Thursday, November 11, 2010
Obama Compromises With the Uncompromising
A message of flexibility and submissiveness from our president.
Thu Nov. 11, 2010 1:28 PM PST
This cartoon requires Macromedia's Flash Player. If you don't see the cartoon above, download the player here.
Mark Fiore is a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist and animator whose work has appeared in the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Examiner, and dozens of other publications. He is an active member of the American Association of Editorial Cartoonists, and has a website featuring his work.
Reports: Rep.-elect West’s former chief-of-staff pick might have inspired shooting threat
- 11/11/10 04:51 PM ET
Fiery remarks from Joyce Kaufman, the initial pick to be Rep.-elect Allen West’s (R-Fla.) chief of staff, might have been the inspiration behind a South Florida shooting threat that shuttered area schools Wednesday, according to local reports.
Radio station WFTL 850 AM, on which Kaufman has her own show, received an e-mail late Tuesday with the warning: “I'm planning something big around the government building here in Broward County, maybe a post office, maybe even a school.” It was addressed to Kaufman, the reports indicated.
Kaufman, a conservative talk radio personality, told a crowd of West supporters at a campaign event over the summer that “if ballots don't work, bullets will.”
The message, combined with a phone call to the station Wednesday morning that warned of a possible incident, mobilized police to lock down all Broward County schools for much of Wednesday, stranding thousands of students in their classrooms.
Kaufman, whose incendiary style has raised eyebrows in the past, was tapped to be West’s chief of staff on Tuesday. West announced Thursday that she would no longer be joining him in Washington.
“It is with deep regret that this congressional office and the people of [district] 22 will not have Joyce Kaufman as my chief of staff,” West said in a statement. “Joyce is a good friend, and will remain loyal to South Floridians and to me. I will always seek Joyce's counsel for being a good representative of this congressional district.”
There was no mention of the shooting threat.
Udall: Social Security reform 'should be on the table'
- 11/11/10 04:44 PM ET
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) on Thursday said Congress should consider all of the proposals coming from President Obama's fiscal commission, including the controversial proposals to reform Social Security.
In a phone interview with The Hill, Udall said the 50-page proposal released Wednesday by former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), the chairmen of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, should be seriously considered even though "none of them are going to be very popular."
The Bowles-Simpson proposals include cutting federal spending, reducing Social Security benefits and reining in healthcare costs.
"These are the kinds of ideas we need to hear," Udall said. "This is going to be a very painful process. But we must bring down the deficit and the debt, and everything needs to be on the table. That’s where it should start, and we should try to build consensus. In the past, the way we’ve gotten out of these situations has been for all sides to give a little."
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also released a statement Thursday that thanked Bowles and Simpson but simply called their recommendations "a starting point."
"While I don't agree with every one of their recommendations, what they have provided is a starting point for this important discussion. I look forward to the full commission's recommendations and to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address this important issue," Reid said.
In a phone interview with The Hill, Udall said the 50-page proposal released Wednesday by former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), the chairmen of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, should be seriously considered even though "none of them are going to be very popular."
The Bowles-Simpson proposals include cutting federal spending, reducing Social Security benefits and reining in healthcare costs.
"These are the kinds of ideas we need to hear," Udall said. "This is going to be a very painful process. But we must bring down the deficit and the debt, and everything needs to be on the table. That’s where it should start, and we should try to build consensus. In the past, the way we’ve gotten out of these situations has been for all sides to give a little."
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also released a statement Thursday that thanked Bowles and Simpson but simply called their recommendations "a starting point."
"While I don't agree with every one of their recommendations, what they have provided is a starting point for this important discussion. I look forward to the full commission's recommendations and to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address this important issue," Reid said.
Reid tight-lipped over fiscal panel report
- 11/11/10 03:54 PM ET
The draft report released by the co-chairmen of President Obama's fiscal commission is a "starting point" for an "important discussion," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Thursday.
Reid said that even though he does not agree with every recommendation made by former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), the report could spur debate on the nation's debt and deficit.
"While I don't agree with every one of their recommendations, what they have provided is a starting point for this important discussion," he said in a statement. "I look forward to the full commission's recommendations and to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address this important issue."As Reid's statement shows, he has the difficult task of balancing the liberal and centrist elements of the Senate Democratic caucus, which have split over the fiscal commission report and the looming debate over the expiring Bush tax cuts that are expected to dominate next week's lame-duck session.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a key centrist, championed the report Thursday, but liberal Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) condemned it Wednesday, saying it proposes draconian cuts to Social Security and could hurt the middle class.
Reid's counterpart in the House, outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday labeled the report "simply unacceptable."
Republican leaders have also taken heat from their base over the report's proposed tax hikes, and GOP lawmakers have generally been tight-lipped on its contents.
Reid said that even though he does not agree with every recommendation made by former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), the report could spur debate on the nation's debt and deficit.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a key centrist, championed the report Thursday, but liberal Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) condemned it Wednesday, saying it proposes draconian cuts to Social Security and could hurt the middle class.
Reid's counterpart in the House, outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday labeled the report "simply unacceptable."
Republican leaders have also taken heat from their base over the report's proposed tax hikes, and GOP lawmakers have generally been tight-lipped on its contents.
Source:
Nader wants Obama to delay GM's post-bankruptcy IPO
- 11/11/10 04:10 PM ET
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader wrote President Obama on Thursday, urging him to delay a planned initial public offering (IPO) for General Motors.
Nader, a two-time independent presidential candidate and longtime auto-safety watchdog, said delaying the automaker's stock offering would better help taxpayers recoup their $50 billion investment in GM.
"We urge that the government as primary owner arrange for the suspension of the IPO and then begin exercising the responsibilities attendant to ownership," Nader wrote Thursday in a letter co-signed by leaders of Public Citizen and the Center for Auto Safety.
GM is expected to publicly offer stock this month for the first time since undergoing a government-supervised bankruptcy in 2009. That process saw the Obama administration extend billions in aid to the troubled automaker in exchange for an equity stake in the company.
The government has exercised a passive role in its ownership of GM and has said it plans to steadily unwind its stake in the company after its stock becomes public.
Nader said the government should hold onto its current stake longer in order to try for better returns, to support manufacturing jobs and to encourage better fuel efficiency.
"As the government was preparing its rescue of GM, we highlighted each of the concerns mentioned here, and urged that they be addressed as part of the rescue process. Those recommendations were, unfortunately, ignored," Nader said. "But it is not too late for the government to exercise its control of GM responsibly, and to advance vital public interest objectives. We urge you to act to suspend the IPO."
