ThinkProgress Logo

Economy

Republicans Vow To Secure ‘Priority’ Infrastructure Funding They Voted Against

Memorial Bridge

The Senate last week failed to pass H.R. 1, the House Republican-approved bill that set spending levels for the rest of 2011, by a 44-56 vote. All but three Republicans (who didn’t think the bill cut enough government spending) voted aye.

Amongst H.R. 1′s many destructive and economically counterproductive measures is a provision rescinding unobligated money from the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery II, or TIGER II, grant program. The program is designed to deliver competitive grants to states for high-need infrastructure projects.

Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) voted for H.R. 1, and thus to dismantle TIGER II, but is still asking the Department of Transportation to give a Tiger II grant to a bridge refurbishing project in her state, calling it “the No. 1 transportation priority” for New Hampshire:

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., wants Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to speed up the review process so her state can get its $20 million, one-fifth the cost of replacing a bridge from Portsmouth, N.H., to Kittery, Maine. “This is the No. 1 transportation priority for New Hampshire and Maine as well,” Ayotte said in an interview.

Both of Maine’s Republican senators — Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins — also voted for H.R. 1, but are still trying to secure funding for the bridge project. Two other New Hampshire Republicans — Reps. Frank Guinta and Charlie Bass — voted for H.R. 1, but have said that they want the bridge funding. “Clearly, the Memorial Bridge in Portsmouth should be a priority for the New Hampshire delegation to preserve,” Bass said.

During an appearance before Congress last week, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood explained that voting for H.R 1 would mean eliminating these infrastructure projects. “We just want to make sure everybody understands that,” LaHood said.

But its not only Granite state’s Republicans that want funding they voted against. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who voted against H.R. 1, still wants a rail project in Fort Wayne funded. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) also voted to kill the grant program, but still wants a Salt Lake City streetcar project to receive funding. “This is a rail system that really is needed and has been promised, and I think it ought to be granted,” Hatch said.

Of course, Republicans have had no compunctions about first voting against infrastructure money and then taking credit for it back home. In fact, 114 different GOP lawmakers voted against the 2009 Recovery Act, yet took credit for various projects. Overall, the Republican spending bill “cuts funding for transportation infrastructure by 9 percent, slashing $2.7 billion from rail, $675 million from federal transit investments, and nearly $1 billion from highway investments.”

Politics

After Leaving Senate Because Of ‘Too Much Partisanship,’ Former Sen. Evan Bayh Takes Job At Fox News

When former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) surprised Washington one year ago and announced his decision not to seek re-election, he blamed “too much partisanship and not enough progress — too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving.” Bayh said that “what we need to do is come together as a people and solve the problems facing our country.”

Today, the Huffington Post reports that Bayh has taken a job at Fox News Channel:

Fox News is expected to announce Monday afternoon that former Indiana Senator Evan Bayh will become a contributor to the network, The Huffington Post has learned.

Bayh will be a commentator and political analyst across all of Fox News’ platforms.

Bayh joins a network that, in just the past week, compared Muslims to mafia members, characterized unions as one giant “kickback system” and union members as “violent,” “rabid leftists,” “howling liberals,” and which has been actively encouraging a government shutdown.

In an interview last year, Bayh said he wasn’t sure what he would do once he left the Senate. “If I could help educate our children at an institution of higher learning, that would be a noble and worthy thing. If I could help a charity or a philanthropic activity, cure a disease, or do something else worthwhile for society, that’s what has motivated my life.” He also said he wanted to help create jobs.

Bayh has indeed succeeded in creating jobs, for himself. In addition to his Fox News position, Bayh accepted a job at Apollo Global Management, a multi-billion dollar private equity firm, and also McGuireWoods LLP, a D.C. lobbying firm that engages on banking and climate change legislation, on behalf of “well-heeled” clients.

