On Monday, a disastrous leak in one of the world’s largest pipeline systems gushed over 1 million gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo River, located in southwest Michigan. Think Progress has the story in this cross-post.
Pete Peterson Does Outreach to the Left
Pete Peterson, bête noir of Social Security advocates, does some outreach to the left in an interview with Benjy Sarlin of the Daily Beast:
On an ideological level, caricatures of Peterson as Grover Norquist-lite do not stand up to scrutiny. Peterson accurately noted to the Beast that he includes many dissenting views from the right and left at his events. The Fiscal Summit, for example, featured President Clinton and the chairmen of major progressive think tanks, the Center for American Progress, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and the Economic Policy Institute. And the America Speaks discussion group, despite its embarrassing correction, ended up finding participants in favor of protecting benefits and taxing the rich.
Peterson’s emphasis on entitlement cuts rankles progressives, but many of his recommendations for closing the budget gap would be perfectly at home in a Democratic administration. He favors a carbon tax to raise revenue and combat climate change, and advocates cuts to defense spending. Much like Obama, he identifies growing health-care costs as a bigger driver of red ink than Social Security and his proposed solution, weaning doctors off of a fee-for-service system, is in line with the ideas of Democratic wonks like Atul Gawande. He supports running up the short-term deficit to overcome the recession, including extending unemployment benefits. He begins most of his speeches with an attack on Republicans’ zealous obsession with tax cuts—a trend he’s been pushing against since the 1980s, when he decried Ronald Reagan’s supply-side economics.
I think it’s a disturbing fact about American politics and society that a lone billionaire with an obsession can have such an impact on elite political discourse. But politics is (sometimes) more complicated than black hats vs white hats and this is one of those situations.
Big Oil showdown in California: Weekly Prop 23 news
Black carbon soot threatens Sierra snow and CA water supply; Prop 23 jeopardizes CA cleantech sector
We’re starting a new (temporary) feature — a round-up of the latest news on the fossil fuel-funded Proposition 23 effort to repeal California’s clean energy and climate laws. We’ll also throw in some California-related global warming news, and a bonus NRDC video by the great Edward James Olmos.
Ohio coal company that backed Fiorina also gave to Prop. 23
Appalachian coal interests pump hundreds of thousands of dollars into political campaigns each election cycle, but hardly any of the money finds its way into California campaigns.
Megan McArdle Has No Idea What She’s Talking About, Global Warming Edition
Megan McArdle, the Atlantic Monthly blogger fond of making up nonsensical arguments about the economy, health care, and education policy, has waded into climate policy with similarly catastrophic results. In a critique of a Kevin Drum piece about new research on a warming-induced decline of global stocks of phytoplankton, McArdle claims he misses the point:
I actually think that Kevin misses the point a little: if this is true, 2% of GDP isn’t going to cut it. We’d better get back to an emissions level around 1940, or earlier, and stay there. Being that we now have about 2.5 times as many people in the country, and the world, as we did then, that’s going to be tricky.
Notwithstanding McArdle’s staggeringly ignorant post, climate policymakers have already considered this “tricky” challenge. The 2006 Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change estimated that stabilization at safe greenhouse levels would require investments of approximately one percent of GDP. In 2008, review author Sir Nicholas Stern argued the estimate should be raised to two percent of GDP because signs of increasing climate change necessitated faster action. Other economic estimates are in line with Stern, some even finding the investments could increase GDP growth.
So what emissions targets was Stern using? The Stern Review assumes eventual reductions of “more than 80% below current levels.” In 1940, global carbon dioxide emissions were about 4.8 gigatons. They’re now approximately 30 gigatons. So to get to “an emissions level around 1940″ would require an 85% reduction — in line with the Stern analysis (and every other serious economic analysis of global climate policy). McArdle’s supposed insight that deep cuts are needed is nothing new.
A blogger who had spent any effort understanding climate policy would recognize that the emerging challenge is not reaching an eventual low emissions level, but increasing the speed that emissions are cut while ensuring that natural carbon sinks and stores (like phytoplankton, the rain forests, and the permafrost) are not radically disrupted by the unavoidable warming of the coming decades.
In McArdle’s defense, her pseudo-expert folderol isn’t much worse than that being produced by the Congressional Budget Office.
By the way, McArdle’s insight that the population has increased since 1940 is also not news to climate policy makers. Just in case she’s wondering, the Stern analysis recognizes that “global population growth is likely to remain positive at least to 2050.”
McArdle also displays ignorance about China’s decision to institute a carbon cap-and-trade system and offers arguments against mass hysteria that are so dumb that they might encourage rational people to panic. But let’s leave those monumental works of mindless contrarianism as exercises for the reader.
Endgame
You’re only nineteen for God’s sake!
— Orszag retrospective.
— I still don’t know the answer to this question.
— July 2010 was the cruelest month for US soldiers in Afghanistan.
— Judicial confirmation rate tumbling in Obama era.