Nader, a two-time independent presidential candidate and longtime auto-safety watchdog, said delaying the automaker's stock offering would better help taxpayers recoup their $50 billion investment in GM.
"We urge that the government as primary owner arrange for the suspension of the IPO and then begin exercising the responsibilities attendant to ownership," Nader wrote Thursday in a letter co-signed by leaders of Public Citizen and the Center for Auto Safety.
GM is expected to publicly offer stock this month for the first time since undergoing a government-supervised bankruptcy in 2009. That process saw the Obama administration extend billions in aid to the troubled automaker in exchange for an equity stake in the company.
The government has exercised a passive role in its ownership of GM and has said it plans to steadily unwind its stake in the company after its stock becomes public.
Nader said the government should hold onto its current stake longer in order to try for better returns, to support manufacturing jobs and to encourage better fuel efficiency.
"As the government was preparing its rescue of GM, we highlighted each of the concerns mentioned here, and urged that they be addressed as part of the rescue process. Those recommendations were, unfortunately, ignored," Nader said. "But it is not too late for the government to exercise its control of GM responsibly, and to advance vital public interest objectives. We urge you to act to suspend the IPO."
NPR says it's 'imperative' that its federal funding not be cut
- 11/11/10 02:38 PM ET
NPR said it's "imperative" that it receives federal funding in light of a recommended cuts by the leaders of President Obama's fiscal commission.
"Federal funding has been a central component of public radio stations’ ability to serve audiences across the country," NPR said in a statement. "It’s imperative for funding to continue to ensure that this essential tool of democracy survives and thrives well into the future."
The co-chairmen of Obama's fiscal commission, Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, proposed eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, among other ideas, in their report on how to bring down the long-term debt in the U.S. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting assists NPR and PBS stations in their operations.
"The National Commission’s proposal to eliminate federal funding for public media would have a profound and detrimental impact on all Americans," NPR said in response to the proposal.
The radio network has found itself come under political pressure from Republicans in Congress, who proposed defunding NPR through cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. GOP figures called for such cuts after NPR fired longtime commentator Juan Williams over remarks he had made on Fox News regarding stereotypes of Muslims.
"Federal funding has been a central component of public radio stations’ ability to serve audiences across the country," NPR said in a statement. "It’s imperative for funding to continue to ensure that this essential tool of democracy survives and thrives well into the future."
The co-chairmen of Obama's fiscal commission, Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, proposed eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, among other ideas, in their report on how to bring down the long-term debt in the U.S. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting assists NPR and PBS stations in their operations.
"The National Commission’s proposal to eliminate federal funding for public media would have a profound and detrimental impact on all Americans," NPR said in response to the proposal.
The radio network has found itself come under political pressure from Republicans in Congress, who proposed defunding NPR through cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. GOP figures called for such cuts after NPR fired longtime commentator Juan Williams over remarks he had made on Fox News regarding stereotypes of Muslims.
PNC to Stop Financing Mountaintop Mining Projects
PNC Bank says it will stop funding, credit for companies using mountaintop mining method
PNC Bank says it will stop financing projects that extract coal using a controversial form of surface mining known as mountaintop removal.
PNC says in a corporate responsibility statement updated late last month that it will no longer fund the projects or provide credit to coal producers that primarily use mountaintop removal to extract coal.
About 50 environmental activists gathered at a Lexington PNC branch over the summer to protest the bank's alleged funding of surface mining projects.
PNC spokesman Fred Solomon declined Monday to comment on the bank's investments. He says the corporate statement "speaks for itself."
Other large commercial lenders, including Bank of America and Wells Fargo, have announced in recent years that they would limit their relationships with companies that use mountaintop removal.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
PNC Bank says it will stop funding, credit for companies using mountaintop mining method
Kucinich to force vote on withdrawing troops from Afghanistan
- 11/11/10 12:08 PM ET
Anti-war Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) says he will force a vote on a hard date for withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan on the heels of reports they could remain there at least through 2014.
Kucinich said Wednesday that he will force a vote via privileged resolution at the beginning of the next Congress on ending the war in Afghanistan by the end of 2011.
Kucinich said Wednesday that he will force a vote via privileged resolution at the beginning of the next Congress on ending the war in Afghanistan by the end of 2011.
"The withdrawal of our troops must be driven by Congress, not the corrupt president of Afghanistan," the Ohio congressman said in a statement.
His announcement comes after The New York Times reported that the Obama administration has stressed that it will leave troops in place at least through the end of 2014 in an effort to persuade Afghans and the Taliban the U.S. intends to complete its mission.
That troop commitment would far exceed the July 2011 date set by the administration last December as the time when troop withdrawals will begin.
Liberal Democrats in Congress have become increasingly frustrated with the progress of the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, expressing concern over the cost of the war, the loss of American lives and instability within the country.
“The Obama administration must withdraw our troops now. Our presence there is counterproductive, it keeps our troops in harm's way and it opens to the door for the expansion of the massive corruption of the Karzai regime,” said Kucinich.
Kucinich introduced a resolution in July that mandated the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Pakistan, which was handily defeated.
Republicans, who largely support U.S. engagement in Afghanistan, take control of the House next year.
Is Our Kids Learning?
— By Kevin Drum
| Thu Nov. 11, 2010 2:13 PM PST
Another day, another confusing magazine article about American education. This one is by Amanda Ripley in the Atlantic, and it focuses solely on how our top performing students do compared with those in other countries. In particular, how do our top students do in math?
And that's it. Maybe Massachusetts did some other stuff, but I assume Ripley chose to highlight their most important reforms, not the trivia. And their most important reforms seem pretty unlikely to have affected the math scores of our crème de la crème. So what's the deal? Once again, after reading a popular account of education reform, I'm more confused than I was when I started.
We’ve known for some time how this story ends nationwide: only 6 percent of U.S. students perform at the advanced-proficiency level in math, a share that lags behind kids in some 30 other countries, from the United Kingdom to Taiwan. But what happens when we break down the results? Do any individual U.S. states wind up near the top?Aha! Massachusetts may not be up there with Taiwan or Japan, but they're better than any other state in America. So what's their secret?
