ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

ASWF: Gingrich’s Right-Wing Game Plan For ‘Solutions Day’ On September 27

Solutions DayNewt Gingrich’s coal-and-billionaire fueled K-Street 527 corporation, American Solutions for Winning the Future (ASWF), is gearing up the next phase in its campaign to continue the extreme Bush agenda for four more years. Newt’s front group has risen to prominence through his “Drill Here, Drill Now” campaign to redefine energy policy, but he now plans to roll out his right-wing agenda on education, the economy, and health as well. The Wonk Room has obtained Newt’s game plan for “Solutions Day,” September 27, in the form of a 12-page “Action Pack for Activists.”

“Solutions Day” should really be called Pollution Day. The game plan recommends that volunteers to “invite local elected officials” and reach out to “key, state-level bloggers,” and “taxpayer groups, such as Americans for Prosperity” to gather people at “workshops” listening to Newt Gingrich speak (webcast, DISH Network—219, and Direct TV – Channel 577). Americans for Prosperity, as readers of the Wonk Room know, is yet another fossil-fueled right-wing front group.

On September 27, Newt will sell this radical right-wing agenda using talking points designed by propaganda master Frank Luntz:

Energy Gingrich’s Drill, Baby Drill plan to continue our suicidal pollution-based economy will be bolstered by Regnery Publishing’s “Drill Here, Drill Now” book and “We Have the Power,” a movie by Newt’s wife being distributed by Citizens United, the right-wing hate group run by Whitewater hit man David Bossie.

Economy Gingrich claims to be in favor of “real investments for long-term growth to create the best jobs, with the best take-home pay, and with the greatest prosperity for safe pensions and retirements.” However, the economic agenda of ASWF and its allies in fact includes defeat of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would restore bargaining rights to workers against corporate intimidation; the abolishment or slashing of taxes that only affect the superwealthy, such as the estate tax (“death tax”) and corporate tax; and the privatization of Social Security (“Personal Social Security Savings Accounts”).

Education ASWF is promoting Bob Compton’s documentary “Two Million Minutes” and calling for increased science and technology education. This emphasis hides Newt’s radical agenda of privatizing government services, bringing religion into schools and forcing all immigrants to learn English.

Health Under Newt Gingrich’s drug company-funded Center for Health Transformation, ASWF will push its agenda to protect corporate malpractice (“tort reform”), to break down Medicare and Medicaid, and to make health insurance more expensive (“consumerist health care“).

Download Newt’s “Action Pack” here. To fight back on Newt’s day of pollution, join the Green Jobs Now Day of Action, for real solutions, not more pollution.

Yglesias

Today in Economic News

Retail sales down. Meanwhile, Lehman is in big trouble and looking to put itself up for sale in order to get out of trouble. With, of course, big government stepping in to lend a helping hand:

As confidence in Lehman continued to drain away on Thursday, the bank, one of the oldest names on Wall Street, reached out to several potential buyers, including Bank of America and Barclays, the big British bank, according to people briefed on the negotiations. Lehman hopes to strike a deal within days.

In each case, the suitors are seeking help from the Federal Reserve to help make an acquisition palatable. They want the Fed to guarantee a part of Lehman’s troubled assets, these people said, similar to the way it backstopped the emergency sale of another foundering bank, Bear Stearns, in March.

As I’ve said of previous interventions in the ongoing financial crisis there’s nothing wrong with having the government step in to avert catastrophe. Indeed, letting catastrophe happen merely for the sake of bringing reality closer into line with free market rhetoric would be silly. But by the same token, the same kind of help should be available to families or individuals facing catastrophe and not just investment banks.

Yglesias

Supply-Side Follies

Michael Ettlinger and John Irons have a new CAP/EPI report on supply side economics. The results, of course, are that it hasn’t worked well. This one chart is, of course, not definitive proof but it’s telling and all good posts need an image:

supplyside.jpg

Much more in the actual report.

Politics

New McCain Ad: Complimenting Palin’s Appearance Is Sexist

In recent days, conservatives have attempted to characterize progressive critiques of Gov. Sarah Palin’s (R-AK) record as sexist. A new McCain campaign ad repeats this strained argument by suggesting Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) attempted to diminish Palin when he remarked that the “‘obvious’ difference between Palin and himself is ‘she’s good looking.’”

As FactCheck.org summarized, the ad uses quotes from news organizations “out of context in an effort to portray [Barack Obama] and his running mate, Joe Biden, as unfairly attacking Sarah Palin and making sexist remarks.”

Despite what the ad insinuates, conservatives certainly haven’t been exempt from commenting on Palin’s appearance — often using much cruder language. Karl Rove, a McCain adviser, called Palin a “young, attractive, fresh-faced reform governor.” Rush Limbaugh said the GOP had a “babe on our ticket.” Glenn Beck exclaimed, “Man, she’s hot!” Watch a compilation:

At the Republican National Convention, one of the fastest selling items was a button that read “Sarah Palin, the Hottest VP from the Coolest State.”

