ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

New Mexico Governor Appoints Man Who Believes Environmentalists Are Communists To Head State Agency

Newly elected New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R) has made a series of troubling moves since taking office last month, from proposing the elimination of a crucial state women’s services commission to making her first priority the revocation of illegal immigrants’ driver’s licenses. But the Tea Party-backed governor’s selection of Harrison Schmitt to head the state’s Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, which oversees all environmental matters in New Mexico, is the most disturbing action to date.

Schmitt, a retired astronaut and former U.S. Senator, has said he believes the leaders of the environmental movement are communists, and that when these communist environmentalists are appointed to government positions, citizens need to “wake up” and “take control of their government again.” The New Mexico Independent has flagged this interview Schmitt gave to crank radio host Alex Jones in 2009:

SCHMITT: Number one we’ve been concerned with the misuse of science, but I think more fundamentally, this misuse of science has lead to politicians and ideologues to try to gain control of the American economy, and indeed the global economy, by scaring people….I think that there are individuals, [Obama science czar John] Holdren apparently among them, a very large number who have taken — shall we say captured the environmental movement and turned it into what was previously considered the communist movement. And that’s just something that people of common sense are going to continue to have to counter and wake up enough so that they can take control of their government again. [...]

I think the whole trend really began with the fall of the Soviet Union. Because the great champion of the opponents of liberty, namely communism, had to find some other place to go and they basically went into the environmental movement. That’s not to say there aren’t some major and significant environmental issues, particularly at the local level, but they converted environmental activism to a political movement and some would say a religious movement.

Watch it:

Schmitt also engaged in extensive denials of climate change science, and claimed that there has been steady warming of the Earth every year since 1660. Presenting his evidence, Schmitt said, “If you want to read some of the history of the American Revolutionary War, you will realize how damn cold it was back then. And we were just moving out of the little ice age very slowly, and it was very cold.”

As the Wonk Room noted earlier this month when reporting on Schmitt, Martinez has taken other steps to eliminate science-based government from her state, like nominating global warming denier Jon Barela to head the Department of Economic Development.

Martinez’s appointment of Schmitt to oversee New Mexico’s environmental matters is nothing short of shocking. The Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department is charged with “mak[ing] our state a leader in developing reliable supplies of energy, and energy efficient technologies and practices, with a balanced approach toward conserving our renewable and non-renewable resources” and aims to “protect the environment and ensure responsible reclamation of land and resources affected by mineral extraction.” Martinez said she wants Schmitt’s first order of business to be reviewing regulations on oil companies put in place by her predecessor, former Gov. Bill Richardson (D).

Update

Gov. Martinez was asked about Schmitt’s views by the Santa Fe New Mexican, and said she hadn’t heard the Jones interview: “What’s important here is that (Schmitt) is a NASA scientist,” the governor said. “He is a graduate from Harvard, and what is important is that he is going to perform the agenda of my administration. We are going to ensure that we keep the environment safe, that we provide common sense for decisions that are being made, that we don’t make decisions based on politics and ideology.” She added that she does not believe environmentalists are communists.

Climate Progress

Brulle: “By failing to even rhetorically address climate change, Obama is mortgaging our future and further delaying the necessary work to build a political consensus for real action.”

Bristol

In his State of the Union speech, Obama called for a big boost in low-carbon energy, but didn’t mention carbon, climate or warming, as I noted last night.  Other people noticed, too.

Matthew Hope, a researcher in American politics at the University of Bristol, found that Obama has mentioned ‘climate change’, ‘global warming’ or the ‘environment’ fewer times on average than his two predecessors, as an article today by the UK’s Guardian notes.  That piece, which quotes my post, also quotes Dr. Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University, “an expert on environmental communications,” saying Obama’s “approach has several major drawbacks.”  I asked Brulle for all of his thoughts on Hope’s key word analysis and Obama’s speech.