Incredibly, no. Even if we treat each state as its own country, not a single one makes it into the top dozen contenders on the list. The best performer is Massachusetts, ringing in at No. 17....“If all American fourth- and eighth-grade kids did as well in math and science as they do in Massachusetts,” writes the veteran education author Karin Chenoweth in her 2009 book, How It’s Being Done,“we still wouldn’t be in Singapore’s league but we’d be giving Japan and Chinese Taipei a run for their money.”
Is it because Massachusetts is so white? Or so immigrant-free? Or so rich? Not quite. Massachusetts is indeed slightly whiter and slightly better-off than the U.S. average. But in the late 1990s, it nonetheless lagged behind similar states — such as Connecticut and Maine — in nationwide tests of fourth- and eighth-graders. It was only after a decade of educational reforms that Massachusetts began to rank first in the nation.Wait a second. The literacy test sounds like a good idea, but it seems fairly disconnected from the performance of our top math students. California has required new teachers to pass both a literacy and math test for nearly 20 years and we rank barely above Turkey in advanced math proficiency. Ditto for a high-school graduation exam, which plainly doesn't have any impact on top-tier students who have been performing above the basic graduation level all along.
What did Massachusetts do? Well, nothing that many countries (and industries) didn’t do a long time ago. For example, Massachusetts made it harder to become a teacher, requiring newcomers to pass a basic literacy test before entering the classroom. (In the first year, more than a third of the new teachers failed the test.) The state also required students to pass a test before graduating from high school — a notion so heretical that it led to protests in which students burned state superintendent David Driscoll in effigy. To help tutor the kids who failed, the state moved money around to the places where it was needed most. “We had a system of standards and held people to it — adults and students,” Driscoll says.
And that's it. Maybe Massachusetts did some other stuff, but I assume Ripley chose to highlight their most important reforms, not the trivia. And their most important reforms seem pretty unlikely to have affected the math scores of our crème de la crème. So what's the deal? Once again, after reading a popular account of education reform, I'm more confused than I was when I started.
Hispanic Republican Group Slams GOP's "Extreme" Congressmen
An advocacy group warns Republicans against backing GOP immigration hawks poised to lead committees in the new Congress.
| Thu Nov. 11, 2010 11:29 AM PST
Somos Republicans—a fledging Hispanic GOP group—is protesting the likely appointment of Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) and Steve King (R-Iowa) to leadership positions in the next Congress, criticizing them for promoting anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant positions. The group submitted "a letter of concern" [1] on Tuesday to incoming House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor detailing their gripes with Smith, the likely chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and King, who's poised to lead the subcommittee on immigration:
Somos Republicans is now trying to push back against the GOP's reactionary turn. The group formed in Arizona after the passage of the state's infamous immigration law in April and chapters have since opened in Texas, California, Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, says founder Dee Dee Blase. "We've grown exponentially because of these [Arizona-like] laws. It's really causing us to mobilize and wake up, we're upset with these kinds of anti-immigrant rhetoric politicians." On its website, the organization describes [3] itself as supporting "Right to Life, Free Market Capitalism, Low Taxes, Small Government, Second Amendment, Traditional Marriage, and a Humane Immigration Reform that fits our Free Market economy and labor."
Congressmen Smith and King have repeatedly engaged in rhetoric that is aimed negatively toward Hispanics. Steve King has used defamatory language that is extremely offensive to Hispanics, which is found in numerous congressional records. We believe Steve King’s behavior is not appropriate for a high-level elected Republican who might be in charge of a committee that handles immigration rules. Steve King and Lamar Smith have adopted extreme positions on birthright citizenship, and promise legislation that would undermine the 14th amendment of the constitution, which both swore an oath to uphold…Somos Republicans adds that such anti-immigration extremism has helped drive Hispanics away from the GOP and would be a major political liability for the party in 2012:
Representatives Smith and King have engaged in an ill-advised platform and rhetoric that has…caused an exodus of Hispanic voters to the Democratic Party. We ask that you review Mr. King’s and Mr. Smith’s congressional statements desiring to “pass a bill out of the House to end the Constitution's birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants,” or what Steve King has made reference to “anchor babies.” We find both this rhetoric and this un-constitutional conduct reprehensible, insulting and a poor reflection upon Republicans because we don’t want our Party to be viewed as the Party of changing the United States Constitution.
[T]his insensitive and constant assailment on our Hispanic Community may push Hispanics further into the Independent, Libertarian or Democrat Party….It is our sincere belief that if representatives Smith and King were to become the Chairs of the House Judiciary and Subcommittee on Immigration, and if they indeed continue such insensitive rhetoric towards Hispanics, the conditions for a Republican presidential candidate to garner the necessary Electoral College Delegates to win the 2012 presidency will not be possible.Both King and Smith have made it clear that they will push for a major immigration crackdown in the next Congress, as I explained this week [2]. King has already vowed, for instance, to put forward a bill to prevent the children of illegal immigrants from becoming US citizens—a fringe idea that has gained renewed traction with the GOP's leap to the right on immigration.
Somos Republicans is now trying to push back against the GOP's reactionary turn. The group formed in Arizona after the passage of the state's infamous immigration law in April and chapters have since opened in Texas, California, Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, says founder Dee Dee Blase. "We've grown exponentially because of these [Arizona-like] laws. It's really causing us to mobilize and wake up, we're upset with these kinds of anti-immigrant rhetoric politicians." On its website, the organization describes [3] itself as supporting "Right to Life, Free Market Capitalism, Low Taxes, Small Government, Second Amendment, Traditional Marriage, and a Humane Immigration Reform that fits our Free Market economy and labor."
Blase says the group is also campaigning in support of the DREAM Act—which supports legalization for illegal immigrant students who have completed college or military service—and working to "stop the defamation of anchor babies," she adds. But the overarching focus for the nascent organization is the 2012 elections. Blase says the group aims to use lobbying, grassroots organizing, and other forms to advocacy to help the Republican Party recapture some 40 percent of Hispanic voters—up from the average of 30 percent—with plans to form a political action committee as well. She points to George W. Bush as a role model of a Hispanic-friendly Republican, noting that he captured 44 percent of the community's vote in 2004. But it's unclear who will step up to the plate within the ranks of the current GOP.
And though a record number [4] of Hispanic Republicans were elected to Congress this year, it's still uncertain whether they'd become heroes to the Latino community. Blase, for instance, says that she's still uncertain about where Marco Rubio stands on immigration and whether her group would support him, given his hedging on the issue on the campaign trail. And she warns that the GOP will be doomed in two years if its anti-immigrant fringe is allowed to dominate the debate: "If Boehner doesn't take heed, we're done."