Yglesias

Conservatives Against Markets

My colleague Michael Conathan writes about the problem of declining fish stocks:

I’m not very knowledgeable about this subject, but one idea that comes to mind pretty obviously is some kind of property rights in the fish. Tradable permits that would create incentives to conserve. Right now, you own a fish if you’ve caught it, but nobody owns it if it’s in the ocean, so the incentives all pont toward overfishing. But according to Conathan, House Republicans are against this idea:

Something must be done. But what? Some groups, including NMFS, have begun touting a cap-and-trade style management system known as “catch shares” as a cure for the industry’s ills. Under this system the total amount of fish available is divided and doled out to fishermen by percentages based on their catch histories, providing an ownership incentive to protect the long-term health of the resource.

Such a framework, though, often comes with more questions than answers. And in fact the House of Representatives passed an amendment to its recent spending bill for fiscal year 2011, filed by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), that would prevent any federal funding from being used to develop new catch share programs.

The mainstream view on the American right is, I guess, that it’s just not conceivable to do anything at all to try to prevent depletion of natural resources.

Climate Progress

The Stern Interview, Part Three: CBO Analysis Of Climate Threat Is ‘Ludicrous’

The third in a three-part interview with economist Nicholas Stern on climate policy. Read the first part, in which he argued that failure to address global warming could eventually lead to World War Three; and the second part, in which he discusses how action will lead to a new industrial revolution.

In 2009, Congressional Budget Office director Doug Elmendorf testified that “a relatively pessimistic estimate” for the economic impact of warming of 4°C by 2100 would be three percent of U.S. GDP. With even more radical warming of 6°C (11°F), the impact would be five percent, he said. In an exclusive interview with ThinkProgress, leading climate economist Nicholas Stern found Elmendorf’s testimony to be “ludicrous”:

I think that’s ludicrous. And it’s not clear what the real foundations of those kinds of estimates are. That would be saying that living in conditions which we haven’t seen for 30 million years on this planet would involve just minor adjustments.

Watch it:

Elmendorf based his testimony on a sectoral analysis of the impacts of climate change. Climate costs would primarily be felt, he argued, in fields like agriculture, power production, and infrastructure, which are a very small percent of US GDP. With future economic growth expected to be concentrated in areas like information technology and health care that are “relatively insulated from climate effects,” Elmendorf claimed that effects of climate change on the U.S. economy would be “small,” citing economists Dale W. Jorgenson, William D. Nordhaus, and Joseph Boyer. Stern described these arguments as “very narrow and misplaced view of the economics of climate change”:

I can understand the arguments. I’ve read them. But I don’t think they really stack up in relation to the huge changes that we’d be trying to deal with. You would likely have massive movements of population. You’d have potential sea level rises, although they come quite slowly of course, but they come inexorably, which would start to make many parts of the coast of the US untenable, just like other countries. You’d have potentially massive movements of population, in the case of the northern hemisphere, away from the equator and northwards, and potentially enormous world conflict.

And I simply don’t think that a sectoral analysis which extrapolates a little bit from the kind of temperature changes that we’ve seen gets to grips with the transformation of the world economy likely to come from 4, 5, 6 degrees C and the massive movements of people that are likely to be involved.

So running through the various sectors of the economy and knocking off a few percent here and there hardly gets to grips with the kind of transformation of the geography of the world. We have to see this as a whole-scale transformation of the relationship between human beings and the planet and the consequence of massive movements and potential conflict. We haven’t seen movements of the population of the kind we’re talking about here.

So, you know, a little bit of mucking about with a percentage here and there with this sector and that sector doesn’t really begin to come to grips with the magnitude of the kind of changes we’d be talking about. That seems to me to be a very narrow and misplaced view of the economics of climate change. It doesn’t get to grips with the magnitude of the risk. It doesn’t get to grips with the dynamic and unstable changes that would come as a result of all this. It’s a very narrow view of economics on the most optimistic of possible outcomes.

