ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

U.S. Sees Most Extreme July Climate, Oklahoma Sees Hottest Average Temperature of Any State on Record

By Joe Romm on Aug 10, 2011 at 9:17 pm


The July Climate Extremes Index for the CONUS was 37 percent. This is the highest July value in the CEI record (since 1910). The culprits were, in order of impact: Extreme warm minimum temperatures (60 percent of the country, easily the largest on record), extreme wet PDSI (soaked northern plains & western great lakes), extreme warm maximum temperatures, and extreme dry PDSI (south-central U.S. through Gulf Coast). According to the Regional CEI, the South and Southeast had their 1st- and 2nd-most extreme July’s on record, respectively

That’s from the July “State of the Climate” by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

Didn’t know that our government kept a Climate Extremes Index? Why would you? The media hardly ever write about it.

Read more

Economy

Chase Bank Sells Off Soldier’s Home On The Very Same Day He Returns From Iraq

By Zaid Jilani on Aug 10, 2011 at 7:40 pm

Tim and Aaron Collette

As ThinkProgress previously reported, Chase Bank had been planning to foreclose on the home of the family of Aaron Collette, who was serving in Iraq. Aaron’s father Tim had fallen on hard times following the recession, and the bank was refusing to work with the family to negotiate for new terms. After an intense pressure campaign from activists and Sen. Jeff Merkely (D-OR), the bank decided to delay the foreclosure past the original June date.

Yet when Aaron Collette returned home to the states this week for what should have been a warrior’s homecoming, he faced his father’s home that had been foreclosed on instead. On the very same day that Collette returned from Iraq, Chase sold the house back to itself during auction proceedings on the local courthouse’s steps. Local news station News 21 covered the event. Watch their report:

Despite the fact that Collette’s family will soon have to leave its home, they remain hopeful that they can help other people keep their residences. “We are going to continue to move forward, because there’s tens of thousands of more people who have not yet lost (their homes). And for those who have lost them, we might be able to try to get them back,” said Tim Collette.

Ironically, the day before the Collette family had their home sold off to the bank, JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon bragged to Chase bank employees at a barbecue in Vancouver that his company was helping veterans keep their homes. (HT: Michaelmoore.com)

Climate Progress

Climate Hawks John Kerry And Patty Murray Appointed To Deficit Committee

By Brad Johnson on Aug 10, 2011 at 6:58 pm

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) at the Copenhagen climate conference.

Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Patty Murray (D-WA), and Max Baucus (D-MT) have been named to the fiscal super committee tasked with constructing a bipartisan plan to rein in the long-term federal deficit. Considering that Republicans have practically proscribed new revenues, new investments, or eliminating tax subsidies, the committee is likely to continue America’s slide into austerity.

However low the likelihood, the committee does have the opportunity to put together a package that actually addresses the real long-term threats the nation faces, with desperately needed clean-energy and climate-resilience infrastructure spending funded by strict taxes or a cap on carbon pollution.

Kerry has said he believes that climate change “biggest long term threat” to national security. His 2010 climate bill was scored by the Congressional Budget Office to reduce the deficit by $19 billion, even using its extremely conservative assumptions that a massive investment in clean energy and infrastructure would somehow slow economic growth. A more aggressive climate plan that reflects the true urgency of the climate crisis would do even more to restore jobs and cut the deficit.

“We owe it to our children and future generations to get this issue under control and soon,” Murray argues about climate change.

Unfortunately, Kerry and Murray have not yet spread their climate-hawk wings and pointed out that the only solution to the nation’s long-term fiscal outlook involves solving the climate crisis. On Meet the Press, Kerry described his view thusly:

And the real problem for our country is not the short-term debt. We can deal with that. It’s the long-term debt. It’s the structural debt of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid measured against the demographics of our nation. That, then juxtaposed to the lack of jobs and job creation and growth. That’s our problem, structural.

In a joint statement with Baucus, Kerry and Murray said:

Our challenge is to find common ground without damaging anyone’s principles. We believe we can get there.

Their challenges is to save this nation’s long-term economic future. One can only hope they choose reality over compromise, even if Republican Party principles like denying science are damaged.

Update

The average League of Conservation Voters score of the nine members named to the panel so far is 38.11 out of a possible 100.

Economy

FLASHBACK: In 1990 Campaign Ad, McConnell Said ‘I Think Everyone Should Pay Their Fair Share, Including The Rich’

By Pat Garofalo on Aug 10, 2011 at 6:50 pm

Today, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) named three Republicans to the fiscal super committee that was created by the debt ceiling deal. All three have taken the Americans for Tax Reform anti-tax pledge and support a cockamamie constitutional balanced budget amendment. “What I can pretty certainly say to the American people, the chances of any kind of tax increase passing with this, with the appointees that John Boehner and I are going to put on there, are pretty low,” McConnell has said.