And though a record number [4] of Hispanic Republicans were elected to Congress this year, it's still uncertain whether they'd become heroes to the Latino community. Blase, for instance, says that she's still uncertain about where Marco Rubio stands on immigration and whether her group would support him, given his hedging on the issue on the campaign trail. And she warns that the GOP will be doomed in two years if its anti-immigrant fringe is allowed to dominate the debate: "If Boehner doesn't take heed, we're done."
We're Still at War:
Photo of the Day for November 11, 2010
Thu Nov. 11, 2010 2:30 AM PST
Staff Sgt. Wilfred Gingras, left, and Sgt. 1st Class Jeff Cesaitis, Provincial Reconstruction Team Zabul, familiarize themselves with the area during a quality assurance, quality control patrol near the city of Qalat, Zabul Province, Afghanistan, Nov. 1. PRT Zabul is comprised of Air Force, Army, Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development and U.S. Department of Agriculture personnel who work with the government of Afghanistan to improve governance, stability and development throughout the province. U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Brian Ferguson
'If you can't control the budget you're not a government'
Let me finish tonight with two of my fixed positions on the role of government:
One, If you can't protect your border, you're not a country.
Two, If you can't control your budget, you're not a government.
On the border, yes, you have to guard it humanely and, given our history, with a reasonable liberality. We are, after all, the land of immigrants.
But countries have a right to decide how other people enter. If they don't take that responsibility seriously, they have failed their own nationhood.
I want people living here right now to stay and be given legitimate documents. But I want "all" employers who hire people in the future to see those documents or face charges.
This country does a sloppy job of protecting our border and we all know it. Basically we let anyone who "can" cross it, to do so, any business that wants to, to give that person a job. It's a deal between a desperate person sneaking in and a business person sneakily hiring that person at the lowest wage they can get away with. Sleazy business people, in other words, have become our un-official INS. What a revolting way to treat people, to abdicate our duty as a country and turn it over to ruthless employers.
My second fixed position is, if you can't control the budget you're not a government.
The president assembled a commission to try and deal with a debt racing past $14 trillion. The commission chairmen have recommended a set of actions that will cut in half the projected debt growth over the next decade.
As a guy who worked on the Senate Budget Committee at the time of its creation, I know how hard this will be. Every pressure group in the country will want to blast its recommendations one at a time and will bristle with outrage to get media attention.
But ask anyone who complains about the proposals what they would do instead.
When I ask politicians to name a program they would cut, I get generalizations and procedures. I don't get the "name" of a program, one costing up there where you can see the cut making a difference.
If we only report on those who yell "ouch" the loudest, we are, in effect, defending the deficits. I think the chairmen of the commission are doing the job President Obama asked them to do: spreading the pain.
The pressure groups will do what they do. The question is whether the people will do, together, what needs to be done.
We need a border. We need a government budget. The question is whether our politicians have the stuff to protect either.
One, If you can't protect your border, you're not a country.
Two, If you can't control your budget, you're not a government.
On the border, yes, you have to guard it humanely and, given our history, with a reasonable liberality. We are, after all, the land of immigrants.
But countries have a right to decide how other people enter. If they don't take that responsibility seriously, they have failed their own nationhood.
I want people living here right now to stay and be given legitimate documents. But I want "all" employers who hire people in the future to see those documents or face charges.
This country does a sloppy job of protecting our border and we all know it. Basically we let anyone who "can" cross it, to do so, any business that wants to, to give that person a job. It's a deal between a desperate person sneaking in and a business person sneakily hiring that person at the lowest wage they can get away with. Sleazy business people, in other words, have become our un-official INS. What a revolting way to treat people, to abdicate our duty as a country and turn it over to ruthless employers.
My second fixed position is, if you can't control the budget you're not a government.
The president assembled a commission to try and deal with a debt racing past $14 trillion. The commission chairmen have recommended a set of actions that will cut in half the projected debt growth over the next decade.
As a guy who worked on the Senate Budget Committee at the time of its creation, I know how hard this will be. Every pressure group in the country will want to blast its recommendations one at a time and will bristle with outrage to get media attention.
But ask anyone who complains about the proposals what they would do instead.
When I ask politicians to name a program they would cut, I get generalizations and procedures. I don't get the "name" of a program, one costing up there where you can see the cut making a difference.
If we only report on those who yell "ouch" the loudest, we are, in effect, defending the deficits. I think the chairmen of the commission are doing the job President Obama asked them to do: spreading the pain.
The pressure groups will do what they do. The question is whether the people will do, together, what needs to be done.
We need a border. We need a government budget. The question is whether our politicians have the stuff to protect either.
The Party of No Earmarks?
A Republican civil war is brewing over an effort to ban GOP lawmakers from larding bills with pork-barrel projects.
| Thu Nov. 11, 2010 3:00 AM PST
If this week's intra-party squabbling is any indication, the ascendant Republicans could spend as much time battling each other as they do fighting to rollback the Democrats' legislative accomplishments of the past two years.
A week after the GOP's midterms triumph, Republican lawmakers are now at odds over earmarks—specifically, whether to ban the practice through which members lard legislation with pork barrel projects. Last Friday, Speaker of the House-in-waiting John Boehner (R-Ohio) wrote an op-ed [1] in the Wall Street Journal listing the Republican leadership's priorities for the 112th Congress, including continuing the House GOP's unofficial earmark ban. Earmarks, Boehner wrote, "have become a symbol of a broken Washington." And on Tuesday, tea party godfather Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) released a statement announcing his intention to seek a GOP earmarks ban in the Senate. Also signing on to DeMint's earmark proposal were longtime earmark enemies like Tom Coburn, along with tea party-backed incoming freshmen including Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, Kelly Ayotte, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul.
Generally, an earmark is a provision inserted into a bill that directs funding to specific projects or recipients. They often get buried in huge appropriations bills. Boehner—as well other House Republican leaders, including likely Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and former chair of the House Republican Conference Mike Pence (R-Ind.)—have held the line on earmarks for years. DeMint boasts a similarly sterling record.
But early on Wednesday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) pledged [2] to fight DeMint's moratorium, arguing that earmarks have been needlessly "demogouged" by the GOP, and that freshmen senators have been misled and misinformed about their purpose. And Politico reports that Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is mounting his own low-profile effort [3] to defeat DeMint's plan. Through quiet, face-to-face meetings with Republican senators new and old, McConnell hopes to dissuade them from joining up with DeMint's gang and avoid a nasty public split within his caucus.
