ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

500 Days of Summer: We’re Having a Heat Wave, a Tropical — and Subtropical — Heat Wave

By Joe Romm on Jul 21, 2011 at 7:06 pm

http://www.cagle.com/working/110720/bagley.jpg

States hit hardest by heat wave cut or cancel programs to help poor people cool their homes

One of the most brutal heatwaves in recent memory has been met with denial by right-wingers (see “Limbaugh Calls Heat Index a Liberal Government Conspiracy“).

Now, the Washington Post reports that “Many states hit hardest by this week’s searing heat wave have drastically cut or entirely eliminated programs that help poor people pay their electric bills, forcing thousands to go without air conditioning when they need it most. Oklahoma ran out of money in just three days.”  Hard to believe we’re the richest country in the world.

The U.S. is, in some sense, being slammed by two different heatwaves –  a tropical heatwave with staggering humidity that is driving up the heat index to deadly levels and a ‘subtropical heatwave’ with staggering aridity that turns a drought into a Dust Bowl.

Of the tropical heat wave, meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters writes:

Wunderground’s climate change blogger Dr. Ricky Rood in his latest post, [explains that] with hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland still inundated by flood waters, and soils saturated over much of the Upper Midwest, there has been plenty of water available to evaporate into the air and cause remarkably high humdities. This makes for a very dangerous situation, as the human body is not able to cool itself as efficiently when the humidity is high.

At the same time, it is a basic prediction of climate science that the subtropics will expand (see the Geophysical Research Letters paper “Cause of the widening of the tropical belt since 1958“).  I used to call that desertification until some readers pointed out that some deserts are full of life, which isn’t where we’re headed.  That’s why I now call it Dust-Bowlification.

Speaking of Dust Bowls, I noted last week that the Texas drought is now far, far worse than when Gov. Rick Perry issued a Proclamation calling on all Texans to pray for rain.  The latest U.S. Drought Monitor is out, and, incredibly, the Texas drought got even worse:

Read more

Politics

ANIMATION: The 400 Wealthiest Americans Could Pay Off Everyone’s Student Loans

By Jeff Spross on Jul 21, 2011 at 7:00 pm

As the government moves into the final days of negotiations over the debt ceiling — negotiations most likely to be concluded by a budget deal that will do significant harm to the poor, the working class and middle class Americans throughout the country — it seemed worthwhile to revisit the bizarreness of the Republicans’ refusal to consider tax hikes on the wealthy of any sort, while the accumulation of wealth at the very top of America’s economic ladder continues to reach staggering levels.

Forbes Magazine’s annual listing of the 400 richest Americans, as well as the news that student loans in this country are likely to total $1 trillion this year, gave ThinkProgress a practical example on which to base an animated infographic. Watch it:

Alyssa

Crazed Drug Dealers, Kindly Housecleaners, And Their Elderly Relatives

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Jul 21, 2011 at 6:39 pm

I’ll have longer thoughts on Breaking Bad when I finish the first three seasons. But when drug kingpin Tuco Salamanca shows up with his aging uncle, the first thing thought that came to mind was, “Huh, this reminds me a bit of Raising Hope.” One of the things I like best about that show, though it has a wacky initial premise (nice boy knocks up murderess headed for death row, raises the kid with his extended family) is that it’s a really touching look at what it’s like to have your relationship with your parents reversed by the advances of age and Alzheimer’s. Maw Maw’s very sharp and funny when she’s lucid, but she’s also often vulnerable, the second child in the household, and her condition forces the young people in her family to end their protracted avoidance of adulthood.

Similarly, it’s kind of funny that a wildly erratic drug kingpin would keep his fairly incapacitated uncle around — and if Tuco had lived, I would have loved to see Don Salamanca use the bell attached to his wheelchair to order up some retribution for the man who mocks him for knocking a plate over. But I actually think it’s not that unrealistic. In the past, the parents or older relatives of sitcom characters generally lived independently and popped in occasionally for wacky antics. But today, the combination of rising health care costs, people whose retirement savings aren’t recovering as fast as their retirements are approaching, and the impact of dementia as the population lives longer, I wouldn’t be surprised if we see more shows with characters whose older parents and relatives live at home or nearby, and who require some kind of care or attention.

