Senate Passes Arms Control Treaty With Russia, 71-26
The reason Obama has a failed presidency is that he let die our best chance to preserve a livable climate and restore US leadership in clean energy – without a serious fight.
We can’t run history over again, just like we can’t run our suicidal climate experiment over again. So all suppositions that things could have been different are just that, counterfactual suppositions.
BUT we can see in the likely ratification of the New Start treaty that a completely different strategy than the one the White House had for climate change can get significant bipartisan support for a controversial piece of legislation in the face of concerted obstructionism by the Senate minority leader.
What did Obama do right on New Start that he didn’t bother to do on climate?
First and foremost, he simply never had a serious public fight. He never made it clear that this was in fact the central national security issue of our time. He never did any serious public messaging on it at all.
Second, he never unleashed the full force of his administration behind the scenes. He and Biden and many others in his administration seriously lobbied senators for New Start, making clear just how important this was for our national security and international standing. If Obama placed any phone calls to lobby fence-sitting senators on the climate bill, to make clear that this was do or die for the nation and his administration, no one I know has heard about them. Indeed, it seems quite clear that he never made personal phone calls to fence-sitting Democrats to explain to them that a climate and clean energy jobs bill was going to come to the floor and they should tell him what they need in it and they should NOT publicly go around saying that there’s no way the bill could ever get 60 votes. Once it was clear that Obama wasn’t keeping his own troops in line, that he couldn’t bring 56 or 57 Democrats, that made it all but impossible to round up the handful of Republicans needed.
Third, he never made a serious effort to bring in a high-profile bipartisan opinion leaders, including the top national security brass, to publicly push for a climate bill. How about designing a public and political campaign around people like Reagan’s Secretary of State (and Nixon’s Treasury Secretary) George P. Shultz — see Shultz challenges CA to lead on clean energy, defeat Proposition 23: Losing “would be a catastrophe”; Former Secretary of State and Treasury: “There’s a climate problem connected with the burning of fossil fuels…. The basic facts are pretty clear”?
Fourth, he never put his own skin in the game in the sense of developing his own bottom line climate and clean energy bill. Yes, a climate bill that could have gotten 60 votes in the Senate would have been a grave disappointment to progressives, including me, I’m sure. But the bottom line was we needed a bill that 1) could allow him to legitimately go to the international community and say that he was going to meet his Copenhagen pledge to cut emissions 17% by 2020 and 2) put a price on carbon with some of the proceeds going to advance clean energy.
With New Start — and the tax bill — the Administration negotiated the bill itself with the other side (Russia in the first case and the GOP leadership in the second case). Then they made the public and private pitch that you have to take the whole package, with no changes. Sure, that approach might not have worked with something as complicated as the climate and clean energy jobs bill. But it did work with the tax bill and the pity of it all is that we will never know if a different approach might have worked with climate.
But the now all-but-inevitable passage of New Start means that it’s a legitimate question to ask.
Also, the winning strategy for New Start is likely to be the winning strategy adopted by whatever future president succeeds in passing a serious climate bill.
Finally, as always, I’m not saying that the failure of the climate bill was primarily the fault of Obama. More of the blame resides with the media, thanks to their generally enabling coverage “” (see “And the 2010 Citizen Kane award for non-excellence in climate journalism goes to “¦” and “How the status quo media failed on climate change” and How the press bungles its coverage of climate economics “” “The media’s decision to play the stenographer role helped opponents of climate action stifle progress”).
And as discussed in my June 30 post (“Republicans demagogue against market-oriented climate measures they once supported“), most of the blame should go to the anti-science, pro-pollution ideologues. They have spread disinformation and poisoned the debate so that is no longer even recognizable. Who could have guessed just a couple of years ago, that the GOP champion of climate action would now trash a bill considerably weaker than the one he tried to pass twice? (see Rolling Stone on “The Climate Killers: 17 polluters and deniers who are derailing efforts to curb the climate catastrophe.”)
Indeed, because their denial has been given a free political pass (with notable exceptions such as California and Colorado), the ideologues have actually embraced denial of basic science as a litmus test, along with opposition to even the most business-friendly, Republican-originated strategies for reducing emissions.