Brulle has a lot to say that is worth reading.  Here it is:

Read more

Climate Progress

The Growing International Commodity Crises

President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address was full of optimism and conviction about the future. That optimism will be greatly needed in the months and years ahead, as the global problems left unaddressed by our political system continue to build. Unfortunately, the president failed to discuss those threats, not even mentioning global warming once.

Even with the meltdown of the global economy in 2008 due to unregulated banking, the financial industry has remained largely untouched. Even with the devastation of New Orleans, Nashville, Pakistan, Russia, Australia, and points all over the world by climate disasters, with repeated oil and coal disasters, the fossil fuel industry has remained ascendant. Professor Michael Klare, writing at the Tom Dispatch, warns that “2011 could be the year of living dangerously“:

It’s not surprising then that food and energy experts are beginning to warn that 2011 could be the year of living dangerously — and so could 2012, 2013, and on into the future. Add to the soaring cost of the grains that keep so many impoverished people alive a comparable rise in oil prices — again nearing levels not seen since the peak months of 2008 — and you can already hear the first rumblings about the tenuous economic recovery being in danger of imminent collapse. Think of those rising energy prices as adding further fuel to global discontent.

Klare describes in stark detail how the destablization of our climate system is striking repeated blows to food production around the globe, driving prices:

Analysts attribute the rise in grain prices to growing demand in both developed and developing nations, along with a number of cataclysmic weather-related events and speculation by investors. An extreme drought and fierce fires last summer destroyed a large percentage of the wheat crop in Russia and Ukraine, while heavy flooding in India and the inundation of 20% of Pakistan damaged significant parts of the grain output of those countries. At the same time, unusually hot and dry weather suppressed production in a number of other key farming areas.

What makes the picture look so worrisome today are indications that the severity and frequency of extreme weather events appear to be on the rise. In the past few weeks alone, several such events point the way to serious supply problems ahead. Most significant has been the unprecedented rainfall and flooding in Australia that put an area more than twice the size of California largely underwater, significantly disrupting wheat cultivation there. Australia is one of the world’s leading wheat producers. Unusually dry conditions in the American Midwest and Argentina have also hinted at future problems in grain and corn output. It’s still too early to predict the size of this year’s grain and corn harvests, but many analysts are warning of a shortfall in supplies, along with sky-high prices.

Furthermore, as financial analysts of various stripes are warning, investors are flooding into commodities in the “inflation trade.” Efforts to even begin to expose the operations of these trillion-dollar financial flows are still at least a year away. “The Commodity Futures Trading Commission may not complete limits on commodity speculation until the first quarter of next year, according to a filing on the agency’s website,” Bloomberg reports.

The coming year is likely to bring extreme threats to the American economic recovery, in the form of whipsawing gas prices, food prices, and climate disasters, due to free markets grown cancerous. Winning this future will take more than optimism.

Yglesias

Winning the Future By Reducing Idleness

The reason the USA is more economically important than Canada is that we have many more people doing work, producing goods and services, and earning incomes. The reason China is more economically important than Serbia is that China has many more people doing work, producing goods and services, and earning incomes. This is often glossed by observing that China has a “large population” but of course a large population of people sitting on the couch watching TV doesn’t help, they need to be doing something.

So it strikes me as fairly scandalous—and not just in narrow humanitarian terms—that so many Americans are sitting on the couch and scanning help wanted ads:

As the recovery continues, the economy will add roughly 2.5 million jobs per year over the 2011–2016 period, CBO estimates. However, even with significant increases in the number of jobs, a substantial reduction in the unemployment rate will take some time. CBO projects that the unemployment rate will gradually fall in the near term, to 9.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2011, 8.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012, and 7.4 percent at the end of 2013. Only by 2016, in CBO’s forecast, does it reach 5.3 percent, close to the agency’s estimate of the natural rate of unemployment (the rate of unemployment arising from all sources except fluctuations in aggregate demand, which CBO now estimates to be 5.2 percent).