I don’t know if this means we’ll evolve away from sitcoms focused on hip young groups of friends in urban environments. But I do think that we might see more shows that are more multi-generational, and more interdependently multi-generational. I didn’t much like Tuco as a character (I’m torn between the fact that he seems like an incredible stereotype, and my sense that Breaking Bad is just cycling through storylines way too fast, especially given the show’s realistic timeline), but I would have liked to see that interaction as more than a one-off, especially giving that Don Salamanca still has pull. There are a lot of implications to longer life spans, be it need for care or slower turnover in family and business hierarchies, and they open up rich emotional storytelling territory.

NEWS FLASH

Remember Tim Pawlenty? | He really seemed like he was going to be the GOP nominee for a while, right? Oh well.

By Matthew Yglesias on Jul 21, 2011 at 6:18 pm

Security

Irony Alert: AEI, FPI, & Heritage Say ‘The Future Of American National Security Is Being Mortgaged To Fight Today’s Wars’

By Ben Armbruster on Jul 21, 2011 at 6:16 pm

Political courage and popular will to reduce America’s bloated defense budget have been gaining momentum recently, particularly as debate over the debt ceiling heats up. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) floated a proposal that includes an $800 billion reduction in military spending, nearly double what President Obama proposed just last April. Even Republicans are embracing the need to drastically reduce the Pentagon’s budget. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said on Sunday that trimming $1 trillion off DOD’s budget over the next ten years is “not super hard.”

However, there are some hold-outs. House Armed Services Committee chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) isn’t happy with Conrad’s plan (McKeon previously called DOD cuts “dangerous” but never said why). And the war hawks at right-wing think tanks the American Enterprise Institute, the Foreign Policy Initiative and the Heritage Foundation got together and released a report criticizing Pentagon budget cuts. “Warning: Hollow Force Ahead!” the title reads. The report contains a series of random “myths” and “facts” that argue for more spending, more military, and more troops, and it even seems to suggest that it all might be needed for war with Iran:

Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan would represent only a part of U.S. posture in the greater Middle East — a historically unstable region now in the throes of a further transition and facing the prospect of an accelerated regional nuclear arms race sparked by Iran. … The long-term geopolitical trends reflect protracted and persistent irregular wars in the Middle East.

But without any sense of irony whatsoever, the report concludes with the following:

While no comprehensive analysis for long-term readiness has been undertaken, the rough overall pattern is apparent: the future of American national security is being mortgaged to fight today’s wars and reduce the deficit by an insignificant amount. As a result, America’s armed forces, which have been stretched thin for nearly a decade, will likely be asked in the years ahead to do the same or more with even less if defense spending is cut once again.

Yes, that’s right, the folks who brought you the Iraq war, and thus the protracted predicament that the United States now finds itself in in Afghanistan, are now complaining that those wars have stretched the military thin and are selling out future American national security. As one national security analyst told ThinkProgress responding to the report, “Having killed their parents, the neocons are now complaining about being orphans.”

Economy

Sen. Mike Lee Lies And Distorts Democrats’ Records Of Supporting Balanced Budget Amendments

By Travis Waldron on Jul 21, 2011 at 6:00 pm

Attempting to paint Democrats as hypocrites while drumming up support for his pet cause, Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R) released a list on his Senate website today that claimed to show 23 Democrats’ past support for a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Lee and his Republican colleagues have been pushing a Balanced Budget Amendment as a contingency for raising the nation’s debt ceiling, and Tuesday night, the House GOP passed its Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, which contains a provision for such an amendment. But with Democrats proclaiming the act dead on arrival in the Senate, Lee pushed out his list in an attempt to paint them as hypocrites. While Democrats have, unfortunately, supported less radical versions of a balanced budget amendment in the past, Lee’s release is fraught with errors and distortions about their positions.

A ThinkProgress examination of Lee’s report found multiple distortions of the senators’ records:

Three indicated support for balancing the budget, not a Balanced Budget Amendment: None of the quotes attributed to Sens. Debbie Stabenow (MI), Jon Tester (MT), or Bob Casey (PA) in Lee’s release reference a Balanced Budget Amendment. The quotes indicate support for balancing budgets, but not support for using a constitutional amendment to do so. All three voted against a Sense of the Senate calling for a BBA in March.