That is precisely why action is possible only once in a generation: Modern conservative ideology has become 100% anti-conservation. Indeed, this is why Tea-Party ‘conservatism’ may be the most radical political philosophy ever to achieve significant political power in this country, since it ultimately will destroy the American way of life as we have come to know it, leading to untold misery and far bigger government than this country has seen in the post-WWII era (see “Real adaptation is as politically tough as real mitigation, but much more expensive and not as effective in reducing future misery“).
And that is precisely why president Obama needed to push harder for climate bill than he did for New Start. He didn’t — and countless long-suffering future generations are unlikely to forgive him for that blunder.
Related Post:
- Can you solve global warming without talking about global warming?
- The failed presidency of Barack Obama, Part 2
- The White House lamely blames environmentalists for climate bill failure
- Some pundits challenge my statement, “Future generations are likely to view Obama’s choice of health care over energy and climate legislation as a blunder of historic proportions.” Here’s why they are wrong.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Wasn’t there a James Bond film named “Never Say Never Again”?
US climate legislation would have pulled Canada (a big emitter) along with it. As it is the Conservative Party Of Canada could not believe their luck on receiving a get out of jail free card delivered by President Obama. Many political pundits thought that the Conservative Party would be forced to implement climate legislation that paralleled American legislation. It was considered a fait accompli.
In any case, Lester R. Brown in his “World on the Edge,” seems to be advocating a Carbon Tax offsetting income tax reductions and perhaps a great idea as a critical path to reductions in the cost-of-living causing reductions in emissions and material throughputs and increases in the quality-of-life.
So let’s be forward looking. How can the inevitable disasters be capitalized upon to goad Congress into action? Think of the disaster costs for Florida, the Gulf Coast, Atlantic Coast from hurricanes, Midwest and So Cal from flooding, Southwest generally from drought etc. How can we convince people that warming is indeed happening and contributing to these probelms, all of which will get worse in the near future?
How about a discussion of whether nuclear power has a place in future energy plans? I’m interested in ideas and informed opinions on this question. Are there solar technologies that could meet utilities’ needs for base power?
Anyone read the fascinating article in The New Yorker on the Jevons paradox, whereby energy efficiency just promotes more use of energy? What are the prospects for cap and dividend, or tax carbon not incomes as a way of reducing overall energy usage?
As much as I wish that Obama had addressed climate change in the first two years in office, I’m also reminded that it takes a couple of years for a new president to, essentially, “get his legs under him.” We want whatever Obama does with climate to stick. It may be a blessing in disguise that he’s put it off a bit.
I’m a chronic optimist but I believe Obama is well poised to win in ’12 and hopefully take on the really big issues at that time. The right, even though they gained large numbers of seats this past election, are still highly fragmented and a great many of them are wet behind the ears (and some of them are outright loons). If Obama can play the same strategy as Clinton did – playing to the middle – then I think the doom-and-gloom the left feels right now will turn dramatically toward elation.
I don’t think the two situations are comparable, and unfortunately, I just don’t see any set of circumstances in which the GOP will allow any climate change legislation to pass the Senate.
START is a whole other issue; not only do you have George Shultz supporting it, but a whole bunch of other Republican establishment figures. See here for an article co-signed by him, Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger and Colin Powell:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120104598.html
CLimate change? Not so much. The GOP has spent far too long making “global warming is a myth” an article of faith with the base, and especially with their now-out-of-control teabag party pet attack dog, such that any senator up for election in 2012 is likely to be primaried from the right were they to support climate change legislation. Not only that, but for their own 2012 plans the rest of the party is going to lean very heavily on anybody who looks like they might be stepping out of line.
Mark Kirk, the new Republican senator from Illinois, did not vote for the START treaty, but he did for for C&T when he was in the House. He voted for ending DADT but against the Dream Act. So, he will be a key swing vote in the future.
A key political realignment is the military as a voice for reason and pragmatism. As the changes in climate become manifest getting action from the Senate on climate should not be ruled out. The climate loons in the House might come around with grassroots and national security pressure. It is hard for the Tea Party types to go against the military. Some of them are bought and paid for, but some are just misinformed. The thing about people prone to conspiracy thinking is that they can flip sides fast if they feel they were betrayed.