A week after the GOP's midterms triumph, Republican lawmakers are now at odds over earmarks—specifically, whether to ban the practice through which members lard legislation with pork barrel projects. Last Friday, Speaker of the House-in-waiting John Boehner (R-Ohio) wrote an op-ed [1] in the Wall Street Journal listing the Republican leadership's priorities for the 112th Congress, including continuing the House GOP's unofficial earmark ban. Earmarks, Boehner wrote, "have become a symbol of a broken Washington." And on Tuesday, tea party godfather Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) released a statement announcing his intention to seek a GOP earmarks ban in the Senate. Also signing on to DeMint's earmark proposal were longtime earmark enemies like Tom Coburn, along with tea party-backed incoming freshmen including Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, Kelly Ayotte, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul.
Generally, an earmark is a provision inserted into a bill that directs funding to specific projects or recipients. They often get buried in huge appropriations bills. Boehner—as well other House Republican leaders, including likely Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and former chair of the House Republican Conference Mike Pence (R-Ind.)—have held the line on earmarks for years. DeMint boasts a similarly sterling record.
But early on Wednesday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) pledged [2] to fight DeMint's moratorium, arguing that earmarks have been needlessly "demogouged" by the GOP, and that freshmen senators have been misled and misinformed about their purpose. And Politico reports that Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is mounting his own low-profile effort [3] to defeat DeMint's plan. Through quiet, face-to-face meetings with Republican senators new and old, McConnell hopes to dissuade them from joining up with DeMint's gang and avoid a nasty public split within his caucus.
Odds are, Inhofe admits, that DeMint's ban (which wouldn't have the force of law) will pass. But he's determined to go down swinging, and call out other Republicans for their hypocrisy. "I know politically it’s the dumbest thing for me to say I’m for earmarks," Inhofe told The Hill."But [the earmark moratorium] would cede authority to President Obama." DeMint's ban, Inhofe argues, unconstitutionally hands over congressional spending power exclusively to the executive branch.
Both parties have pledged to reform the earmarking process for years—while continuing to prodigiously earmark. DeMint sponsored a bipartisan bill pushing for a similar ban [4] earlier this year. Its supporters included most of the Republican conference—including, strangely, Inhofe—and Democrats like Evan Bayh and Russ Feingold.
The GOP's latest earmark crackdown seems propelled, at least in part, by the tea party, whose overarching mission is one of fiscal responsibility. In September, a number of conservative advocacy groups, including the tea party-aligned Freedom Works, launched the "Contract From America" [5], a response to the GOP establishment's "Pledge to America" and spiritual heir to 1994's "Contract With America." The manifesto, drafted by Houston-based attorney and tea party strategist Ryan Hecker, outlines several core governing principles, including banning earmarks. "It's 'I'll give you this if you vote for my bill," says Hecker. "And there's definitely, behind every earmark…a lobbyist." Incoming senators Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul signed onto the contract, and earmark reform, Hecker says, is an area where tea party-backed politicians can lead by example.
But if that's the case, it's unclear what Paul's recent flip-flop on earmarks means for his fidelity to the movement. Despite his campaign-era vow to end earmarks, the Senator-elect now views them as only "a bad 'symbol' of easy spending [6]," and fully intends to fight for his state's share of transparently secured earmarks. Airing his change of heart in the Wall Street Journal, Paul doesn’t seem too concerned about repudiating the movement's faithful, not to mention the fact that he's signed on to DeMint's pledge.
But maybe he's on to something. In South Carolina, DeMint's no-earmarks stance has endangered an Army Corps of Engineers project to deepen the Port of Charleston [7], a crucial step towards its eventual expansion. The port plays a crucial role in South Carolina's economy, especially for upstate companies like BMW and Michelin. Business leaders say that the $400,000 DeMint is rejecting is essential funding for a feasibility assessment of the expansion project, which, they say, will keep South Carolina's port industry competitive. DeMint says the project will remain "up in the air" until an alternate funding solution can be found. His position, principled as it may be, could impact South Carolina's economy.
Both parties have pledged to reform the earmarking process for years—while continuing to prodigiously earmark. DeMint sponsored a bipartisan bill pushing for a similar ban [4] earlier this year. Its supporters included most of the Republican conference—including, strangely, Inhofe—and Democrats like Evan Bayh and Russ Feingold.
The GOP's latest earmark crackdown seems propelled, at least in part, by the tea party, whose overarching mission is one of fiscal responsibility. In September, a number of conservative advocacy groups, including the tea party-aligned Freedom Works, launched the "Contract From America" [5], a response to the GOP establishment's "Pledge to America" and spiritual heir to 1994's "Contract With America." The manifesto, drafted by Houston-based attorney and tea party strategist Ryan Hecker, outlines several core governing principles, including banning earmarks. "It's 'I'll give you this if you vote for my bill," says Hecker. "And there's definitely, behind every earmark…a lobbyist." Incoming senators Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul signed onto the contract, and earmark reform, Hecker says, is an area where tea party-backed politicians can lead by example.
But if that's the case, it's unclear what Paul's recent flip-flop on earmarks means for his fidelity to the movement. Despite his campaign-era vow to end earmarks, the Senator-elect now views them as only "a bad 'symbol' of easy spending [6]," and fully intends to fight for his state's share of transparently secured earmarks. Airing his change of heart in the Wall Street Journal, Paul doesn’t seem too concerned about repudiating the movement's faithful, not to mention the fact that he's signed on to DeMint's pledge.
But maybe he's on to something. In South Carolina, DeMint's no-earmarks stance has endangered an Army Corps of Engineers project to deepen the Port of Charleston [7], a crucial step towards its eventual expansion. The port plays a crucial role in South Carolina's economy, especially for upstate companies like BMW and Michelin. Business leaders say that the $400,000 DeMint is rejecting is essential funding for a feasibility assessment of the expansion project, which, they say, will keep South Carolina's port industry competitive. DeMint says the project will remain "up in the air" until an alternate funding solution can be found. His position, principled as it may be, could impact South Carolina's economy.
What's the solution? Steve Ellis, of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, points out that over in the House of Representatives, Boehner is careful to talk about "ending earmarking as we know it"—implying that projects like the port expansion need to be better managed and less opaque, not eliminated entirely. While the Corps of Engineers falls under the executive branch, funding for individual projects must be approved by the House and Senate Appropriations committees—effectively tying the agency's fate to earmarks. And "it's not like you're not going to fund the Army Corps of Engineers," Ellis points out.