Digg It!

Update

In March 2007, McCain referred to Obama as a “very attractive young man” on the Late Show with David Letterman.

Climate Progress

Exclusive: Gang-of-10, Part 5, the bill’s full text

I have uploaded the entire 233-page (!) “Discussion Draft” of the bipartisan bill here. I have blogged on many of the main elements in the summary (see links below). But as you can imagine in a bill this long, a lot of provisions are not in the summary.

Some of the provisions are fluff, like the entire 12-page Title I — “National Commission on Energy Independence.” Just what we need, another commission.

Some provisions are useful clarification. As I hoped, Title II makes clear that the “consumer tax credits for advanced vehicles” is focused on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), see Section 202 (page 17). The tax credit is “$2,500, plus $400 for each kilowatt hour of traction battery capacity in excess of 4 kilowatt hours” with a cap at $7,500. A midsized PHEV might consume 0.3 to 0.4 kilowatt-hours per mile when it runs on electricity (yes, Toyota may well do better than that, but I doubt GM will).

So a PHEV20 (one with a 20-mile range running only on electricity) might have a battery capacity 7 kwh, and get a $3700 tax credit. The Chevy Volt is supposed to be 40-mile electric range and get about $6500.

Her are a few more highlights and lowlights of the draft bill:

Read more

Climate Progress

Exclusive: Gang-of-10, Part 5, the bill’s full text

I have uploaded the entire 233-page (!) “Discussion Draft” of the bipartisan bill here. I have blogged on many of the main elements in the summary (see links below). But as you can imagine in a bill this long, a lot of provisions are not in the summary.

Some of the provisions are fluff, like the entire 12-page Title I — “National Commission on Energy Independence.” Just what we need, another commission.

Some provisions are useful clarification. As I hoped, Title II makes clear that the “consumer tax credits for advanced vehicles” is focused on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), see Section 202 (page 17). The tax credit is “$2,500, plus $400 for each kilowatt hour of traction battery capacity in excess of 4 kilowatt hours” with a cap at $7,500. A midsized PHEV might consume 0.3 to 0.4 kilowatt-hours per mile when it runs on electricity (yes, Toyota may well do better than that, but I doubt GM will).

So a PHEV20 (one with a 20-mile range running only on electricity) might have a battery capacity 7 kwh, and get a $3700 tax credit. The Chevy Volt is supposed to be 40-mile electric range and get about $6500.

Her are a few more highlights and lowlights of the draft bill:

Read more

Economy

REPORT: Supply-Side Tax Cuts Fail To Spur Economic Growth

john-mccain-pumps-fist-2-5-2008-small-thumb.jpgSen. John McCain’s economic plan – Jobs for America – is full of tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. It includes a cut in the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, and maintaining the 15% rate on dividends and capital gains, which McCain claims will promote growth and create jobs.

Michael Ettlinger of the Center for American Progress and John Irons of the Economic Policy Institute examined the efficacy of supply-side tax cuts on corporations and high-income Americans in a new report, “Take a Walk on the Supply Side.” By comparing the supply-side eras following the 1983 and 2001 tax cuts to the years between 1993 and 2001, they find that, for the most part, supply-side policies don’t work in practice the way that they do in theory.

Among their findings:

- Real investment growth after the tax increases of 1993 was much higher than after the tax cuts of 1981 and 2001.

- Economic growth as measured by real U.S. gross domestic product was stronger following the tax increases of 1993 than in the two supply-side eras. Over the seven-year periods after each legislative action, average annual growth was 3.9 percent following 1993, 3.5 percent following 1981, and 2.5 percent following 2001.

- Wage levels also did better after 1993. Average real hourly earnings following 1981 fell at an annual rate of 0.1 percent and following 2001 rose at a rate of only 0.3 percent. Following the 1993 tax increases average hourly earnings grew by 0.9 percent per year.

- Employment growth was weaker during the supply-side eras than during the post-1993 era. Average annual employment growth was 2.1 percent after 1981, 2.5 percent after 1993, and 0.6 percent after 2001.

And of course, tax cuts lower federal revenue, so supply-side practices necessarily “lead to bigger federal budget deficits and/or spending reductions.”

As a survey of economists released by the Wall Street Journal today notes, “the next U.S. president will be confronted with slow growth, high unemployment and an economy teetering toward recession,” and thus “pumping up the economy will be the first challenge.” Ettlinger and Irons’ data shows that, if history is any indication, cutting taxes on the wealthy and handing out tax breaks to corporations will not provide that much-needed economic jolt.

Politics

White House: Bush thought Palin ‘handled herself well’ in ABC interview.