@Mimikatz (#4): The Jevons paradox is not a big issue. Cap and trade (or cap and anything) implies a CAP. We don’t care how much energy people use, it is the GHG emissions that matter.
Can we stop climate change? RT @drgrist Thoughtful conversation between climate scientist James Hansen & @BillMcKibben: http://bit.ly/fam7gn
#6 – Even if Obama were able to pull in the few remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate, he’s toast in the House. We need a strategy to make the anti-science plank in the conservative platform so toxic and so lethal that the rank & file in the house revolt and the leaders have to reformulate a new strategy. Until then, it’s hard to see how we have a chance.
Mike @ 7: Of course GHG are the issue, but until there are more alternative technologies actually in use, electric cars will be plugged into systems powered by coal, and money saved through compact fluorescents and more efficient buildings will be spent on goods produced with GHGs and the rest of the world will want energy for their needs too. And as long as almost all energy is produced by technologies that emit GHGs, then energy use does matter.
Joe Romm — Off-topic, but your site has been seriously stalling, often timeing out, yesterday and today.
During the negotiations for the tax bill, or START, or DADT Republicans have been quoted as saying some very stupid things BUT they save the absolute stupidest comments for climate change. They do not care what others may think about their position on climate change. For them climate change is completely different and decidedly incomparable with ANY of the other bills except perhaps health care. They save the “socialist” or “redistributing the wealth” labels for both health care and any mention of a climate change bill.
You cannot shame them. If, for them, climate change is a hoax then it cannot possibly have any connection with any ice melt or extreme weather event. If climate change is a hoax then it cannot possibly have any connection with national security. If it is a hoax then it cannot be responsible for any current or future health issues.
JOE, with regard to the tax bill…you said: “the Administration negotiated the bill itself with the other side. Then they made the public and private pitch that you have to take the whole package, with no changes.” – INCLUDING THE TAX BREAK ON THE UBER RICH…NO CHANGES…YOU MUST INCLUDE A TAX CUT FOR MILLIONAIRS…Joe, don’t you think THAT was what swayed the Republicans? Did Obama negotiate that or, as some have said, did he simply go belly-up on that part of the bill? How much does it add to the debt? So who is the winner?
I’m sure we could write a climate bill that would also add to the debt…I’VE GOT IT! Let’s write a climate bill that also includes tax cuts for the rich!!!
So, does the administration have a current position on climate change? SINCE THEY HAVE NO MESSAGE AND NO SPOKESPERSON, IT IS REALLY NOT POSSIBLE TO BE SURE!
When elected Obama said we cannot tolerate delay. Holdren said we must take immediate action. Two years later it seems that delay is OK, nothing to really worry about, and immediate has taken on a completely different definition.
I remember more messaging from Kennedy regarding his council on physical fitness when I was a kid: pamphlets with complete exercise and nutrition programs for kids. He didn’t want the next generation of Soviets to be healthier than Americans. It worked for a while but we all know what happens when the emphasis and the messaging stops: American children top the world obesity charts!
Don’t know what I wrote @11 to invoke moderation.
Anyway, restarting my Firefox seems to have cleared the problem.
I’ve got to agree with Crank – it isn’t just a matter of strategy and tactics. They are different issues, and that bears significantly on the outcome.
The two issues, START, and GW are dramatically different. START is essentially foreign policy with powerful backing by powerful Republicans. START is also an old treaty with support in the past. GW has no Republican support; on the contrary, they hate it because they get so much money from the energy industry and there idealistic belief in capitalism is strained by the necessary government regulation and spending to combat global warming. Furthermore, there is a dramatic lack of understanding of GW at all levels of government and by the public.
#4 asks if there is a place for nuclear power and solar. Of course there is. China has great plans for nuclear and is constructing plants as I write this. Solar technology in the form of solar thermal with heat storage can take over some base electric power and is almost cost effective now. Europe is seriously planning to use land in the Sahara desert to supply considerable electric power to their grid.
Well, what about a FCOAD fee?
Fossil Carbon Open Air Disposal
Shouldn’t be free anymore than disposing of your wastes is.
