ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

House GOP all vote to protect Big Oil subsidies

By Joe Romm on Mar 1, 2011 at 4:57 pm

House Republicans voted in lockstep this afternoon to protect corporate welfare for Big Oil, even as they call for draconian cuts to programs that everyday Americans depend on each day.  ThinkProgress has the story.

As the House of Representatives moved toward approving a stopgap resolution to avert a government shutdown for another two weeks, Democrats offered a motion to recommit that would have stripped the five largest oil companies of taxpayer subsidies, saving tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds.

Read more

Climate Progress

Annual Letter from Bill Gates silent on climate change

By Joe Romm on Mar 1, 2011 at 4:49 pm

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s largest private foundation, aims to help billions of people in developing countries.  The goal of its Global Development Program is “increase opportunities for people in developing countries to overcome hunger and poverty.”  Their Global Health Program “harnesses advances in science and technology to save lives in poor countries.”

I have been critical of their strategy before (see “Can the problems of the developing world be solved by ignoring global warming?“).  And Bill Gates’ annual letter this year does nothing to increase confidence.

There is no mention of global warming or climate change at all.  Indeed, the discussion of agriculture contains this rather naively Panglossian statement:

Read more

Politics

House GOP Says ‘So Be It’ To Taxpayers, Votes Unanimously to Protect Big Oil Subsidies

By Josh Dorner on Mar 1, 2011 at 4:45 pm

House Republicans voted in lockstep this afternoon to protect corporate welfare for Big Oil, even as they call for draconian cuts to programs that everyday Americans depend on each day.  As the House of Representatives moved toward approving a stopgap resolution to avert a government shutdown for another two weeks, Democrats offered a motion to recommit that would have stripped the five largest oil companies of taxpayer subsidies, saving tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds.  The motion failed on a vote of 176-249, with all Republicans voting against (approximately a dozen Democrats joined the GOP). A similar vote two weeks ago to recoup $53 billion in taxpayer funds from Big Oil was also voted down, largely along party lines. The former CEO of Shell Oil, John Hoffmeister, recently said Big Oil doesn’t need subsidies “in face of sustained high oil prices.”  From 2005 to 2009, the largest oil companies have made a combined $485 billion in profits.

Alyssa

Hollywood Boulevard Grit

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Mar 1, 2011 at 4:32 pm

Turns out we’re not getting a television show based on Nikki Finke’s life. Given how reclusive the famous Hollywood blogger is (for those not familiar, a real picture of her hasn’t been published in years, and she recently freaked out when it turned out Rupert Murdoch’s iPad publication, The Daily, might have a current one), I don’t know what the show would have been able to show her doing, other than working the phone and maybe interacting with a small handful of friends and sources.

And frankly, judging by the failure of Dirt, I’m not sure how interested ordinary viewers actually are in the inner workings of Hollywood industry:

Sure, we’re interested in actors and actresses and the gaps between the people the play on screen and who they really are, and their spectacular falls from grace. But I don’t know that there’s really much interest in the people who make money off of those revelations and narratives. Ari Gold is interesting because he’s a star-maker, not a star-chronicler. We don’t see shows about producers and writers and financiers, much less tabloid editors and industry reporters. The universe of people who are very interested in people like Nikki Finke is pretty small. And while I’d be interested in interviewing her for a story, I’m vastly more interested in her output than in her day-to-day, the reverse of how we feel about famous people, whose ordinary routines can eclipse their art.

Yglesias

Chris Dodd Cashing In With The Movies

By Matthew Yglesias on Mar 1, 2011 at 4:29 pm

There was pretty overwhelming sentiment that Chris Dodd would find his post-Senatorial career as some kind of lobbyist for the insurance or finance industries, so I’m pretty surprised to learn that he’ll be heading up the Motion Picture Association of America instead. Apparently “the job will require Mr. Dodd to push a Hollywood agenda in Washington that includes a more aggressive governmental stance against piracy and prodding China to lift limits on the distribution of Western movies.”