In yesterday’s interview with ABC, Gov. Sarah Palin was stumped when asked what the “Bush Doctrine” of preventive warfare is, falsely claiming it is President Bush’s “worldview.” Today, White House Press Secretary Tony Fratto said Palin “handled herself well.” But when asked if Bush’s feelings were “hurt” by Palin’s ignorance of the Bush Doctrine, Fratto quickly changed the subject:

FRATTO: He saw some of the coverage. He thought she handled herself well.

Q Are his feelings hurt that she wasn’t readily available with an answer about what the Bush doctrine is?

FRATTO: I don’t have anything on that. Let’s go through the week ahead – or do you have any more, or are we good? The week ahead. Let’s see, Saturday and Sunday the President will be in Washington.

Yglesias

Against the Bush Doctrine

The National Security Network has put a nice video together of Sarah Palin not understanding what the Bush doctrine is, in contrast with John McCain who’s a steadfast supporter:


But of course this begs the question of where we as progressives stand. My basic take is that real preemption — taking action against someone you know is planning to attack you is perfectly sensible. But wars of prevention — of “anticipatory self-defense” to use the Orwellian phrase Charlie Gibson picked up — are no good. The idea here is that there’s some country out there that we don’t like. And it’s weak, so we think we could win a war with it. But we think that at some future point it might be stronger. So we decide to attack first, before the balance of power shifts. This kind of thinking has not, historically, tended to pay off well for countries that engage in it. Just look at the United States in Iraq. I believe some scholars take the view that this is what Germany was doing in World War I — using the crisis touched off by Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination to deliberately provoke a war with Russia before Russia grew to strong — and obviously that didn’t work out well either.Beyond that kind of consideration of pure prudence there’s the fact that a generalized doctrine of unilateral preventive war clearly isn’t something anyone in the United States is prepared to accept as a universal principle. If India were to attack Pakistan tomorrow on preventive grounds, we would object. And if China were to attack India, we would object. But if we try to lay down a principle of international law whereby we can engage in unilateral speculative wars but nobody else can, they’re of course going to object in Beijing and New Delhi and Moscow and they’ll be quite right to do so.

The United States got along just fine from 1776–2001 without the Bush Doctrine, the failure to take more robust action against the Taliban in the final months of the Clinton administration and the beginning months of the Bush administration had nothing to do with the issues raised by the Bush Doctrine, and the one attempt to put the Bush Doctrine into place has proved to be a bloody and expensive disaster. Under the circumstances, I don’t see any need to entrench any such doctrine in place. The extent to which many people on the progressive side seem inclined to concede at least half a loaf to Bush on this issue continues to baffle me. Preventive war is what Harry Truman was resisting in his famous dispute with Douglas MacArthur, it’s the path JFK turned away from when he defused the Cuban Missile Crisis — it’s a far-right concept that traditionally no liberals and only some conservatives have been willing to endorse. It’d be one thing if people were having second thoughts in the face of a successful application in Iraq, but that’s not the case here.

Politics

McCain Issues A Challenge: ‘Nobody Can Name’ An Issue I Have Flip-Flopped On

On ABC’s The View today, host Joy Behar complained to John McCain that “you used to be more of the Maverick, then you sort of turned.” “In what way?” McCain asked. “You became much more lockstep, I think, with your party, with George Bush’s policies,” Behar answered, adding, “I don’t see the old John McCain. … I understand why — you want to get elected.” McCain issued this challenge in his defense:

I’ve been through this litany before, where I say, “ok, what specific area have I quote changed?” Nobody can name it. … I am the same person and I have the same principles.

McCain argued that on issues — “whether it be spending, whether it be climate change, whether it be the conduct of the war in Iraq, whether it be torture of prisoners” — he is “the same guy.” Watch it:

ThinkProgress has gladly taken up the McCain challenge. We’ve compiled a document that lists the policy areas on which McCain has changed his position.

The flip-flop document notes that McCain has changed his position even on the four areas he cited — spending, climate change, the war in Iraq, and torture of prisoners:

SPENDING: The McCain campaign has said that it will balance the budget by the end of McCain’s first time. But chief economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said McCain would balance the budget by the end of his second term.

CLIMATE CHANGE: In 1999, McCain opposed lifting the ban on offshore drilling, saying that it was just the “special interests in Washington” that advocated it. In 2008, McCain announced that “there are areas off our coasts that should be open to exploration and exploitation.”

IRAQ CONDUCT: He said in 2004 that Donald Rumsfeld was doing “a fine job” and was “an honorable man.” But by 2008, McCain was arguing that he was “the only one that said Rumsfeld had to go.”

TORTURE: In 2005, McCain pushed President Bush to sign a bill that would prohibit “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” of anyone in U.S. government custody. But in 2008, McCain voted against the Intelligence Authorization Bill, which requires the intelligence community to abide by the same standards as articulated in the Army Field Manual and bans waterboarding.

See our full document here. Steve Benen has compiled another flip-flop list here.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up