Six supported a less radical Balanced Budget Amendment in 1995 or 1997: Sens. Tim Johnson (SD), Max Bachus (MT), Dick Durbin (IL), Tom Harkin (IA), Herb Kohl (WI), and Mary Landrieu (LA) all supported the amendment in either 1995 or 1997, when it fell short by one vote each time. Of those six, only Herb Kohl voted in favor of the Sense of the Senate in March.

Three expressed support, but voted against Balanced Budget Amendments: Despite citations in Lee’s support that they supported a Balanced Budget Amendment, Sens. Harry Reid (NV), Dianne Feinstein (CA), and Kent Conrad (ND) all voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment in both 1995 and 1997.

One is not a Democrat: The end of the release cites Sen. Joe Lieberman’s vote in favor of the March Sense of the Senate. Lieberman, however, is not a Democrat, and has not been since 2006. In 1995 and 1997, when Lieberman was still a member of the Democratic Party, he voted against the Balanced Budget Amendment both times.

The remaining 10 senators referenced in the Lee report have offered varying degrees of support for a Balanced Budget Amendment, and of those 10, only Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) voted against the March Sense of the Senate. Among the other nine are Sen. Mark Udall (CO), who co-sponsored his own version of a Balanced Budget Amendment that is not under consideration, and Sens. Ben Nelson (NE) and Claire McCaskill (MO), who both stated their support was contingent on certain exceptions the Republican amendment does not contain.

Regardless of how many Democrats supported it, the Balanced Budget Amendment was a tragically bad idea in 1995 and 1997, when it contained looser provisions for wartime and recessions and when the American economy had largely recovered from its early ’90s slump. With America still mired in a sluggish economic recovery, the Republican pursuit of such an amendment today is even worse.

Unlike the earlier proposals, the current GOP balanced budget amendment also caps spending as a percentage of GDP, which would result in massive immediate spending cuts. It also adds a requirement is needed to approve tax increases, the same policy that has driven California’s budget woes. Because of that, the current amendment would only serve to exacerbate the pain of future recessions. Perhaps that’s why even former conservative stalwarts consider it the “worst idea in Washington.”

NEWS FLASH

BREAKING: Secretary of Defense & Joint Chiefs To Certify Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Tomorrow | Julian Barnes, Pentagon reporter for the Wall Street Journal, is reporting via Twitter that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are expected to certify tomorrow that the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell “is consistent with the standards of military readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion, and military recruiting and retention.”  The certification requirement was a key component of the compromise that allowed the repeal to finally move through Congress last December.  The repeal will then go into effect 60 days after President Obama makes the same certification.

Politics

Exclusive: Top Staffer for Rep. Issa’s Committee Maintains Financial Relationship With Lobbying Group

By Lee Fang on Jul 21, 2011 at 5:40 pm

Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa addressing a lobbying organization for large corporations in March of 2011

When he became chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) hired a large new staff to assist him with investigations. As reporters from the Watchdog Institute noted, many of Issa’s recruits came from industry or with lobbying backgrounds. However, a ThinkProgress investigation has found that at least one of Issa’s hires still maintains a financial relationship with the lobbying group he left to become a federal employee under Issa.

Last year, as Issa began recruiting for his committee, he selected Peter Warren, a lobbyist for the student loan industry. Warren had been president and executive vice president of government affairs of the Education Finance Council (EFC), a trade association for student loan companies and nonprofits, since 2004. He left EFC for the Karl Rove front group American Action Forum for a brief stint in 2010 before joining Issa as the policy director of the House Oversight Committee.