The failure of the economics profession to come to grip with the clear science of climate change is a scandal that far outstrips its cheerleading of the housing bubble and other financial disasters. As previously discussed in the Wonk Room, conventional economics not only fails to accurately assess the threat of global warming, but also totally misrepresents the economic impact of taking action. Economic textbooks promote utterly false myths about climate change.

Even climate economists like Lord Stern and Martin Weitzman, who together earned the Leontief economic prize last week from the Tufts University Global Development and Environment Institute for moving the profession away from utter denial, consistently underestimate the consequences of climate change that are already occurring.

Update

The Economist‘s Ryan Avent responds:

Environmentalists and economists are fundamentally on the same side, supporting the use of data and the scientific method to reach reasonable, peer-reviewed conclusions and appropriate policy recommendations. Their differences are nothing in comparison to the gulf between those who prefer that peer-reviewed research inform a policy debate and those who’d rather cite email forwards. Until a way can be found to convince deniers to appreciate the reality of the situation, inter-disciplinary bickering is mostly a waste of time.

Alyssa

Shameful Secrets

So, um, I might, on occasion, sorta be watching Glee again. It’s not a regular thing, just recreational. I swear.

I should be clear that I don’t think the show is good. It’s shallow, schizophrenic, and preachy. But the music can be pretty good. And Naya Rivera and Heather Morris just broke my heart in this rendition of “Landslide” (do your best to enjoy the slumming Academy Award winner who thinks she can sing):

The two girls are not just a rich study of conflicted teenaged sexuality: they’re Glee‘s most powerfully plausible couple. And in a way, even more than the depiction of Kurt, I think that’s critical. Their relationship started as a joke, to viewers, and to them. And it’s become the linchpin for some of the saddest, truest scenes I’ve watched in the show. Both our expectations and the characters’ were turned on us, and it’s surprisingly affecting.

Yglesias

Former Senator Evan Bayh To Pair Lobbying With Conservative Television Punditry

History's Greatest Monster

When he first announced that he was stepping down from the United States Senate, Evan Bayh cited a lot of high-minded reasons for the decision. So high-minded was his talk that Ezra Klein was moved to remark that “Evan Bayh might have been an ordinary politician, but he’s proving an extraordinary retiree.” It turned out, however, that his main plan was to get rich as a lobbyist. Today we learn that he’ll also be acquiring a secondary gig as a conservative television pundit:

Bayh will be a commentator and political analyst across all of Fox News’ platforms. He was a Senator from 1999 to 2011, where he became one of the more prominent conservative Democrats in the chamber. He was also the Governor of Indiana from 1989 to 1997. Bayh considered running for the presidency in 2008, but ultimately decided against it.

Note that there’s considerable synergy between Bayh’s job at McGuireWoods LLP and his Fox gig. This way business enterprises hoping for regulatory favors or subsidies from the federal government can hire McGuireWoods not only to take advantage of Bayh’s influence and knowledge on the Hill, they’ll also be gaining on on-air television spokesman, presumably one whose client affiliations won’t be disclosed to the viewing public. And since as best we can tell Fox has no journalistic standards, it’ll be an ideal venue for peddling whatever nonsense he likes.

Politics

Virginia GOP Use Emergency Rule To Impose Anti-Abortion Rules, May Force 17 Of 21 Clinics To Close

In their battle against a woman’s right to choose, anti-choice Republicans have adopted a new tactic to enforce their agenda: deem any anti-choice bill an “emergency.” In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry (R) saddled a forced sonogram bill with an “emergency item” status to allow the state GOP to drive it through the legislature “within the first 30 days of the current legislative session.”

Virginia Republicans are now following suit. Last month, the Virginia legislature passed a bill requiring the state’s 21 abortion clinics to be regulated like hospitals. Currently, the clinics — which handle only first-trimester abortions — are subject to “the same regulations as physician practices that perform any number of invasive procedures” like cataract surgery, spinal taps, or plastic surgery. But the health bill now before Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) mandates hospital regulations that “would compel them to undergo retrofitting of their facilities that at least 17 of them could not afford” and that would ultimately force them to close.

