ThinkProgress Logo

Economy

Banking Lobby Standing In The Way Of Sens. Durbin And Bond’s Amendment To Credit Card Bill

creditcashA few weeks ago, the banking industry was able to kill off legislation that would have allowed bankruptcy judges to cram-down mortgage payments for troubled homeowners, leading Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) to proclaim that the banks “are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.”

Durbin is back at it again today, joining Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) to propose an amendment to the Credit Cardholder’s Bill of Rights that “would allow discounts for debit cards and ban retaliation against retailers who charge less for transactions that don’t involve credit cards,” which is somehow not prevented right now. And guess who is standing in the way, according to the Wall Street Journal:

Heavy pressure from banks could force lawmakers to shelve the measure Thursday to avoid sinking the broader bill.

Currently, merchants face penalties if they offer discounts to consumers who pay with cash or debit cards, and the banks and credit card companies want to preserve the status quo. Andrew Leonard summed up the situation like this:

I’m with Durbin, as is, I think, a large swath of the general public. How is it even possible that the banking industry could exert “heavy pressure” after having been bailed out by Congress to the tune of so many hundreds of billions? It is preposterous.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) has said that he hopes to have the complete credit card bill pass by next Friday.

Politics

Fox News pumps Tea Party 2.0.

Today, the Republican Governors Association (RGA) will be hosting a fundraiser teleconference with “thousands of right-wing activists” that they have dubbed “Tea Party 2.0.” Govs. Rick Perry (R-TX) and Mark Sanford (R-SC) plan to discuss how “our states’ rights are being trampled upon.” Just like the lead up to the last tea party event, Fox News plugged the event on air. Last night, Fox’s Greta Van Sustern introduced a segment on today’s even, saying, “If you wanted to go to a tea party on April 15 but could not make it or there was none in your hometown, tomorrow’s your big chance.” The chyron read, “TO SIGN UP FOR TEA PARTY 2.0 GO TO WWW.THEGOPCOMEBACK.COM”:

gopcomeback

Update

Van Sustern also plugged the Tea Party event today on her blog.

Yglesias

Ben Nelson is Tougher on Obama’s Nominees Then He Was on Bush’s

ben-nelson-nominate-500-1

Sam Stein has a nice piece laying out the extent to which Ben Nelson’s rough treatment of Dawn Johnson is inconsistent with his extreme deference to George W. Bush’s nominees:

Nelson’s history of support for Bush appointees is enough to produce heavy cynicism from his own party members when he discusses his opposition to Johnsen now. And in conversations with several Democratic strategists, a few theories were put forward. The first: that Nelson is likely waiting on some sort of quid-pro-quo from the Obama White House in exchange for his vote. After all, during the stimulus debate he was one of the last remaining hold outs, securing in the process some changes to the overall package. The second: that this is payback. As reported by Ryan Grim, the White House has bucked Nelson on one of his top legislative priorities, maintaining government support for the large student lending firms based in his state.

Part of the dynamic, I take it, is simply that there’s not much in the way of progressive strength on the ground in Nebraska. How many Nebraskans do you think have called Nelson’s office to support Dawn Johnson? Written letters? Not sure how many Nebraska-based readers I have, but in terms of getting congress to act, making your views known to your senator is an indispensable tool. If you do get in touch, you might mention that Nelson’s totally wrong about the student loans, too.

Politics

Fox News poll question asks whom the White House will ‘muzzle first’ — Biden or Bo.

foxnewswebbieA new Fox News poll out today shows President Obama’s approval rating holding steady at 60 percent. While the poll contained similar questions regarding current political events, such as Obama’s Supreme Court justice nominee and the torture memos, one question asked: “Who do you think the White House will put in a muzzle first — Vice President Joe Biden or First Dog Bo?”":

pollweb

Indeed, an accompanying Fox News article claimed that “Biden is known for his frequent groan-provoking gaffes. The poll hints at a possible solution for the White House.”

Yglesias

Spending Implies Taxation

The vacuity of right-wing thinking on climate change is really astounding. They know what the right conclusion is—no curbs whatsoever should be placed on the production of climate pollution—but they have a kaleidoscopic array of reasons why this is the right answer. This can lead to some serious nonsense, like this from Max Borders at The Next Right, who encourages the GOP to embrace some risky new ideas like this one:

Global Warming: “More Technology, No More Taxes” – We’re willing to fund sequestration technology. We’re willing to fund geo-engineering technology. We’re willing to use X-prize-type contests to do it. But we’re not willing to tax the American people as they rebound from a severe recession—for all for a hypothetical “crisis” that has never quite materialized.

There are lots of approaches to the climate crisis that deserve funding, from geo-engineering to concentrated solar thermal to carbon sequestration. But guess what it takes to finance new technology? Well, it takes funds. And funds come from taxes. So how about we get those funds by charging polluters for their emissions? Doesn’t that make more sense that funding clean energy priorities through generic taxes on labor or consumption?

Climate Progress

Deep In Denial, Smokey Joe Barton Unleashes Dirty Energy Plan

Our guest blogger is Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.