But McConnell has not always been so virulently anti-tax. In fact, in a 1990 campaign ad, McConnell said that “everyone should pay their fair share, including the rich,” prompting the Associated Press to say that he sounded like a “populist Democrat”:

“Many Republican candidates are, in fact, holding fast to the no-new-taxes position that Bush embraced and then abandoned, even as they try to portray themselves as friends of senior citizens and the disadvantaged. Others are sounding more and more like populist Democrats. ‘Unlike some folks around here, I think everyone should pay their fair share, including the rich,’ Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., says in a campaign ad.” [Associated Press, 10/28/90]

“A twist of untraditional Republicanism is added to McConnell’s message when he says, ‘Unlike some folks around here, I think everyone should pay their fair share, including the rich. We need to protect seniors from Medicare cuts too,’” wrote Roll Call reporter Steve Lilienthal. “After proclaiming his independence from the President and Congressional leaders, McConnell reassures voters that he will back a ‘fair deal for the working families of Kentucky.’” ["Democrats Flood Airwaves Charging GOP Party of Rich," Roll Call, 11/5/1990]

If McConnell truly believes this, he should be appalled by current conditions. Tax rates on the richest Americans have plunged in recent years, and millionaires today pay tax rates that are 25 percent lower than they were in 1995. Meanwhile, income inequality is the worst its been since the 1920s, with the top 1 percent of Americans taking home 25 percent of the country’s total income. Just the richest 400 Americans hold more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of Americans combined, and the richest 10 percent of Americans control two-thirds of the country’s net worth.

From the sounds of it, once upon a time McConnell would have found this troublesome. It’s a shame that he doesn’t any longer.

ThinkProgress intern Sarah Bufkin contributed research for this post.

Alyssa

Rick Perry’s 2012 Presidential Bid Targets the Arts — But Isn’t Serious About Spending

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Aug 10, 2011 at 6:38 pm

I sometimes feel like a broken record, repeating over and over that slashing arts, humanities, and broadcasting funding is part of the way Republicans are credentialing themselves for national races in 2012 and beyond. But I’m not going to stop, particularly when Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the latest and to my mind one of the most formidable entrants in the 2012 primary race, is doing precisely that. The Texas Tribune reports that Perry recently sent a fundraising appeal on behalf of Citizens Against Government Waste, singling out the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities, along with bigger-ticket items like federal travel and rail subsidies, as things he believes should be cut.

The funny thing about singling out federal spending on the arts as proof that you’re serious about cutting federal spending is that it actually demonstrates just the opposite. All the things on Perry’s list are fairly small-ticket items that have passionate but somewhat isolated constituencies. There are good reasons federal employees travel, but federal employees aren’t very popular right now, so it’s easy to target them. In an era of minimalist government, it’s an easier soundbite for opponents to make federal funding for the arts sound silly than it is for advocates to explain how public funding stimulates private giving and spurs arts-related growth. Cutting every item on Perry’s list would net us a measly $57.59 billion in savings. That’s not courage or tough decision-making. It’s bullying by budget cut.

Yglesias

Pinched

By Matthew Yglesias on Aug 10, 2011 at 6:14 pm

Back when I worked at The Atlantic the main editor I worked with was Don Peck, who at one point in late 2007 turned me on to the then-gathering foreclosure crisis and the fact that it was a bigger deal than people realized. In other words, he was right and smart about the big economic trends. I haven’t yet read his new book Pinched: How the Great Recession Has Narrowed Our Futures and What We Can Do About It beyond the introduction, but the article he did a year or so ago that it’s based on is great, and I think his insight into this issue is quote profound.

I was reminded to recommend the book because I saw him earlier today on MSNBC making the excellent point that, paradoxically, the longer we suffer through bad times, the less likely we are to do anything about it. Bad times makes politics nastier, more polarized, and individual thinking more zero-sum. That makes it harder to make the changes we need, even as it becomes more important.

NEWS FLASH

New Balance Sports Company Distances Itself From Romney Due To His Anti-LGBT Stance | After the chairman of New Balance made a private donation to a PAC affiliated with Mitt Romney, Change.org called on the sports company to denounce its support for his “divisive, anti-gay politics.” In response, New Balance released a statement distancing itself from the candidate. Pointing to Romney’s signature on the National Organization for Marriage’s pledge against marriage equality, New Balance CEO Rob DeMartini declared that “Mr. Romney’s position is not reflective of [the company's] position and support of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered community.” “New Balance embraces the differences in all people,” he said, “we work tirelessly to create and sustain an environment where everyone — our associates, consumers, customers and guests — are treated with dignity and respect.” (HT: @aterkel).

By Tanya Somanader on Aug 10, 2011 at 5:45 pm

Justice

Despite Tough Economy, Tea Party Congressman Introduces Bill To Defund Legal Services For The Poor

By Marie Diamond on Aug 10, 2011 at 5:30 pm

Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA)

Tea Party freshman Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA) has had a less-than-productive first year in Congress. He finally introduced his first bill last week — a proposal to defund legal services for the poor. It couldn’t have taken much effort: the bill, H.R. 2774, is only one sentence long and calls for the complete repeal of the Legal Services Corporation Act.