— Global warming is real.
— Dropping bombs is not an effective way of helping people.
— Democratic accountability, now with puppies.
Long Blondes, “Once and Never Again.”
Right-Wing Pundit Phyllis Schlafly Decries Government Assistance For ‘Unmarried Moms’
Over the past two months, many Republican pundits and members of Congress have been calling for the end of unemployment benefit extensions for the millions of Americans who can’t find work. Meanwhile, GOP Senators held the unemployment insurance (UI) extension bill hostage for weeks as 2.5 million Americans were left without the “desperately needed lifeline” of UI benefits. Even as five workers fight for every one job opening, Republicans are still calling the unemployed “spoiled” and suggesting that blocking benefits is fine because it only affects a “small amount of people.”
Last week at a fundraiser for Michigan GOP congressional candidate Rocky Raczowski, conservative pundit Phyllis Schlafly added her voice to the chorus crying out against government assistance for the poor or unemployed:
One of the things Obama’s been doing is deliberately trying to increase the percentage of our population that is dependent on government for your living. For example, do you know what was the second biggest demographic group that voted for Obama? Obviously the blacks were the biggest demographic, y’all know what was the second biggest? Unmarried women. 70% of unmarried women voted for Obama. And this is because when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have Big Brother Government to be your provider. And they know that. They’ve admitted it. And they have all kinds of bills to continue to subsidize illegitimacy…
The Obama administration wants to continue to subsidize this group because they know they are Democratic votes.
Listen:
Schlafly’s argument is specious. She talks about “subsidizing illegitimacy,” but not all single women are mothers. Less than 20 percent are mothers to young children. The rest include millions of widows, millions of young never-married women, and plenty in between — some of whom have kids, but most of whom do not.
The fact that programs like UI and food stamps help unmarried women is only a byproduct of the system designed to help everyone in need – men and women alike. In fact, men are receiving more UI benefits than women – the unemployment rate for men is a full 2.2 points higher than it is for women.
That didn’t stop Schlafly from doubling down on her falsehoods in an interview with TPM yesterday. “All welfare goes to unmarried moms,” she claimed. “They are trying to line up their constituency for Obama and Democrats against Republican candidates.”
Of course, government assistance goes to both genders. But moreover, considering that 84 percent of custodial single parents are mothers and a quarter of American children are being raised by unmarried mothers, supporting single women is critical for supporting children. As the Center for American Progress’ Liz Weiss puts it, “When single mothers lose their home, suffer from hunger, or can’t find a job, their children also lose their home, go hungry, or suffer from greatly reduced household resources.”
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
Schlafly: Obama Wants ‘Big Brother Government’ To ‘Subsidize Illegitimacy’
Over the past two months, many Republican pundits and members of Congress have been calling for the end of unemployment benefit extensions for the millions of Americans who can’t find work. Meanwhile, GOP Senators held the unemployment insurance (UI) extension bill hostage for weeks as 2.5 million Americans were left without the “desperately needed lifeline” of UI benefits. Even as five workers fight for every one job opening, Republicans are still calling the unemployed “spoiled” and suggesting that blocking benefits is fine because it only affects a “small amount of people.”
Last week at a fundraiser for Michigan GOP congressional candidate Rocky Raczowski, conservative pundit Phyllis Schlafly added her voice to the chorus crying out against government assistance for the poor or unemployed:
One of the things Obama’s been doing is deliberately trying to increase the percentage of our population that is dependent on government for your living. For example, do you know what was the second biggest demographic group that voted for Obama? Obviously the blacks were the biggest demographic, y’all know what was the second biggest? Unmarried women. 70% of unmarried women voted for Obama. And this is because when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have Big Brother Government to be your provider. And they know that. They’ve admitted it. And they have all kinds of bills to continue to subsidize illegitimacy…
The Obama administration wants to continue to subsidize this group because they know they are Democratic votes.
Listen:
Schlafly’s argument is specious. She talks about “subsidizing illegitimacy,” but not all single women are mothers. Less than 20 percent are mothers to young children. The rest include millions of widows, millions of young never-married women, and plenty in between — some of whom have kids, but most of whom do not.
The fact that programs like UI and food stamps help unmarried women is only a byproduct of the system designed to help everyone in need – men and women alike. In fact, men are receiving more UI benefits than women – the unemployment rate for men is a full 2.2 points higher than it is for women.
That didn’t stop Schlafly from doubling down on her falsehoods in an interview with TPM yesterday. “All welfare goes to unmarried moms,” she claimed. “They are trying to line up their constituency for Obama and Democrats against Republican candidates.”
Of course, government assistance goes to both genders. But moreover, considering that 84 percent of custodial single parents are mothers and a quarter of American children are being raised by unmarried mothers, supporting single women is critical for supporting children. As the Center for American Progress’ Liz Weiss puts it, “When single mothers lose their home, suffer from hunger, or can’t find a job, their children also lose their home, go hungry, or suffer from greatly reduced household resources.”