Prominent members of the Senate and House appropriations committees enjoy considerable sway over the flow of earmarks. Term limits prevent ranking member Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) from assuming its chairmanship when the GOP takes over the House in January, which might not be such a bad thing if Boehner is trying to remake the House GOP as the party of no earmarking: Lewis raked in $325 million [8] for his district from 2008 to 2010, and ranked 8th on the Center for Responsive Politics' list of most egregious earmakers. (Lewis' office isn't commenting on earmark-related matters.) The short list also includes Kentucky's Hal Rogers [9], a vocal proponent for earmarks who brought in $431 million dollars for his rural district during the past two years. He's even taken to the crafty tactic of setting up a non-profit in his district for the express purpose of pumping it full of government money [10].
But candidates for the chairmanship also include earmark reformers like Arizona's Jeff Flake (who's not yet a member of the committee) and Georgia's Jack Kingston. In Kingston's view, out-of-control spending won't be fixed by banning earmarks. Instead of invoking an outright, indefinite ban, he would convene a bipartisan committee to review the entire earmarks process. One practice that could be ripe for review under the Kingston regime: phone-marking, where lawmakers lobby government agencies to give money to specific organizations. And if Kingston's feeling ambitious when the 112th congress meets in January, he can tackle lawmakers' knack for circumventing the appropriations process altogether through the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. According to the Sunlight Foundation, the committee doesn’t require its members to disclose their earmarks online [11], allowing lawmakers to sneak their pet projects through the transportation reauthorization bill.
Real reformers, Kingston tells Mother Jones, should take a close look at federal grants handed out as political favors. Earmarks make easy targets for fiscal conservatives looking to voice their populist outrage to the masses. "If you look at the constitutional right to direct spending...you want to say, 'okay, do we ban earmarks in all forms forever'? And how do you do a transportation bill if that's the case? For right now, we need to keep the ban in place, but down the road, there are some things that we should talk about."
For Contract From America author Hecker, that means injecting a considerable dose of transparency into the earmark process by segregating spending provisions for pet projects from mammoth appropriations bills. He's optimistic that the House will keep Boehner's ban intact, and then get down to the process of reform.
"On a lot of issues they're going to be united," Hecker says of congressional Republicans. "On earmarks, they're not." Senators DeMint and Coburn, he points out, have been longtime crusaders for earmark reform despite the opposition of some of their colleagues. The difference now, he says, is that they "now have a little army of newly elected Republicans behind them with a mandate."
Prominent members of the Senate and House appropriations committees enjoy considerable sway over the flow of earmarks. Term limits prevent ranking member Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) from assuming its chairmanship when the GOP takes over the House in January, which might not be such a bad thing if Boehner is trying to remake the House GOP as the party of no earmarking: Lewis raked in $325 million [8] for his district from 2008 to 2010, and ranked 8th on the Center for Responsive Politics' list of most egregious earmakers. (Lewis' office isn't commenting on earmark-related matters.) The short list also includes Kentucky's Hal Rogers [9], a vocal proponent for earmarks who brought in $431 million dollars for his rural district during the past two years. He's even taken to the crafty tactic of setting up a non-profit in his district for the express purpose of pumping it full of government money [10].
But candidates for the chairmanship also include earmark reformers like Arizona's Jeff Flake (who's not yet a member of the committee) and Georgia's Jack Kingston. In Kingston's view, out-of-control spending won't be fixed by banning earmarks. Instead of invoking an outright, indefinite ban, he would convene a bipartisan committee to review the entire earmarks process. One practice that could be ripe for review under the Kingston regime: phone-marking, where lawmakers lobby government agencies to give money to specific organizations. And if Kingston's feeling ambitious when the 112th congress meets in January, he can tackle lawmakers' knack for circumventing the appropriations process altogether through the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. According to the Sunlight Foundation, the committee doesn’t require its members to disclose their earmarks online [11], allowing lawmakers to sneak their pet projects through the transportation reauthorization bill.
Real reformers, Kingston tells Mother Jones, should take a close look at federal grants handed out as political favors. Earmarks make easy targets for fiscal conservatives looking to voice their populist outrage to the masses. "If you look at the constitutional right to direct spending...you want to say, 'okay, do we ban earmarks in all forms forever'? And how do you do a transportation bill if that's the case? For right now, we need to keep the ban in place, but down the road, there are some things that we should talk about."
For Contract From America author Hecker, that means injecting a considerable dose of transparency into the earmark process by segregating spending provisions for pet projects from mammoth appropriations bills. He's optimistic that the House will keep Boehner's ban intact, and then get down to the process of reform.
"On a lot of issues they're going to be united," Hecker says of congressional Republicans. "On earmarks, they're not." Senators DeMint and Coburn, he points out, have been longtime crusaders for earmark reform despite the opposition of some of their colleagues. The difference now, he says, is that they "now have a little army of newly elected Republicans behind them with a mandate."
The GOP's Plan to Dismantle Wall Street Reform
Your guide to the House finance committee under Republican rule.
| Thu Nov. 11, 2010 3:00 AM PST
The chairman's seat on the House financial services committee ranks among the most coveted and powerful perches on Capitol Hill. Consider Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the committee's outgoing chief. As chairman, the smart, sharp-tongued Frank served as point man in Congress on the passage of TARP, the much-maligned bailout helped avert a second Great Depression. He also crafted and shepherded from inception to final passage this year's financial regulatory reform bill, hence the legislation's unofficial name: Dodd-Frank.
Already a power struggle has broken out between two GOP congressmen, Spencer Bachus of Alabama and Ed Royce of California, to claim the chairman's gavel when the Republicans assume control of the House in January. That Royce is challenging Bachus at all shows the jostling underway to take power in the upcoming 112th Congress. Bachus, of course, is the obvious choice to become chairman, having served as the financial services committee's ranking member. Royce, meanwhile, ranks [1] fourth among Republicans on the committee.
While both men have downplayed the drama for winning the gavel, there's plenty at stake here. For Bachus, dumped unceremoniously from the GOP team that took part in crucial bailout negotiations in 2008, winning the chairmanship would mark a return to the top financial seat in his party. A Royce victory, leapfrogging as he would two other Republicans on the committee, would swiftly launch him into upper rungs of House Republican leadership.