Price on carbon…..Hansen & Mckibben…..video
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Climate-Portals/139434822741700
He got behind start because:
1. There is no cost to his billlionaire contributors, from implementing the Start treaty; This might be the only reason he was able to do it.
2. It’s an important step in arms reductions.
3. Comes right after tax cuts for the richest, and tax raise for the poorest, which is going to backfire according to people worth listening to. wars in Iraq (still going on) and Afghanistan, indefinite “detention” in Cuba, very long list of what many would call broken promises and failures.
4. Along with dadt repeal, It gives him a shred of cover for his next move, which is looking like it will be cutting social security, and bringing in cuts to government programs. (to reduce the deficit caused by the tax cuts for the top 2 %.
Of course he could have probably gotten something on climate.
Why didn’t he make an effort? I guess we’ll never know, but I don’t think he actually understands it.
There is no meaningful action that he has taken that makes me believe he understands this issue.
I like Lester Brown’s idea, a carbon tax offset by an income tax reduction. There are many ways to put a fair price on carbon emissions, and a discussion that is not CapnTrade vs. nothing, but cap-n-trade vs. direct taxation of emissions vs. taxation with offsets vs. xyz, could dislodge debate from the stale framing that stifles conversation.
I’ve long favored an approach built on existing permits. Air polluters as small as print shops and cement plants must submit discharge permits on a regular schedule. These reports could trigger a tax bill.
This approach is cheap and easy, though it only taxes industrial sources. That’s a start, and even a fractional rate could achieve significant reductions. The rate could be a flat penny per ton or indexed to an income tax reduction or a capped collection amount. It could be phased in so industry would have time to adjust.
The question Obama and the rest of us should be asking Congress is “Which approach to pricing carbon emissions would be best?” Cap and trade? A direct tax on industrial sources? A fuel surcharge? Put a bunch of reasonable options on the table, and it gets harder to collapse the conversational to yes/no squabbling.
Obama’s Got (Found) Game
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/22/obamas-got-found-game_n_800504.html
Obama is on a roll…..arms treaty, repel don’t tell….it looks like thing might actually turn out better than we think, he’s starting to earn his Nobel Prize.
Mark – what billionaire contributors? Are you away where PBO’s campaign funds came from?
What tax raise for the poorest? Are you not aware that taxes for middle class and working people were cut in 2009 as part of the first stimulus package?
Are you not aware that the recent tax package greatly increased the tax cuts for those making less then $250k per year over what the Republican version of the bill provided? Are you not aware that payroll taxes were cut so that working people could take home some more money? Are you not aware that unemployment insurance was extended for those most hurt by the Bush Recession? Are you not aware that as part of the tax package PBO managed to win another very large stimulus package?
Cutting Social Security, are you daft?
Are you not aware of the billions that PBO has managed to steer to renewable energy? Are you not aware that he put scientists back in charge of science? Are you not aware that he now has the military ‘going green’? Are you not aware that he has greatly lowered the barriers for installing wind and solar generation?
You may not be aware. Perhaps you get your facts from a PBO-hater site
I’m not sure why Joe refuses to look at the facts and calls PBO a failure. It puts him in the same camp as those who deny facts on other issues.