But to make sure of this result, the anti-choice bill also “triggers the state’s emergency regulatory process,” meaning that the new regulations must be written “no more than 280 days” after McDonnell signs the bill into law. This process would give the State Board of Health only one chance to weigh in on regulations that “longtime opponent of abortion” McDonnell will essentially write, alter, and implement however he chooses:

The emergency rule writing process significantly expands the power of the health department and gubernatorial staff in writing the regulations.

It means the Board of Health — which at present includes eight members appointed by Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine (D) — has just one opportunity to formally weigh in before rules go into place. It will occur Sept. 15, when the group reviews, amends and ultimately votes on a draft of new rules written by staff members.

Once adopted by the Board of Health, the emergency regulations can still be altered by McDonnell, who will consult with the Department of Planning and Budget and Attorney Gen. Ken Cuccinelli (R). [Health Commissioner Karen] Remley told board members that Mc­Don­nell will sign the regulations by January 1, after which they will go into effect.

McDonnell’s Health Department official Joe Hilbert pointed out that, after the board weighs in, the regulations will be subject to “executive review” by Virginia’s radically right-wing AG Ken Cuccinelli (R), who has been pushing this bill for years, and the McDonnell administration. Hilbert said “there is no public comment period to review any changes made during the executive review,” nor does the board get to vote on the revisions before the regulations are implemented Jan. 1, 2012.

Anti-abortion activists will also get another leg-up from an “influx” of McDonnell’s appointees to the Virginia Board of Health. Already, McDonnell has named 6 of the board’s 14 members. He will fill the 15th member vacancy in the coming months, and replace another member whose term ends June 30. With that, McDonnell’s eight appointments will outnumber the board members chosen by the former governor and give McDonnell “expansive power to shape clinic rules.”

All this is orchestrated,” said NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia’s Tarina Keene. “The governor can have just as much power over this as he wants to,” she added. And while the McDonnell can make unilateral choices regarding women’s reproductive rights, the GOP’s “emergency” maneuver makes sure Virginia women don’t have any.

Security

Iraq’s Real Consequences Vs. Libya’s Potential Consequences

Staring into his magic neocon 8-Ball, Jackson Diehl writes that Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi’s “scorched-earth campaign to save himself has not only stopped and partially reversed the advance of rebel forces on Tripoli during the past two weeks; it has done the same to the broader push for Arab democracy”:

If he survives, the virus of repressive bloodshed and unyielding autocracy could flow back through the region.

Maybe it already has. Egypt has seen dangerous outbursts of violence the past couple of weeks, including sectarian clashes between Muslims and Christians. Security forces in Yemen have attacked crowds in the capital, Sanaa, with live ammunition twice in the past week, and violent clashes have resumed between security forces and protesters in Bahrain.

Pro-democracy forces outside of Egypt and Tunisia have stalled. Algeria and Morocco have gone quiet. In Saudi Arabia on Friday, a “day of anger” advertised for weeks on Facebook failed to produce a significant turnout. And there has been no sign of rebellion in the Arab country whose dictatorship rivals Gaddafi’s for ruthlessness: Syria.

This is, to put it charitably, unconvincing. While it’s true that Qaddafi’s eventual survival or non-survival, and the manner in which that’s achieved, will impact the calculations of authoritarian rulers in the region and the world, it’s fortune telling of the most arcane sort to suggest that the failure of the international community to step in and remove Qaddafi has caused the Middle East revolutions to stall. As if to refute his own point, Diehl quotes “one well-informed source” who lists a number of obstacles to Egyptian democratic reform — none of which have anything to do with Qaddafi.