Already a power struggle has broken out between two GOP congressmen, Spencer Bachus of Alabama and Ed Royce of California, to claim the chairman's gavel when the Republicans assume control of the House in January. That Royce is challenging Bachus at all shows the jostling underway to take power in the upcoming 112th Congress. Bachus, of course, is the obvious choice to become chairman, having served as the financial services committee's ranking member. Royce, meanwhile, ranks [1] fourth among Republicans on the committee.
While both men have downplayed the drama for winning the gavel, there's plenty at stake here. For Bachus, dumped unceremoniously from the GOP team that took part in crucial bailout negotiations in 2008, winning the chairmanship would mark a return to the top financial seat in his party. A Royce victory, leapfrogging as he would two other Republicans on the committee, would swiftly launch him into upper rungs of House Republican leadership.
For consumer advocates and pro-reform types, there's no favorite in the Bachus-Royce race. Both are freemarket-loving lawmakers who want to dismantle, if not wipe out altogether, the new financial regulatory reform bill before it's even drawn first breath.
Let's start with Bachus, the sandy-haired, 62-year-old congressman from central Alabama. A quick glance at Bachus' campaign coffers and donors shows that he's a Big Finance favorite. During his nine terms in Congress, the top five industries giving to Bachus all hail [2] from the financial world: commercial banks ($1 million), insurance ($818,850), real estate ($773,651), securities and investment ($686,116), and finance/credit companies (410,508). His top contributors [3] include JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and the National Association of Realtors.
With the passage of the Dodd-Frank bill, Bachus' relationship with Wall Street has only tightened. In October, as Politico reported [4], he chided a group of 100 financial lobbyists at the Capitol Hill Club, a popular GOP haunt, for their disproportionate giving to Democrats, who lead the reform effort. As it happened, Wall Street heeded Bachus' plea [5]: In the 2010 midterms, the finance, insurance, and real estate, or FIRE, sector gave a higher percentage of its total donations to the GOP than in the previous two elections.
That cozy relationship in mind, it's hardly surprising to learn that Bachus wants to roll back key parts of Dodd-Frank. For instance, the Alabama congressman said [6] in September that he wanted to repeal federal regulators' new power to wind down and liquidate "too big to fail" banks whose collapse could topple the financial system. (Think Citigroup, circa October 2008.) Bachus believes Dodd-Frank's too-to-big-fail provision will only make bailouts permanent, not end them; instead, he wants to rewrite the bankruptcy laws to handle major bank failures.
Bachus also has in his crosshairs the "Volcker Rule [7]," which would stop banks' "proprietary trading" (risky trading for their own benefit instead of for clients'); limit their stakes in riskier outfits like hedge and private equity funds, where regulation is lighter; and limiting how much domestic banks can expand within the US. House and Senate Democrats overwhelmingly support the provision, and former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker himself wants [8] as broad an interpretation of the rule as possible. Yet Bachus has repeatedly attacked the provision. During the bill-writing process, he tried and failed in adding an amendment blocking the Volcker Rule's implementation until other countries put in place their own prop trading bans. And in a recent letter (PDF [9]) to financial regulators, Bachus said the Volcker Rule would "impose substantial costs on the American economy and market participants" with "doubtful" benefits.
Let's start with Bachus, the sandy-haired, 62-year-old congressman from central Alabama. A quick glance at Bachus' campaign coffers and donors shows that he's a Big Finance favorite. During his nine terms in Congress, the top five industries giving to Bachus all hail [2] from the financial world: commercial banks ($1 million), insurance ($818,850), real estate ($773,651), securities and investment ($686,116), and finance/credit companies (410,508). His top contributors [3] include JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and the National Association of Realtors.
With the passage of the Dodd-Frank bill, Bachus' relationship with Wall Street has only tightened. In October, as Politico reported [4], he chided a group of 100 financial lobbyists at the Capitol Hill Club, a popular GOP haunt, for their disproportionate giving to Democrats, who lead the reform effort. As it happened, Wall Street heeded Bachus' plea [5]: In the 2010 midterms, the finance, insurance, and real estate, or FIRE, sector gave a higher percentage of its total donations to the GOP than in the previous two elections.
That cozy relationship in mind, it's hardly surprising to learn that Bachus wants to roll back key parts of Dodd-Frank. For instance, the Alabama congressman said [6] in September that he wanted to repeal federal regulators' new power to wind down and liquidate "too big to fail" banks whose collapse could topple the financial system. (Think Citigroup, circa October 2008.) Bachus believes Dodd-Frank's too-to-big-fail provision will only make bailouts permanent, not end them; instead, he wants to rewrite the bankruptcy laws to handle major bank failures.
Bachus also has in his crosshairs the "Volcker Rule [7]," which would stop banks' "proprietary trading" (risky trading for their own benefit instead of for clients'); limit their stakes in riskier outfits like hedge and private equity funds, where regulation is lighter; and limiting how much domestic banks can expand within the US. House and Senate Democrats overwhelmingly support the provision, and former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker himself wants [8] as broad an interpretation of the rule as possible. Yet Bachus has repeatedly attacked the provision. During the bill-writing process, he tried and failed in adding an amendment blocking the Volcker Rule's implementation until other countries put in place their own prop trading bans. And in a recent letter (PDF [9]) to financial regulators, Bachus said the Volcker Rule would "impose substantial costs on the American economy and market participants" with "doubtful" benefits.
On the issues, Ed Royce, who represents southern California's Orange County, isn't all that different from Bachus. He, too, has benefitted from Wall Street's largesse. Three of the top five industries who've donated [10] to Royce over his career come from the finance industry, including the insurance ($665,530), real estate ($561,950), and securities and investment ($430,350) sectors.
Like Bachus, Royce is no fan [11] of Dodd-Frank, and would, as chairman, seek to chip away at the bill. For starters, he wants [12] to give bank regulators veto power on the rule-making abilities of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. There's just one problem with that: The consumer bureau is already subject to [13] veto by a two-thirds vote from the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a new council of regulators tasked with preventing banks from becoming too big to fail. Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard law professor who conceived of the bureau and is now tasked with getting it off the ground, responded on Monday night to statements like Royce's to undermine the bureau. "I'm really surprised by this move," she told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. "Following the Great Depression, it took fifty years before anyone started chipping seriously away at the new reforms that had been put in place to protect us. Now, here we hope we're coming out of another great recession, we've passed serious reform, and it's just a matter of months until people are talking about how to undercut this new consumer financial protection agency."