Joe BartonRep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, today unveiled a cynical Republican alternative to the clean energy jobs legislation being developed by committee Democrats. Barton is arguing that his legislation is a “viable alternative to a mandatory cap and trade plan” that sets economy-wide standards for global warming pollution.

In reality, it’s hardly a viable alternative — only something that can be presented as one. This is basically a PR stunt aimed at conning the public to stay stuck in the same dirty energy rut that is destroying our economy and environment.

The Barton plan summary I’ve reviewed includes such choice items as:

– Repealing the Supreme Court decision which said the US EPA could limit greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

– Preempting state authority to reduce climate-related emissions. This is a direct attack on California and other states that have sought to avert the threat of catastrophic global warming and create green jobs.

– Providing regulatory and financial rewards to coal-burning power plants that use “currently available technology.” In other words, more dirty coal-fired plants that kill and sicken our children and grandparents.

– Providing new subsidies for hazardous nuclear power plants.

– Defines nuclear power and advanced coal technology as “renewable.”

– Repealing “decoupling” mandates that reward utilities for reducing wasted energy.

– Promoting more oil drilling off the coasts and Luntzian “environmentally sensitive American energy exploration” in the Arctic wildlife refuge.

– Subsidizing climate-killer fuels produced from coal, oil shale, methane hydrates, and tar sands.

While not quite ignoring the threat of climate change, Barton’s bill does spit in the face of science. The bill includes a provision that establishes emissions performance standards for new coal plants — but “all existing generating facilities are grandfathered.” Unsurprisingly, Barton’s proposed standards are laughably weak, onlying require coal plants to be as efficient as less-polluting natural gas plants by 2030. This proposal, combined with the incentives for new drilling, the reversal of fuel economy standards, and promotion of highly polluting alternative fuels, would guarantee that U.S. emissions would continue to increase without bound for the foreseeable future.

Barton is just blowing smoke: new subsidies for oil, coal, and nuclear, rollbacks of environmental standards, Orwellian language, and denial of the science of climate change. Wasn’t eight years of planetary and economic destruction enough?

Download the summary of the Barton dirty energy plan.

Update

Joe Mendelson, director of global warming policy for the National Wildlife Federation, responds:

Rep. Barton, who’s received millions in campaign contributions from electric utilities and the oil and gas industries in recent years, has introduced a bill that’s nothing short of bailout for big polluters. We don’t need more fat paychecks for oil executives – we need clean energy jobs for Main Street. Americans don’t want a return to failed Dick Cheney-style energy policies. They want a new direction — one that repowers America’s economy with millions of clean energy jobs, breaks our dependence on oil and reduces the carbon pollution that causes global warming.

Politics

NH governor threatens to veto same-sex marriage bill without additional protections for religious groups.

Earlier this month, the New Hampshire House agreed to changes made by the state Senate to a same-sex marriage bill, sending the bill to Gov. John Lynch. But Lynch announced today that he would veto the bill “if it does not change before it gets to his desk.” Concerned about those who have religious objections to same-sex marriage, Lynch suggested changes that he would accept:

“This morning, I met with House and Senate leaders, and the sponsors of this legislation, and gave them language that will provide additional protections to religious institutions.

“This new language will provide the strongest and clearest protections for religious institutions and associations, and for the individuals working with such institutions. It will make clear that they cannot be forced to act in ways that violate their deeply held religious principles.

“If the legislature passes this language, I will sign the same-sex marriage bill into law. If the legislature doesn’t pass these provisions, I will veto it.

If Lynch signs the bill, New Hampshire would become the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Read Lynch’s proposed language here.

Media

Why is Charles Krauthammer a New Republic Contributing Editor?

krauthammer-1

I’ve noted previously that many New Republic writers seem to have an appropriately low opinion of Charles Krauthammer. Jonathan Chait, for example, once wondered “why Obama didn’t pick some conservatives with a bit more intellectual integrity than, say, [Bill] Kristol and [Charles] Krauthammer” to have dinner with. Today, Christopher Orr refers to “characteristic lawyerly sophistries that Krauthammer tries to sneak past readers.”

The weird thing about this is that Krauthammer is on The New Republic’s masthead as a contributing editor.

Now everyone should understand that contributing editor titles don’t imply that the person bearing them plays any actual role in the production of the magazine. And I don’t think Krauthammer has contributed any pieces to TNR since 2002 or 2003. But these titles are honorific—magazines often bestow them upon people who used to work there, as Krauthammer did, with whom they wish to be associated. That’s why Ryan Lizza and Peter Beinart and Robert Wright are all there on the masthead. But if folks at the magazine understand that Krauthammer is dishonest, then why this interest in associated themselves with him? There are very few things that can be done in the world to hold prominent media celebrities accountable once they ensconce themselves firmly in the bosom of the conservative movement. But denying them “contributing editor” titles at magazines that aren’t part of the conservative movement is one of those things.

Security

Conservatives And COIN: A Short-Term Marriage

petraeus1Ralph Peters’ latest cry for help supports a suspicion that I’ve long had about conservatives and counterinsurgency. For all of their praise of General Petraeus for having “turned Iraq around” using population-centric counterinsurgency (COIN) methods, (what COIN guru David Kilcullen has called “armed social work“) conservatives remain generally committed to the proposition that the best way to protect Americans from terrorism is to just go out into other countries and kill lots and lots of people.