The Filibuster Undermines Democratic Accountability
I have a post up at Grist building off my remarks on the filibuster at Netroots Nation. You can also read contributions from Dave Roberts, David Waldman, Senator Tom Udall, and Mimi Marziani.
Florida Judge Throws Out Anti-Health Care Reform Ballot Measure Because Of ‘Manifestly Misleading’ Language
Last month, The Hill reported that Republicans in a number of states across the country were putting anti-health care reform measures on the ballot for the mid-term elections this year in order to bolster conservative voter turnout. “What we’re trying to do is give voters an added reason to show up to the polls,” said one South Carolina GOP official.
The GOP-led legislature in Florida put forward a measure to be included on this year’s ballot that would “prohibit the state from participating in any health insurance exchange that compels people to buy insurance.” But yesterday, Circuit Court Judge James Shelfer (who was appointed to a lower court by GOP Gov. Jeb Bush and elevated by current Gov. Charlie Crist) ordered that the proposed constitutional amendment be removed from the November ballot, calling the wording of the measure “manifestly misleading”:
State law requires ballot summaries to be clear and accurate. Circuit Court Judge James Shelfer said a proposed ballot summary for the amendment contains several phrases that are political and list issues that are not addressed in the proposal.
The first sentence of the summary says the amendment would “ensure access to health care services without waiting lists, protect the doctor-patient relationship, (and) guard against mandates that don’t work.”
Shelfer said the amendment does not guarantee any of those things.
“Someone voting on the amendment, reading those introductory statements would have a false understanding of what they were voting on,” he said in a ruling from the bench.
The plaintiffs in the case argued that the summary language referred to issues not addressed in the bill, including that the amendment “will ensure access to health care services without waiting lists,” and “protect the doctor-patient relationship” as well as “guard against mandates that don’t work.”
Meanwhile, next Tuesday, Missouri voters will vote on a similar measure challenging the health insurance mandate Congress passed with the reform bill last year. The proposal “would prohibit governments from requiring people to have health insurance or from penalizing them for paying health bills entirely with their own money.”
While the Missouri measure has a good chance of passing, health care opponents are increasingly facing an uphill battle. Critics and even supporters note that the ballot measures likely would not affect the national health care law because of the Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause” allowing federal law to trump state law. Moreover, recent public polling suggests Americans are increasingly supporting the health care overhaul.
Meg Whitman Believes Arizona Law ‘Should Stand For Arizona’
In June, California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman (R) reminded California Latino voters of her opposition to Arizona’s controversial immigration law in an ad that aired on the Spanish-language broadcast of the Mexico-France World Cup game. A few weeks ago, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Whitman had also put up billboards throughout the state saying she (would have) opposed Proposition 187 and opposes the controversial Arizona immigration law, SB-1070:
[No to Proposition 187 and no to SB-1070 in Spanish]
However, despite touting her opposition to SB-1070, Whitman told English-language talk show hosts this Wednesday that the law should be able to stand in Arizona. Whitman explained that the only reason she opposes implementing the Arizona law in California is because it is a “much bigger state with much bigger geography”:
You know, I’m running for the governor of California so I had to make a decision, does the Arizona law make sense for California? And I have said no, I don’t think the Arizona law makes sense for California because we have a much bigger state with much bigger geography. [...] Hey I understand that immigration is a federal issue, but I would say that the states have got to be able to decide what is right for the state, so I would let the Arizona law stand for Arizona. [...] My view is you gotta let the states do what they gotta do until the federal government proves they can secure these borders.
Listen here:
Whitman likely understands that she will have a hard time winning the general election without significant Latino support. However, she also built much of her tough primary campaign around an image that portrayed her as a tough immigration hawk. The catch is that most Latino voters in California understand Spanish and English. In fact, 33.4 to 73.5% of California’s foreign born Latino population is proficient in English.
Whitman’s stance on Proposition 187 is also a contradiction in itself. During her primary campaign, Whitman released an ad featuring former Gov. Pete Wilson (R-CA) who affirmed that Whitman will be “as tough as nails” on immigration. Wilson’s endorsement might have scored some points with right-wingers, but it also meant a lot to California Latinos who remember him backing Proposition 187 — an Arizona type law that was ultimately deemed unconstitutional. The law never really went into effect, but Republicans are still hurting from it. After 1994, Latino voters helped California Democrats win every presidential, U.S. Senate, and gubernatorial election until 2003. Allan Hoffenblum, a longtime Los Angeles-based GOP strategist is worried about the potential fallout from Whitman’s primary campaign. “This is bringing back all the fears that the Republican Party is a white man’s party,” Hoffenblum told Politico. “It’s depressing.” Wilson now serves as campaign chairman for Whitman.
In her interview, Whitman also claimed that the stimulus package has not created jobs and bragged that the tea party “likes” her “fiscal conservatism.”