China should, in fact, lift limits on the distribution of Western movies and the US government ought to press them to do it.

As for “piracy,” I think the recent murder of Americans by actual Somali pirates should drive home how absurd it is to analogize unauthorized copying of a non-rival good to violent kidnapping and robbery. Nobody dies when you download a copy of Little Fockers. So it’s always worth asking what pressing social problem stepped up anti-infringement measures are intended to solve. Is America a country with an unusually low violent crime rate, such that it makes sense to divert more law enforcement resources away from such matters? Do Americans have too much disposable income, so we’re looking to raise the cost of entertainment? It’s actually quite true that real wages for movie stars have been declining in recent years, so maybe this is the issue Dodd wants to address.

LGBT

Anti-Gay Groups In New Hampshire, Iowa Plan Litmus Test For 2012 Candidates

By Igor Volsky on Mar 1, 2011 at 4:10 pm

On Friday, the New York Times ran a story suggesting that, given the growing societal support for extending marriage to gays and lesbians, that wedge issue may be losing its edge among likely voters in 2012. But a quick look at the issues facing the early election states of New Hampshire and Iowa reveals that gay rights could quickly move to the forefront of the primary season, forcing the potential Republican presidential candidates to harden their support for anti-gay initiatives:

In New Hampshire, where the GOP now holds veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate, legislative leaders recently decided to postpone action until next January on a high-profile bill to repeal same-sex marriage rights. The debate, which clogged hearing rooms and dominated Granite State headlines earlier in the month, is now scheduled to re-emerge at roughly the same time as the state’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary.

Cornerstone will ask each Republican presidential candidate to sign a pledge agreeing marriage should be between one man and one woman.

“Why not try to leverage the influence of the candidates to get them to declare their support for traditional marriage?” Smith said. “If you have a candidate saying they’re not willing to oppose same-sex marriage, I think they’ll have a problem. … We have a wide membership list. We’ll certainly let them know.”

Bob Vander Plaats, who leads Iowa’s Family Leader, largely agrees marriage is a “hot topic.”

“I think there is real momentum,” he said of the push to fight gay marriage. His group, the Iowa equivalent of Cornerstone, is already hosting 2012 candidates for a speaker series, and marriage is suddenly back on the radar.

“I support the notion that we, as a society, should continue to elevate traditional marriage, that it should remain as between a man and a woman, and that all other domestic relationships are not the same as traditional marriage,” Republican Tim Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor, said when addressing the audience at the Family Leader series this month.

Public support for anti-gay initiatives in Iowa and New Hampshire seems to be waning, however. A new poll suggests that a majority of Iowans support same-sex marriage or don’t care one way or the other. According to the Des Moines Register, “when asked whether they favored or opposed the recent Iowa Supreme Court decision that allowed gay and lesbian couples to marry in that state, 30 percent said they just don’t care much one way or the other, while 37 percent opposed or strongly opposed the court ruling and 32 percent favored it or strongly favored it.” Similarly, in New Hampshire, a recent University of New Hampshire poll found 62% of New Hampshire voters are opposed to repealing the marriage law.

Still, it’s hard to see how any of this results in a general election win for the GOP. Any great focus on gay issues among the primary electorate would likely distract from the economic message and elevate the candidacies of fringe candidates (like Bachmann or Santorum) who are unlikely to prevail in 2012.

Politics

House Democrats Call For ChamberLeaks Investigation

By Scott Keyes on Mar 1, 2011 at 3:47 pm

Three weeks ago, ThinkProgress released an exclusive investigation into the surreptitious dirty tricks campaign orchestrated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s lobbyists, a scandal now known as ChamberLeaks. Leaked emails showed that the Chamber hired lobbying firm Hunton & Williams, who then solicited three private security firms to investigate and smear the Chamber’s political opponents, including ThinkProgress, the labor coalition Change to Win, the SEIU, US Chamber Watch, and StopTheChamber.com. Their tactics included creating a “false document” and a “fake insider persona” to infiltrate and discredit adversaries. The private security firms — HBGary Federal, Palantir, and Berico Technologies (collectively called Team Themis) — also proposed targeting opponents’ families, including circulating photos of their children, addresses, places of worship, and other personal information.