I think things like the arms treaty and DADT were easier to pass as those don’t directly affect too many Americans in terms of involving greater regulation and higher taxes thus you won’t lose as many votes over those. By contrast taking action on climate change would likely cost Obama many votes amongst moderates, suburban voters, and independents as many maybe for modest action but anything that involves more regulation and higher taxes will be a huge turnoff. In addition the incoming Republican congress knows they have to work with Obama since if they just blindly oppose everything it will hurt their chances at winning the White House in 2012 so they will choose their battles carefully. Its easy to get people onside about the idea of taking action on climate change, but as soon as you draw up any plans, people will jump ship like crazy. Here in Canada, Stephane Dion’s carbon tax led the Liberals second worst showing in seats and worst in popular vote since confederation in 1867. Likewise Gordon Campbell in British Columbia had a large lead in the polls prior to the carbon tax, yet almost lost the election over this and only won due the weakness of his opponents and his strong economic credentials. And this is in Canada which is generally more left wing than the US and in British Columbia which tends to be more environmentally conscious than most of the rest of Canada. I think adaptation and modest mitigation is the best solution as I believe the warming will occur, but not to the extent most on this blog believe and will be nowhere nearly as disastrous as many here predict. I predict a temperature rise of 1C to 2C at the max, not the 3-6C rise like many here predict. Adapting to a 1C to 2C rise is far cheaper than mitigation whereas for a 3 to 4C rise than mitigation would be cheaper, but based on what has happened in the past and demographic and economic trends I see a warming of 3C as possible but highly unlikely. Besides extreme warming in the Arctic where almost nobody lives but little warming in the heavily populated centres is hardly disastrous. It might hurt those living in low lying areas and some small Pacific Islands, but they can build dykes much like the Dutch have done successfully. This year only ranked highly due to the extreme warmth in the Arctic. Most areas that had an unusually hot summer (Europe and the Eastern US) had a very cold winter whereas areas that had a very mild winter (Pacific Northwest, Atlantic Canada and British Columbia, North Africa, and the Middle East) all had pretty average summers so things evened out here outside the polar regions.
DeSmogBlog (via RPauli) has an interesting analysis of the hampering of the Obama administration’s new approach to science here:
http://desmogblog.com/critical-science-moment-obama-administration
And then there’s my comment, awaiting moderation:
The Obama administration obviously cannot get rid of long-term systemic anti-science policies and individual appointees overnight. On the other hand, they allowed the scandal-ridden Minerals Management Service that oversaw off-shore oil drilling to continue its blatant debauchery with the very industry it was supposed to monitor, leading to the destruction of much of the life in the Gulf…and the entire handling of the BP oil spill was less than transparent:
http://wn.com/GULF_OIL_SCANDAL-Mineral_Management_Service
My theory as to why Obama has turned out to be so timid? Halliburton, Exxon and Goldman Sachs are holding him hostage.
FREE OBAMA!
I have to agree with 6,9, and 15. Climate change was difficult, even among democrats. We still had coal state holdouts. Whereas for START, it wasn’t too hard to paint opponents as extremists who will go against the wishes of past secretaries of state and top military brass. It is hard to imagine getting such a clear message for climate change. It seems to be limited to position white-paper like studies, but these can’t motivate Joe Sixpack to write his congressman. I do agree, that military realism is a potentially important future ally, but I think it is far from becoming a major force.
Joe, i’ll bet you a carbon tax or some form of fee and dividend is on the books by the end of next year.
[JR: No!]
Joe, I really don’t think you understand Barrack Obama. I don’t think that you understand that he knows how to win and he knows when it’s time to tackle an issue.
PBO did something that no Democratic president has been able to do in 100 years – he brought us health care for all Americans. He just signed the end of DADT. He has had an amazing string of victories in his two years in office.
On many of those issues some have been fooled because they did not see him actively working toward his goals. This guy walks softly, don’t let that fool you, he is effective with his stick.
[JR: I understand all too well. The WH is dreadful at messaging, but think they are great, and they let the climate bill die without a fight. Btw, hrc ain't universal, tho I'm a fan of much of what he's done, including for clean energy, temporarily, but just not for the climate!]
Don’t know what he’s been able to accomplish? Take a look at this page – click on “Expand” in the upper right. Look at the items under “Energy”, “Conservation” and “Infrastructure”.
http://obamaachievements.org/list
Now, how about not harming your cause by pissing on your friends and devote a blog to what this administration has been able to accomplish in their first two years. Include the personnel changes as DOE and other agencies which impact climate issues. Contact your friends at Energy and other agencies and see if they have other accomplishments that they think important.
You want a good climate bill and I’ve no doubt that Barrack Obama wants a good climate bill. But you well know that no president can sit down at his desk, write a bill, sign it, and make a law.
You want a good climate bill? Then help Barrack Obama. Don’t buy into that crock of crap myth that the way to encourage the President is by “holding his feet to the fire”.
[JR: Too late for a serious climate bill for Obama, I'm afraid. Gotta take a longer term view now!]
Now the topic will be the headline of next year.