Yet, while Scott’s one-sentence bill would end the government practice, “dating to the Nixon administration, of providing legal assistance to low-income people pursuing equal justice under the law,” there does appear to be one group that will benefit from it:

This one sentence says a great deal about Scott, because it is a transparent attempt by the young lawmaker to defend a company in his district that discriminates against U.S. citizens in favor of Mexican migrant workers.

Scott introduced the bill abolishing Legal Services exactly three days after it became public that Legal Services had won a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determination that Georgia’s Hamilton Growers “engages in a pattern or practice of regularly denying work hours and assigning less favorable assignments to U.S. workers, in favor of H2-A guestworkers.” Hamilton also “engages in a pattern or practice of discharging U.S. workers and replacing them with H-2A guestworkers,” the EEOC determined.

Ironically (or rather, hypocritically), Scott defeated a moderate Democratic incumbent in 2010 by running a tough-on-immigration message. According to his hometown paper, “He said that jobs here was the biggest draw for illegal aliens coming into the country and that making it more difficult to obtain them would curb the influx of illegal aliens.”

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank observes that given his past anti-immigrant stance, “you’d think Scott would have sided with the 17 U.S. citizens in Georgia who claimed Hamilton Growers illegally dumped them in favor of Mexican workers on H-2A visas.”

For decades, low-income Americans use government legal services for a range of important actions, like women seeking restraining orders against abusive partners, and homeowners fighting foreclosure or predatory lending. Yet the congressman questioned whether these services were “absolutely necessary” and suggested poor Americans simply rely on private charity programs so we can get this “duplicative and unnecessary program off the federal taxpayers’ dole.”

Ultimately, Scott’s bill amounts to siding with “a large employer of foreign migrants in his district — against his out-of-work constituents.”

Politics

‘Tea Party Candidate’ Santorum Procured $3 Million In Federal Earmarks As Senator

By Guest Blogger on Aug 10, 2011 at 5:30 pm

Even while touting himself as a “Tea Party kind of guy before there was a Tea Party,” presidential candidate and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) isn’t fooling many among grassroots conservatives, who label him as “the poster boy for big government.” And Santorum’s past as a “prolific supporter of earmarks” won’t make it any easier.

While serving as a U.S. senator in 2003, Santorum procured over $3.1 million in federal earmarks for social conservative causes — over $1 million of which has gone to the anti-gay Urban Family Council. The Christian group and its president William Devlin have actively opposed gay rights, from promoting a same-sex marriage ban to supporting laws criminalizing homosexuality.

Devlin even criticized the enactment of a stronger hate-speech ban in Philadelphia in 2005:

“There is a collective spirit of fear hanging over this city. Right now, the gays own Philadelphia…Over the last ten years, I’ve been to pastor after pastor in this city, trying to get them to put pressure on the elected officials who’ve been pushing the homosexual agenda. They’re all afraid to speak up. They’re like the frog in the kettle: they’ve sat there in silence for all this time while the gays kept turning up the water temperature. Now it’s come to a boil, and they’re still in the pot.”

In turn, the UFC and its president William Devlin campaigned for Santorum during his 2006 campaign, potentially violating the IRS rules regarding acceptable political activity for religious organizations. Along with the three other Christian groups in the Pennsylvania Pastors Network, the UFC hosted a get-out-the-vote drive in local churches at which Santorum was the only candidate represented; he gave a seven-minute speech to pastors on the importance of the same-sex marriage initiative via a pre-recorded video.

Santorum’s close relationship with social conservative groups like UFC, including the securing of federal dollars for their causes, has led right-wing writers to characterize Santorum as more inclined “to make government pro-family, not to make it small.” As RedState’s Ben Domenech concludes, “It’s precisely the Republican Party of Rick Santorum that even makes the Tea Party movement necessary.”

–Sarah Bufkin

Yglesias

Negative Real Yields

By Matthew Yglesias on Aug 10, 2011 at 5:29 pm

The government can borrow money for cheap at the moment. Indeed, the government can borrow money at negative real rates over a five or seven-year time horizon:

The appropriate policy implications of this are, I think, obscured by the fact that Americans have some deep disagreements about the appropriate size and scope of the state. It’s important to try to put your view of what the government should be doing out of mind for a second and just keep in mind that you presumably think it should be doing something. Under conditions of negative real interest rates, “taxing productive activity to pay down debt is really obviously the wrong thing to do, and borrowing money to employ currently unemployed resources is really obviously the right thing to do.” The short-term budget deficit, in other words, should be much higher. If you genuinely think it’s the case that there are no projects with a positive rate of return that the government could undertake, then we could just radically reduce taxes on a temporary basis. But either way, we should be borrowing more money. When someone offers to lend you money at a negative interest rate, you don’t turn him down.

UPDATE: Ten year yields now negative as well.

Older

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

Sign Up