But what’s really interesting here is this: Jackson Diehl, a huge supporter of the Iraq war, has, as far as I know, never acknowledged any of the war’s numerous negative consequences (which my colleagues and I detailed in a report last year, The Iraq War Ledger). These are not theoretical consequences, but real, actually existing consequences. It’s very hard for me to take seriously Diehl’s warnings of the possible consequences of non-intervention in Libya when he himself has yet to acknowledge the real, actually existing consequences of intervention in Iraq.

Especially when he finishes up his piece by suggesting that U.S. intervention in Syria wouldn’t be such a disaster, either. These people have learned nothing.

Yglesias

Commerce Cabinet Crisis XV: Luthor Hodges

Luther Hodges grew up in North Caroline, graduated from UNC at the age of 17, and went to work for Carolina Cotton and Woolen Mills, continuing his tenure there after the firm’s acquisition by Marshall Fields. He was a civic-minded kind of businessman who founded a local branch of the rotary club in 1923. By the 1940s he emerged as a local notable and was appointed to the state Board of Education and also to the Highway Commission. In 1944 he was appointed to the Office of Price Administration, an exercise in wartime socialism. In 1952, he became Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina, and then ascended to the governorship in upon the death of William B. Umstead in 1954.

As governor, he steered what counted at the time as a moderate course on racial issues. Specifically, as an alternative to directly resisting desegregation orders, his administration offered vouchers to families assigned to un-segregated schools and permitted localities to shut down their school system entirely by majority vote. His administration also inaugurated the Research Park that’s done an enormous amount to lay the foundations for North Carolina’s later success. At the time, North Carolina only allowed governors to serve one term, so by the time Hodges stepped down after winning re-election he was the state’s longest-serving governor. Then in 1960, JFK won the presidency, carrying the state of North Carolina even while doing unusually poorly for a Democrat in the south. A racially moderate (relatively speaking) white southern governor with a reputation as a pragmatic businessman was just thing to add to the team so Hodges was a solid choice as Commerce Secretary, in which capacity he “had less influence than other members of the cabinet, serving more as a supporter and defender than as an architect of administration policies”. Relative to other commerce secretaries, however, his tenure was relatively eventful as his department was charged with implementation of Area Redevelopment Act grants, an important New Frontier program later utterly overshadowed by LBJ’s war on poverty.

Hodges resigned in 1964, went back to North Carolina, and ran the Research Triangle Foundation which seems to have worked out very well. All in all, if we’re really fated to have a renaissance of explicit industrial policy in America, we’re going to need more people like Luther Hodges.

Economy

Chamber Of Commerce’s Top SCOTUS Litigator Admits Justices Give Special Treatment to Chamber

A recent study co-authored by conservative Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner confirms something that has been obvious to Supreme Court watchers for years — the Roberts Court places a huge thumb on the scale in favor of corporate interests. According to the study, the Roberts Court rules in favor of business interests 61 percent of the time, a 15 point spike from the five years before when Chief Justice Roberts joined the Court.

While the Chamber of Commerce has recently tried to downplay the favorable treatment it receives from the Supreme Court, its own top lawyer admitted a few years after Roberts joined the Court that the justices give his client special treatment:

Carter G. Phillips, who often represents the chamber and has argued more Supreme Court cases than any active lawyer in private practice, reflected on its influence. “I know from personal experience that the chamber’s support carries significant weight with the justices,” he wrote. “Except for the solicitor general representing the United States, no single entity has more influence on what cases the Supreme Court decides and how it decides them than the National Chamber Litigation Center.”

Phillips’ confession, and the Posner study’s conclusion, corroborates other data showing the Roberts Court’s favoritism towards corporate interests. A recent study by the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center determined that every single justice is more likely to side with the Chamber than the justice who held their seat 25 years ago (the study did not include the Court’s two newest members because of an insufficiently large data sample):

Welcome to John Roberts’ America, where the wealthy and the well-connected receive the best justice money can buy.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up