Scenario A
Bipartisan Agenda “Sputnik Moment” and Change for Hope.
Scenario B
Hot topic and democrats vs republicans, but seriously i do not see that coming, it would be stupid from the republicans, after climategate and hottest year on record. Seriously.
I think Obama regardless of his ideology is also a realist on what can and cannot be done. The reality is Conservatives outnumber Liberals by a 1.5 to 2 margin so that means any Democrat that wants to win the White House needs to win strongly amongst moderates. Also the population is getting older like in most industrialized countries and as people get older they tend to get more conservative thus also making it difficult to win on the left. Also the suburbs, not the urban or rural areas is where elections are won and lost. They tend to be centre-right otherwise if the Republicans go over the deep end and swing too far to the right they lose here, but if they Democrats stray from the centre they go Republicans. Just look at a county by county map for any state in the 1984 presidential election and 2008 presidential election and you will notice that many of the suburbs that strongly backed Reagan in 1984 went for Obama in 2008. If he takes a strong stance on climate change or any other cause that is seen as too liberal, these will swing solidly back to the Republicans. In fact in his home city of Chicago, the Collar Counties have long been domianted by the Republicans but usually moderate ones and thus I suspect he probably understands the dynamics here. On universal health care, having the government take control of an industry this large was a no go. Just because Canada and Britain have one doesn’t mean such idea would be popular in the US. Canadians and Brits on most value issues tend to be considerably more left wing than Americans. Even the Conservatives under David Cameron and pre-Margaret Thatcher and likewise the Progressive Conservatives in Canada prior to merging with the Reform Party were considerably more moderate than the Republicans. And likewise the Reform Party in Canada who ran on a Republican like platform in the 90s got trounced and only did as well as they did as they played off the Western Alienation issue and thus won votes from people who probably disagreed with many of their policies. The point of all this, is politics is about doing what you would like to do within the parameters of what can be done, not blindly sticking to some ideology than the overwhelming majority oppose. Politicians who do this always lose badly in the long-run.
Theoretically, Obama might be able to pass some form of climate bill that would reduce emissions meaningfully. Right now the only energy legislation is the tax deal, which had tons of renewable energy and energy efficiency incentives in it. He could probably use the power of certain powerful industries against the GOP.
To get agricultural emissions reductions, he could slip in some form of REDD subsidies in the annual farm bill. The farm lobby would love this.
A renewable mandate would never pass, but he might be able to pass more permanent renewable tax incentives. By my calculations, continuation of such subsidies could result in a 27% emissions reduction by 2050. Tax incentives are always easy to do.
Tea Party folks hate subsidies, and with some help from Ron Paul, he could repeal fossil fuel subsidies. That would result in an 18% emissions reduction by 2050.
Through executive orders, he could mandate 50 mpg fuel efficiency by 2050. Combined with the EPA’s renewable fuels mandate of about 25% and it’s GHG rules, there’s the potential for significant emissions reductions.
All is not lost, despite the death of cap and trade.
Oh forgot to give some sources.
http://www.france24.com/en/20101014-wto-official-eyes-trade-rules-fossil-fuel-subsidies
http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/wwsis.html
The study assumes lots of support for renewables and if it continued the trend, you would have 50% renewables by 2050.
I calculate emissions reductions for electric power by 41 – x where (68- % of renewables)/68 = x/41.
This formula comes from the fact that 41% of emissions are from electricity and only 68% of electric sources produce CO2 emissions.
Obama might be able to make modest reductions and besides the ones described above might not be a bad idea as this could be used to strike a balance between mitigation and adaptation, rather than full out mitigation which would result in him getting trounced in the 2012 election.
Bob Wallace #26
Mr. Wallace, you sound like you graduated “summa cum laude” from the Tommy Lasorda School of Diplomacy by opening your comment by telling the host you don’t think he knows what he’s talking about.
I’m referring of course to this audio tape:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-mqXodn5mQ
@monkey, it depends on how you define modest. In my perspective, the emissions reductions are significant, although they fall short.
-27% from continued tax incentives for renewables.
-18% from ending fossil fuel subsidies.