After the plot was exposed, the Chamber denied any involvement or knowledge of the plan. However, as ThinkProgress documented, a plethora of emails contradict their denials.

Now that the severity of the plot has come into focus, Congress may soon get involved. Today, 20 House Democrats, led by Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), called for an investigation into the ChamberLeaks scandal, noting that Hunton & Williams appear to have orchestrated “a ‘dirty-tricks’ campaign that included possible illegal actions against citizens engaged in free speech.” Johnson wants to examine whether these “subversive techniques” which were discussed in the leaked emails were “developed at U.S. government expense to target terrorists and other security threats.”

Indeed, ThinkProgress’ report detailed how the tactics revealed in this plot are “typically reserved for use against terrorist groups.” After all, Johnson notes, “it is deeply troubling to think that tactics developed for use against terrorists may have been unleashed against American citizens.”

The letter, which is being sent to the chairmen of four relevant House Committees – Oversight and Government Reform, Judiciary, Armed Services, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence – notes that beyond the political ramifications of the Chamber’s lobbying firm targeting opponents, federal crimes may have been committed as well:

Given evidence of their proposal to infiltrate computer systems, discredit and disrupt the operations of U.S. advocacy groups, Team Themis and Hunton and Williams may have conspired to carry out or previously carried out actions in violation of federal law, including:

• Forgery under 10 USC §923

• Mail and Wire Fraud under 18 USC §1341 and 18 USC §1343

• Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers 18 USC §1030

The letter concludes by stating that the leaked emails and documents “provide a window into a deeply concerning set of circumstances, but not all of the facts are known. We believe it is therefore incumbent upon the Committee to investigate this matter thoroughly and with the utmost urgency.”

ThinkProgress reached out to Reps. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Mike Rogers (R-MI), and Howard McKeon (R-CA), chairmen of the relevant committees, for comments on the proposed investigation. We will post an update if they respond.

View a timeline of the ChamberLeaks scandal composed by the Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson here.

Full text of the letter, after the jump.
Read more

Yglesias

The Kochs and the Commons

By Matthew Yglesias on Mar 1, 2011 at 3:30 pm

Charles Koch claims to be very upset about “crony capitalism” (albeit willing to benefit from it personally), but the real triumph of the Koch Brothers and their ilk is in branding the line of work they’re in as any kind of capitalism at all.

Suppose I had a business where what I do is find people who live in flood prone areas and threaten to wreck their houses unless they pay me money. That would be called an extortion racket, not capitalism. I don’t own those people’s houses. Real capitalism requires the government to restrain me from knocking the houses down. Similarly, I can’t just stand in the middle of a busy intersection, cause a traffic jam, and then shout “free market” when the cops try to take me away. After all, I don’t own the intersection any more than I own your house. So what about Koch Industries and its substantial fossil fuel interests. Do they own the air? Do they own the homes of people in flood-prone areas? To the best of my knowledge, that’s not the case. Charles Koch no more owns the air than I own his house or the interstate highway system. So why is “Koch Industries is allowed to spew whatever it wants into the air” considered a free market position? In part, it’s a misunderstanding. But to a much larger extent it’s a branding triumph. The basic point about pollution and regulation was understood by classical economists and political theorists, was understood by Hayek, is understood by right-of-center politicians in Europe, etc. But in America, things are different, and that’s in large part a triumph of some very self-interested philanthropy.

Someone who took the ideas of private property and free markets seriously would be jumping up and down with his head on fire about coal and oil companies wrecking an atmosphere they don’t own and refuse to pay for.