This is an absurd situation to be in. Does anyone seriously deny that there’s something these people could be doing that would be more useful than being unemployed? Now ask yourself this. Suppose you had more money. Would you buy more goods and services? I would. And if more people were buying more goods and services, then wouldn’t firms need to hire more people to provide those goods and services? I don’t see any way around it. So why not put some money into people’s hands so they can go out and buy more goods and services? Maybe you think we can’t do that because “the money has to come from somewhere.” But it doesn’t. It’s fiat currency, we can just make more. It’s true that if we print more and more money that at some point we’ll soak up all the idle people and it’ll start to spark inflation. And that would be an excellent time to stop trying doing it. But what’s stopping us today?

Ezra Klein says the administration’s moved past unemployment as an issue because there’s nothing more they can get out of congress. Do they know there are other macroeconomic stabilization tools at the government’s disposal? Do they think it’s a problem that those tools aren’t being used?

Politics

Rep. Broun Says Obama, Pelosi, & Reid Want Gov’t To Take Over ‘All Of Society’

Last week, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) said he wouldn’t participate in the bipartisan seating intermingling at President Obama’s State of the Union yesterday. “Sitting together being kissy kissy is just another way to try to silence Republicans,” Broun complained, warning that Obama would “spew” his rhetorical “venom” at members.

Except during the speech, it was Broun spewing venom, tweeting, “Mr. President, you don’t believe in the Constitution. You believe in socialism.” And on a right-wing radio show this afternoon, Broun upped the ante:

BROUN: The Republican Party is the party of K-N-O-W. We know how to lower the cost of health care. We know how to take care of the uninsurable. We know how to put patients in charge of their health care and have a market-based, patient centered health care system that’s not going to kill jobs like ObamaCare is going to do. And we know how to stimulate the economy. We know how to create jobs in the private sector. We know how to prevent this huge government take over of health care as well as all of society.

But we are the party of N-O against socialism and that’s what Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama have been proposing is a greater take over of everything in human endeavor in America.

Listen here:

Ironically, seconds after Broun claimed the GOP is “The Party of Know,” Broun reiterated two well-worn falsehoods Republicans have been spreading around since the health care debate began in 2009. PolitiFact.com recently reported that Broun’s claim that the new health care law is “job killing” just isn’t true:

Republicans have used the “job-killing” claim hundreds of times — so often that they used the phrase in the name of the [repeal] bill. It implies that job losses will be one of the most significant effects of the law. But they have flimsy evidence to back it up.

The phrase suggests a massive decline in employment, but the data doesn’t support that. The Republican evidence is extrapolated from a report that was talking about a reduction in the labor supply rather than the loss of jobs, or based on measures that weren’t included in the final health care law. We rate the statement False.

Broun also said that the new health reform law is a “huge government take over of health care.” PolitiFact gave that whopper its “Lie of the Year” award for 2010. It seems like Broun needs to work on a new name for his party.

Yglesias

The Eternal Mystery

I just got out of a meeting in the West Wing between David Axelrod and a few progressive writers and . . . well . . . I don’t have a ton to report.

An awful lot of progressive dialogue with the administration just keeps coming around to the same one point. According to the Obama administration the nation’s fiscal problem is in the long term. According to the Obama administration the nation’s fiscal problem is mostly due to entitlements. And according to the Obama administration in the short-term there’s a large output gap. So why a short-term discretionary spending freeze? Well on the merits there’s just no good reason you can give. The logic is clearly political. So, fine, politics is part of governing. But the White House’s belief that a strategy of unilateral preemptive concessions is a smart approach to legislative negotiations is as deeply held as it is difficult to understand. When has this worked? What has it helped achieve?

Update

To be less dyspeptic, I guess the thing to say is that as best I can tell the people working in the Obama administration are smart people who understand the fiscal policy situation perfectly well. That’s a huge step forward relative to a lot of other people in Washington. But understanding is only as useful as your tactical approach lets it be, and I’m very skeptical on this front.

Climate Progress

Energy and global warming news for January 26, 2011: Chinese provinces seek carbon markets; eating local, by itself, doesn’t lower GHG emissions much

China provinces seek approval to set up local CO2 markets

Jiangxi in eastern China said this week that it would seek government approval to set up a local emissions trading platform, making it the latest region to bid for a stake in a potentially lucrative Chinese carbon credit market.