-12.5% from the fuel efficiency mandate and renewable fuels standard.
-3% to 9% (there’s not much data on this) from an REDD type subsidy.
-some unknown amount from EPA regulations on manufacturing emissions.
(will be less than 20% though)
That’s 60.5-66.5%+EPA regs for emissions reductions. We need 80% or more, but even these easy steps would be very significant.
Comparing START to “climate and clean energy” isn’t like comparing apples to oranges, but apples to potatoes. The average American or republican doesn’t see START costing anything, but “climate and clean energy” will cost $Trillions. Who needs that when Congress is about to raise the debt ceiling again?
It will be interesting to see what the right does in 2011. Will they force drastic cuts in government handouts by not raising the debt ceiling? That would be Obama’s savior in 2012, because the backlash would be huge. The burgeoning poor and middle class want and expect their perks; eliminating them will awaken the hoards who still have a vote.
The average temperature in the Arctic above 80 degs latitude is right now 22F above normal. Arctic sea ice is melting in late December when it is dark 24 hours a day up there. Something is seriously messed up, but the MSM does not spend a single sentence on it, they are too busy patting deniers on their back for their global cooling prophecies that are “proven right” since all the frigid Arctic air spilled into Europe instead of staying where it belongs.
This summer was not good at all for the denialists, but their luck with the messed up Arctic circulation patterns in the winter is beyond belief.
Bob
“Cutting Social Security, are you daft?”
Let’s see what happens in the next few months. . …….
why did Obama do this?
”
Before tomorrow’s expected executive order establishing a commission to reduce the debt, the White House has leaked the names of who will chair the commission, former Clinton Administration Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson.
Neither appointment will make progressive hearts go aflutter, but does this mean that the deck will be stacked in favor of deficit hysterics who want to gut Social Security and Medicare?
First, note that Simpson and Bowles are not cut from the same cloth. Simpson has the longer track record as an opponent of Social Security.
Dean Baker today revisits Simpson’s attempt in the 1990s to slash Social Security benefits by pegging increases below the rate of inflation.
MyDD’s Jonathan Singer dusted off an interview he did with Simpson five years ago, in which Simpson employed typical generational scare tactics, telling his younger interviewer, “Guys your age will be eaten alive in regard to money” if Congress hasn’t “done anything on Social Security.”
Bowles was described by BusinessWeek during the Clinton era as “Corporate America’s Friend in the White House” and who was “adamant about finding a bipartisan, long-term fix for the financial problems of both Medicare and Social Security.”
I guess we’ll see.
While the START treaty and GW issue are different from each other but I think that this NY Times article gives additional weight to Mr. Romm’s assertion that Obama did not fight for it. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/23/world/23start.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig
I’m still astounded that President Obama did absolutely nothing after the BP spill. I think his all of accomplishments to date still pale in comparison to his greatest failure: get the Climate Change bill passed. Why? Because his accomplishments won’t matter much on an overheated planet….
Climate Change and ‘Balanced’ Coverage – http://nyti.ms/feMbEd
ziyu – I generally agree. Glad to see someone come up with realistic proposals that work as many seem to either only understand the problem but have no solution or advocate a solution that is unworkable. Yours is workable and would do a lot of good if adopted and might even be supported by some right of centre.
Esop – I think the focus on the cold now is the media tend to focus on the heavily populated areas where people live and right now it is warm globally, but on a population weighted basis as opposed to land weighted basis not so much. I should note in the US, this is December is pretty close to average (maybe a bit below, but not much) on a land weighted basis, but population wise, 2/3 of the American population live in areas where it is colder than normal. Even in Canada, population wise it is not all that warm as Southern Ontario which has 40% of the country’s popuation is colder than normal, the Prairies which have another 10% are slightly below normal, while the St. Lawrence Valley which has 20-25% is only slightly above normal but nothing unusual and the same for British Columbia which has 10% of the population. The areas that are unusually warm may make up close to 50% of Canada’s land mass or even more, but population wise are well under 10%. Off course in the summer much of the unusual warmth did hit the heavily populated centers thus why the media reported on it. It has nothing due to being a denier, it is simply based on the fact that people care about areas where others live, not areas where no one lives.