Health

Republican Governors Harden Opposition To Obama’s Flexibility Amendment

By Igor Volsky on Mar 1, 2011 at 3:25 pm

The Republican governors appearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee this morning rejected calls for opting out of the state-federal Medicaid program, an idea initially floated by the Heritage Foundation and temporarily embraced by Texas Governor Rick Perry (R). “I can’t imagine Mississippi opting out of Medicaid. We’re a poor state and it’s an important program,” Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS) said. Gov. Gary Herbert (UT) agreed, “we have no plans to opt out of Medicaid,” he added.

The two Republican witnesses — Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick was the sole Democrat on the panel — also largely dismissed President Obama’s endorsement of an amendment that would allow states to meet certain coverage and cost benchmarks, suggesting that the measure provides faux flexibility. Bot Barbour and Herbert complained that they would still have to comply with the yet-to-be defined minimum benefits package requirement:

BARBOUR: “The devil is in the details, but the thing that concerns me is that the things that are in the statute, we’re told, the states would still have to do….and if we get saddled with a standard benefits package like Massachusetts, that’s why our employers will drop coverage. Because their premiums will skyrocket. So if it doesn’t give us relief from that or similar things, it’s not much help.”

HERBERT: “How flexible is flexible? It’s clearly not absolute flexibility. This is not a block grant, do as you see fit. It is a maintenance of effort still required. The essential benefits package stays the same, the eligibility for Medicaid still is there. So if you get the outcomes that we say to you state, then we got flexibility and that really is not flexibility.”

As Politico’s Sarah Kliff points out, Herbert was far more receptive to the amendment yesterday, telling Kliff that the president’s speech was a “step in the right direction.” “I’m hopeful it’s going to lead better discussions of understanding about flexibility,” he said yesterday.

His positioned hardened this morning, but it’s no less accurate. Under the law, states can apply for a whole host of waivers from the Medicaid program and Part I of subtitle D of the Affordable Care Act, the establishment of a qualified health plan — which includes the essential health benefits requirements.

The larger point here, however, is that if conservative lawmakers really had a plan to expand access to insurance or lower health care costs, they would presumably be proudly touting these ideas and if they didn’t fall within the confines of the innovation mandate, the governors would be requesting waivers from the federal government (as some progressive states are now doing in an effort to enact single-payer health care reform). But during today’s hearing Republicans paid lip service to the importance of flexibility but did not detail what they planned to do with that new found freedom or how those ideas can meet the coverage or cost benchmarks set forward in the Affordable Care Act.

Yglesias

An Army Marches On Its Stomach

By Matthew Yglesias on Mar 1, 2011 at 2:46 pm

Kristen Hinman on the US military’s unhealthy meal plans:

Take the Army. Its food program mandates that soldiers have access to eggs-made-to-order, three types of bread, three types of meat, six kinds of cereal, no fewer than one potato dish, and at least one pastry at breakfast alone. At least two hot entrees, with one sauce or gravy, must be offered at lunch and dinner, along with a deli bar featuring three types of meat; a short-order grill with four items; “two additional hot short-order entrees (pizza, fried chicken, and so forth)”; French fries; onion rings; assorted chips and pretzels, and at least four desserts. These are minimum standards. The Marine Corps is much the same. Chocolate milk is mandated at every Marine meal, and four types of soda must flow at lunch and dinner. Marine bases with funds available for takeout containers are encouraged to serve hamburgers, cheeseburgers, hot dogs, and French fries from the griddle at lunch, dinner and breakfast.

This all-you-can-eat style of chow-hall is a relatively new model. For most of the 20th century, the menus were more Spartan, with one or two options for meat, starch, and vegetables. But after the draft was rescinded, military brass began to think of service members more like customers; a certain quality of life was considered necessary to keeping a fast-food nation enlisted, and the food-court model took over. At the same time, a parallel food universe evolved alongside the government-funded mess halls. Franchises like Taco Bell and KFC moved onto bases; vending machines stocked with candy and energy drinks were installed in barracks. After the Iraq war began in 2003, fast food became available in combat zones.

I feel like there’s something oddly unserious about an imperial project that involves the construction of a TGI Friday’s in Kandahar.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up