Read more

Economy

House GOP Finds It ‘Troubling’ That Financial Regulators Want To Implement And Enforce The Law

Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee

As I noted back in December, the continuing resolution under which the federal government is currently operating does not contain funding for federal financial markets regulators — particularly the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) — to implement the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Due to budget constraints, the SEC has already put on hold certain aspects of implementation, while also “failing to follow up on tips about potential wrongdoing and postponing examinations of money managers and brokers who are far from their offices.” The CFTC is facing similar trouble.

This is all part and parcel of the Republican plan to undo financial regulatory reform by simply starving the regulators, preventing them from implementing or enforcing the Dodd-Frank law. And Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee are digging in their heels:

Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) told The Hill in an exclusive interview that it is “troubling” that financial regulators want to be given more funds and staff after failing to prevent the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. “It’s only in government, especially in Washington, where you have agencies that failed in their core assignments in the past, and yet they are rewarded with more authority and bigger budgets,” Garrett said during an interview Thursday.

So the Republicans (and not a few Democrats) spent years pulling the threads out of the regulatory framework and appointing regulators who actively ignored their agencies’ missions, and now that a new law is in place to resurrect common-sense safeguards and rules, the GOP says it won’t fund that effort, because the regulators failed last time. It’s a classic case of blaming the government for being ineffective after implementing policies rendering government effectiveness impossible.

Yesterday, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) laid out in stark terms how truly overwhelmed the SEC currently is:

From 2005 to 2007 (during the build up to the crisis that imploded in 2008), the SEC lost 10 percent of its staff. In addition, from 2005 to 2009 the SEC’s investments in information technology declined 50 percent. Let’s put these numbers into perspective. The SEC’s 3,800 employees currently oversee approximately 35,000 entities — including 11,450 investment advisers, 7,600 mutual funds, 5,000 broker-dealers, and more than 10,000 public companies. Furthermore, these staff police companies that trade on average 8.5 billion shares in the listed equity markets alone every day.

As Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) said yesterday, the funding levels that Republicans want for the regulatory agencies “predate financial regulation, predate regulation of derivatives, and predate investor protection.” Indeed, a 21st-century financial system requires a 21st-century regulatory framework, and the Republican push to starve regulatory agencies of the money they need to operate is simply deregulation by another name.

Yglesias

Essential Air Service

Most of the stuff that the government spends money on is in there because someone wants it in there. And the extent to which someone wants it has little to do with his or her nominal ideology. Brian Beutler has a number of examples of which this is my favorite:

For instance, the RSC plan would slash $150 million in spending on Essential Air Service — a government program, which ensures small and rural communities continue to receive commercial airline service.

Flash back to 2007, and possible Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John Thune (R-SD) spearheaded an effort to restore such service to his constituents. “I am encouraged by the Senate’s action to move this important legislation. Essential Air Service is just that, essential. It is essential to the people it serves and it is essential that the House of Representatives pass this legislation without modification so that we can restore commercial air service for Brookings,” said Thune. “Ensuring access to communities like Brookings strengthens the local economy, provides consumers with choices, and makes the entire commercial airline network more valuable.”

One of the main things the federal government does is transfer resources from high-productivity urban areas to low-productivity rural ones. It does this in part through direct obvious measures like this, in part through agricultural subsidies, in part through universal programs like the Postal Service that mask these subsidies, etc. And in the aggregate, it’s a huge drag on the American economy. Not so much because it costs money (though it does cost money) as because over time it drives misallocation of private sector resources.

In principle, it would be a good idea to change this. In practice, America’s constitutional setup all but guarantees this outcome. Which is what it is. But given the fact that politicians who like to talk about free markets and small government tend to also be the most zealous defenders of these measures, it would be nice if writers and thinkers who like to talk about free markets and small government spent some more time acknowledging that this is one of the main things the government does, and it does it because conservative voters, donors, and activists want it to happen.

Older

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

Sign Up