Praising the promotion of former joint special operations chief Lt. Gen. Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Peters writes that “Petraeus’ deservedly lauded performance in Iraq appears to have inhibited his ability to think clearly about Afghanistan”:

[Petraeus] doesn’t seem to grasp that, while al Qaeda was a foreign and ultimately unwanted presence in Iraq, the Taliban’s the home team in Afghanistan. Afghan tribesmen just don’t share our interests. And Iraq’s a state. Afghanistan’s an accident. [...]

Will McChrystal, our special operator without peer, be allowed to do what’s necessary — and to jettison huggy-bear programs that sound good but don’t work? Can he focus on the destruction of our enemies?

While recognizing that violent kinetic operations such as those that McChrystal oversaw in Iraq are often an underplayed aspect of counterinsurgency — and McChrystal’s promotion strongly indicates that such operations will play a major role in Afghanistan — it’s important to note here that we spent a number of years doing “what’s necessary” in Iraq, (as Peters wrote so charmingly at the time, “if we can’t leave a democracy behind, we should at least leave the corpses of our enemies… Give therapeutic violence a chance.”) and only managed to incite a violent insurgency and midwife a sectarian civil war that killed tens of thousands and utterly changed the face of the country. Of course, Peters’ view was that we weren’t doing enough of “what’s necessary” — we just needed to do more of it, and harder.

He was, of course, proved wrong on that, just as were many on the other side like myself who were skeptical that any strategy conducted under the auspices of a U.S. occupation could actually succeed in bringing violence down. (It still remains to be seen, however, whether that strategy will result in a stable and unified Iraqi state.) While I think it’s correct to note the difference between Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan, it seems to me that the fact that the Taliban (or the various insurgent factions that are often carelessly referred to together as “the Taliban”) are more deeply embedded in Afghan society argues even more for a careful population- and governance-centric approach to isolate the irreconcilable hardcore from the reconcilable opportunists.

Peters’ basic argument, though, is that protecting the population was all fine and nice in Iraq, but in Afghanistan it’s time to get back to the KILLIN’. Add this to the tendency of people like Bill Kristol to diminish or dismiss the role that public relations and symbolism play in counter-terrorism and counterinsurgency and you really have to question whether they really understand or believe in the strategic approach that they’ve been hailing so vociferously for the past couple years. I have my own concerns about the Cult of COIN that’s been developing here in Washington, but I think it’s becoming clear that, for many pro-war conservatives, what Petraeus and the COINdinistas really deserve praise for is helping them save face.

Politics

Alberto Gonzales: ‘Empathy’ Means A Judge Saying ‘I Don’t Care What The Law Says’

Alberto Gonzales and George W. BushFollowing Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s announcement that he planned to retire, conservatives have attacked and mocked President Obama’s statement that he is seeking a replacement who has “empathy” for “the daily realities of people’s lives.” “I’ll give you empathy. Empathize right on your behind!” bellowed RNC Chairman Michael Steele last Friday.

Now, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is getting in on the act. Appearing on NPR’s Tell Me More yesterday, Gonzales claimed that he is “worried” that judges with empathy would make “decisions based on what they think makes them feel good”:

GONZALES: I do worry a little bit, well, I worry, I worry about about justices on the court making decisions based on what they think makes them feel good. I don’t think it’s fair to expect society to anticipate the outcome of a case based upon what makes a justice feel good. In essence what you’re saying, I think, is that I’m going to, I don’t care what the law says, I’m going to come out, I’m going to pursue an outcome that I think is fair and just. I’m going to rewrite the law. And I think that’s dangerous.

Listen here:

Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick skewered the ridiculousness of “the Republican war on empathy” this past Monday, noting that “When the president talks about empathy, he talks not of legal outcomes but of an intellectual and ethical process: the ability to think about the law from more than one perspective.” Lithwick points out that in their attack on empathy, the GOP is basically arguing for judicial “solipsism“:

Obama may be wrong that empathy is the single most important quality a jurist can possess. But his Republican detractors cannot possibly be right, or even wise, in suggesting that a judge who listens only to herself is preferable to a judge who both listens to others and also considers her impact on others.

Now, if the GOP really wants to run out on a rail anyone with empathy or anyone who values it, far be it from me to object. Democrats will be more than happy to feel their pain. But to the extent that the debate over empathy may shape every Supreme Court discussion we are going to have this summer, let’s just be clear that the opposite of empathy isn’t rigor. It’s pretty close to solipsism, or the certain conviction that everything you’ll ever need to know about judging you learned from your own fine self.

Gonzales is not in a strong position to criticize others who supposedly “don’t care what the law says.” During his many years of service to President Bush, Gonzales earned a reputation for “dogged obedience to the President, which often has come at the cost of institutional independence and adherence to the rule of law.” While serving Bush, Gonzales advised him that the Geneva Conventions were “obsolete” and may have lied to Congress about the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.

Transcript: Read more

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up