, and there don’t seem to be any grandpas lurking in the trenches with doubled belts; no consequences at all for the wicked, in fact. Maybe that will change in a couple of years, if the Germans and the Nips lose the war. But that reckoning will be so great and terrible that Shaftoe’s glance at Bischoff’s letter will probably go unnoticed.

So what’s the reckoning that’s coming? Beyond the atom bomb and the reestablishment of the world’s geographical boundaries and balance of power, what is the fruit that Randy and Amy are reaping from the resowing of the world’s orchards with different crops?

Yglesias

Impediments to Massive Change

Felix Salmon says the US government could cut the financial sector down to size:

Government is perfectly capable, were it so inclined, of shrinking the financial sector and making it much less profitable. Banks could become highly-regulated utilities, bonus culture could be eradicated, hedge funds would no longer be exempt from SEC rules about transparency and investor protection, private-equity honchos would have to pay income tax on their income, leverage would be discouraged in the tax code by eradicating the tax-deductibility of interest, and so on and so forth.

He rightly says it won’t happen, but I don’t think this diagnosis of why it won’t happen is right:

But it’s not going to happen, because the public servants who could enact such a change currently have the ability to earn millions of dollars per year when they leave DC. Government work pays well, but not that well. The real value of a government position, especially in the economic team, is in the marginal net present value of all those juicy future earnings that you’ll be offered upon your departure from the administration. And so any reforms aimed at shrinking the financial sector would do massive damage to the economic health of the reformers themselves. And those reformers are wonks, remember: precisely the kind of people who consider probability-weighted future earnings to be genuinely valuable things.

Let’s imagine that Bill Gates had offered bribes to every single member of Barack Obama’s economic policy team to persuade them to go full-tilt in favor of this agenda in 2010. Would it have happened? Of course it wouldn’t have happened! You’d need sixty votes for this stuff to get through the Senate. There were, at the time, 59 Democratic Senators. But of course Chuck Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand don’t want to precipitate a massive shrinkage of New York City’s key industry. For that matter, neither do the four Democratic Senators who represent New Jersey and Connecticut.

And of course New York City’s not the only place where representatives care about the health of their local banking industry. Scott Brown ultimately voted for Dodd-Frank, but the price of his support was to create some loopholes for Massachusetts-based institutions. He’s the most popular politician in the state. And then there’s Kay Hagan of North Carolina, a Democrat from a reddish state where Merrill Lynch is the second largest employer. And think of Delaware and its bounty of credit card firms!

This is mighty interest-group strength behind not kneecapping the financial services industry even without positing any form of corruption on the part of anyone involved in public life. Then on top of that, there’s the matter of campaign contributions.

The issue here is the lack of counterveiling force. Salmon says we should do this because though “the economy might lose a bit of possible debt-fueled upside” it “would be much less fragile and much less prone to banking crises.” You’d think the non-financial swathes of the American business community might be excited about that agenda. But they’re not. The Chamber of Commerce wasn’t fighting for stronger Wall Street regulation, it was fighting for laxer regulation.

Update

To be clear revolving door issues and general corruption don’t help on this score. But we shouldn’t be naive about the full scale of obstacles to major change on any front. One man’s obscene profits are another man’s income.

Yglesias

Race and Entitlements

Atrios says:

For some reason I seem to be one of the few people who noticed that Republicans ran on the truthy claim that Obama & Dems had cut Medicare. Combine that with the looming catfood commission making it impossible for Dems to style themselves credibly as defenders of Social Security and you have a bit of the reason they voted for Republicans. I’m not discounting the impact of the various race-infused freak show stuff that were tossed around, but if you want old white people to vote for you maybe you should give them a reason.

I agree with that. But it’s important to note that talking up retirement programs and race-infused freak show stuff is synergistic process. Among white Americans, more ethnocentric voters are more supportive of Social Security and Medicare and less supportive of means-tested social spending. The Affordable Care Act restrains increases in Medicare and uses the money to finance a means-tested program to make health care affordable for non-elderly poor people. When an initiative like that is on the table, there’s no need for race-infused dog whistles or anything else.

Politics

Schock Justifies His Government Health Insurance: ‘I’m Actually Lowering’ The Premiums For Older Congressmen

One of the first orders of business in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is a move to repeal the landmark health care reform law that was passed last March. However, following Rep. Andy Harris’s (R-MD) infamous rant about the delay in his congressional health care coverage, the media is beginning to question whether the GOP is hypocritical for decrying the specter of “government-run health care,” yet accepting government-sponsored health care plans for themselves.

For instance, yesterday, Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY) justified accepting government-subsidized health care for himself because, “God forbid I get into an accident and I can’t afford the operation…That can happen to anyone.” In an interview with ThinkProgress, Rep. Robert Hurt (R-VA) said that he supported congressmen receiving government-sponsored health coverage because “it’s not unreasonable to offer those benefits.” Seven Republican congressmen, however, are trying to remain consistent by opting out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan.

This week, ThinkProgress caught up with Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) to ask whether he would be joining his colleagues in rejecting government-sponsored health care for himself, given his push to repeal health care reform for the nation. Schock told us the “only” reason he would stay on the congressional health care plan because he was “a 27-year-old single male” who was “actually lowering” the premiums of his older colleagues. He also brushed off the notion that this was hypocritical on his part, calling them “completely separate issues,” despite the numerous similarities including taxpayer subsidies and a highly-regulated exchange:

SCHOCK: It is, yeah. I had Blue Cross Blue Shield when I came here as a 27-year-old single male. I paid about $80 a month. And now, because I’m in a risk pool with a bunch of older seniors, my health care costs me $170 a month now for the same Blue Cross Blue Shield coverage. So I think it’s kind of interesting how people make such a big deal out of the health care coverage we have, which is not bad by any means. But I haven’t given it much thought because quite frankly I think I’m helping out the institution by lowering the risk pool for some of my older guys.

TP: I just know there are a lot of people who have made the hypocrisy charge, that there’s an average of $700 per month in taxpayer subsidies on these employee government health care plans, yet saying that the general public is not getting the same types of subsidies and help in buying health insurance for themselves.

SCHOCK: No, I get that argument. The only thing I would submit is because I’m an outlier in the group, I’m actually lowering the…(crosstalk)…When you’re under 30 in a body of…but, so.

TP2: Sir, you receive taxpayer subsidies even though you do have a lower rate. And you’re within a pool that’s highly regulated, as health reform does for the rest of the nation. Don’t you think it’s fair if you’re going to repeal health reform for everyone else, you should at least reject this subsidized, highly-regulated plan that members of Congress and their staff benefit from?

SCHOCK: No, I really actually think they’re completely separate issues.

TP2: Why’s that?

SCHOCK: Because I don’t think what we do with the health care bill has anything to do with what kind of health insurance programs members of Congress pay for.

TP2: No, it’s quite similar. There’s an exchange, there’s subsidies, just like you benefit from an exchange and subsidies, that are paid for by taxpayers.

SCHOCK: Well, I think the bill we voted on is completely different.

Watch it:

Older

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

Sign Up