Many lobbyists burrow into government to write laws or regulations, then leave to take even higher paid positions back in the private sector. This phenomenon — the so-called “revolving door,” or reverse revolving door in this case — has plagued government for years. While examples of such corruption are boundless on both sides of the aisle, Warren is particularly interesting given his continued relationship with his lobbying group. According to disclosures filed with the House clerk, Warren signed a severance agreement with EFC before leaving to work in government. Congressional personnel are expected to disclose when they maintain benefits packages, promises of bonuses when they return to work for an outside organization, or other financial ties. Take a look at a screenshot of Warren’s disclosure below (click to enlarge):

While severance agreements relating to continued financial ties between a senior congressional staffer and an outside organization must be disclosed, the details or a copy of the agreement may remain private. Vince Sampson, the current president of EFC, refused our request for more information about the nature of Warren’s severance contract. “We can’t and won’t discuss that,” he told ThinkProgress. Requests to the Oversight Committee by ThinkProgress have gone unanswered. According to the disclosure, Warren also received a special severance pay bonus before he left the lobbying world to enter government.

Read more

NEWS FLASH

Report: Administration Open To Rolling Back ACA Provision In Debt Ceiling Talks | Inside Health Policy’s Amy Lotven is reporting that debt ceiling negotiators are considering a new blended rate for Medicaid matching funds that would increase the federal government’s minimum contribution from 50 to 60 percent for all beneficiaries after 2014. The change “would advantage some states but would also impact the newly eligible beneficiaries” who would no longer be guaranteed a 100 percent match, as stipulated in the current law. “If enacted, the change would represent the first time the administration has walked back its health law guarantee that the federal government will cover initial costs of the health reform law’s Medicaid expansion, which makes this a difficult political decision,” she writes. “Stakeholders believe that the policy would result in fewer enrollees” because “states would be less likely to aggressively push enrollment if they had more responsibility to cover the costs.”

Yglesias

Greek Bailout Leaves Larger Issues Unresolved

By Matthew Yglesias on Jul 21, 2011 at 5:29 pm

I’m still trying to fully understand what’s happening in the latest European debt plan, but at first glance it seems to be almost entirely besides the point—a plan to address insolvency in Greece at a time when as Megan McArdle says “[t]he spreads on Spanish, Italian, Irish, and Portuguese bonds are not widening because investors think that Greece needs a debt swap, or because the solons of Brussels haven’t made enough announcements about the virtues of budget-cutting.” Right, the spreads on PII[G]S’ bonds are going up because of concerns about those specific countries. An uncontrolled Greek default would make the situation worse, but merely avoiding such a scenario doesn’t address the issues there.

I think it’s worth just plowing straight forward and looking at Italy, the largest and allegedly least-troubled of the PIIGS. This from JP Morgan is very instructive:

To review, Italy has a lot of debt. That means that Italy pays a lot of money in interest on its debt. But Italy also has what’s called a “primary budget surplus.” That means tax revenues exceed non-interest spending. Normally for a country that borrows in its own currency that’s all the austerity you need. Since your debt is denominated in nominal terms in your own currency, all you need is for your nominal GDP to grow fast enough to ensure that your debt:GDP ratio shrinks. And since shrinking debt:GDP ratio reduces the interest burden on your budget, if you can hold that primary surplus flat soon enough you’ll be making enormous progress. Alternatively, your central bank might be so stingy as to insist on NGDP growing so slowly that your debt:GDP ratio rises despite the primary surplus. That means your interest burden rises and your situation spirals into disaster. Except no country’s central bank would be that insane. If fiscal policymakers deliver the primary surplus, the central bankers can take care of the rest. But Italy’s central bank is located in Frankfurt and doesn’t appear to actually care about Italian conditions. Instead, responding to conditions in Germany, the European Central Bank is setting monetary policy that ensures a rising debt burden for Italy.

That’s a problem for Italy. Indeed, it makes me wonder how Italy can avoid default. And wondering about that is making investors charge a high interest rate for Italy to roll its debts over. Which is making Italy’s debt:GDP ratio even worse. And as best I can tell, today’s announcement doesn’t even gesture at trying to address this, much less the even more acute problems facing Spain, Portugal, and Ireland. It seems to promise that austerity will take care of this. But in the case of Italy, austerity will only slow NGDP growth further. There has to be a commitment that countries engaged in reasonable budgetary practices will enjoy sufficiently rapid growth to manage existing debts.

Related Posts

Older

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

Sign Up