Royce has said he wants to rewrite the section in Dodd-Frank dealing with derivatives, the complex financial products that mirror the value of real goods (oil, corn, wheat) and, before the financial crisis, were used to make risky bets on the fluctuations in financial markets. Dodd-Frank requires most derivatives, or "swaps," trades to be processed through a central clearinghouse, and requires both speculators and possibly "end-users" [14]—the utility companies, farmers, airlines, and more using derivatives to legitimately hedge against risks, like fluctuations in oil prices—to post collateral in case trades go bad. While potentially increasing the cost of hedging, these reforms will beef up stability and safety in the derivatives markets. Royce, however, has suggested he would amend the derivatives part of Dodd-Frank [11] to let non-financial companies using derivatives off the hook, even though the Congressional Research Service found that such an exemption would all but nullify the rule [15].
Where Royce has been especially vocal is on the fate of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two taxpayer-owned government housing corporations. Royce believes the popular Republican talking point that Fannie and Freddie are "the two institutions most responsible for the collapse of the housing market," even though ample evidence [16] disproves [17] that theory. As chairman, Royce would tackle the question of either reforming the housing giants or abolishing them altogether.
The most pronounced difference between Bachus and Royce is not their financial philosophies, but their demeanors. While Bachus struggled as ranking member to match Barney Frank's blistering rhetoric, Royce showed no hesitation to lock horns with the Massachusetts Democrat. During the reform bill's reconciliation process, Royce repeatedly clashed with Frank on the absence of any reforms for Fannie and Freddie. Royce's willingness to trade barbs is likely one of the main reasons his challenge to Bachus' seat has made headway at all.
In the end, though, the House financial services committee will see a major rightward shift with either Bachus or Royce as chairman. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), a free marketeer who said [18] the consumer bureau "assaults the liberties of the consumer," is poised to take over [19] the financial institutions and consumer credit subcommittee, while libertarian Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, will likely take over the domestic monetary policy and technology subcommittee. And if that didn't spell trouble for Dodd-Frank, the House GOP's pledge to defund [20] the financial reform bill makes plenty clear where Republicans stand on financial issues.
Like Bachus, Royce is no fan [11] of Dodd-Frank, and would, as chairman, seek to chip away at the bill. For starters, he wants [12] to give bank regulators veto power on the rule-making abilities of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. There's just one problem with that: The consumer bureau is already subject to [13] veto by a two-thirds vote from the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a new council of regulators tasked with preventing banks from becoming too big to fail. Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard law professor who conceived of the bureau and is now tasked with getting it off the ground, responded on Monday night to statements like Royce's to undermine the bureau. "I'm really surprised by this move," she told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. "Following the Great Depression, it took fifty years before anyone started chipping seriously away at the new reforms that had been put in place to protect us. Now, here we hope we're coming out of another great recession, we've passed serious reform, and it's just a matter of months until people are talking about how to undercut this new consumer financial protection agency."
Royce has said he wants to rewrite the section in Dodd-Frank dealing with derivatives, the complex financial products that mirror the value of real goods (oil, corn, wheat) and, before the financial crisis, were used to make risky bets on the fluctuations in financial markets. Dodd-Frank requires most derivatives, or "swaps," trades to be processed through a central clearinghouse, and requires both speculators and possibly "end-users" [14]—the utility companies, farmers, airlines, and more using derivatives to legitimately hedge against risks, like fluctuations in oil prices—to post collateral in case trades go bad. While potentially increasing the cost of hedging, these reforms will beef up stability and safety in the derivatives markets. Royce, however, has suggested he would amend the derivatives part of Dodd-Frank [11] to let non-financial companies using derivatives off the hook, even though the Congressional Research Service found that such an exemption would all but nullify the rule [15].
Where Royce has been especially vocal is on the fate of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two taxpayer-owned government housing corporations. Royce believes the popular Republican talking point that Fannie and Freddie are "the two institutions most responsible for the collapse of the housing market," even though ample evidence [16] disproves [17] that theory. As chairman, Royce would tackle the question of either reforming the housing giants or abolishing them altogether.
The most pronounced difference between Bachus and Royce is not their financial philosophies, but their demeanors. While Bachus struggled as ranking member to match Barney Frank's blistering rhetoric, Royce showed no hesitation to lock horns with the Massachusetts Democrat. During the reform bill's reconciliation process, Royce repeatedly clashed with Frank on the absence of any reforms for Fannie and Freddie. Royce's willingness to trade barbs is likely one of the main reasons his challenge to Bachus' seat has made headway at all.
In the end, though, the House financial services committee will see a major rightward shift with either Bachus or Royce as chairman. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), a free marketeer who said [18] the consumer bureau "assaults the liberties of the consumer," is poised to take over [19] the financial institutions and consumer credit subcommittee, while libertarian Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, will likely take over the domestic monetary policy and technology subcommittee. And if that didn't spell trouble for Dodd-Frank, the House GOP's pledge to defund [20] the financial reform bill makes plenty clear where Republicans stand on financial issues.
Congressman Gregory W. Meeks
November 10, 2010
Contact: Sondra Spaulding (202) 225-3461
(WASHINGTON, DC)– Congressman Gregory W. Meeks (NY-6), Senior Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Financial Services Committee and Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade released the following statement today in honor of Veterans Day:
“Veterans across this country deserve our praise and honor everyday, not just Veterans Day, as they have made significant sacrifices to protect our country in the highest manner possible. Our nation’s veterans have demonstrated their patriotism to this country through their strong commitment to protecting our democracy and sacrificing their time away from their loved ones. I am extremely grateful for the sacrifices that they make each and every day.
“I and my colleagues in the 111th Congress have been extremely successful in developing and implementing legislation to honor our veterans’ service by making sure our veterans have access to the highest quality of benefits possible. I have co-sponsored several bills to enable better care for all veterans and, particularly, legislation focused on veterans who have been wounded, homeless and are minorities. As a Congress, we have worked to expand economic opportunities, strengthen health care, improve benefits for troops and military families, and have made significant strides in rebuilding the American military.
“While great steps have been taken to expand and improve our veterans’ benefits, I look forward to working with President Obama and my colleagues in the 112th Congress to develop additional legislation to continue to make sure that our veterans have top quality healthcare and the educational benefits that they deserve.”
Statement Honoring Our Nations Veterans
For Immediate ReleaseContact: Sondra Spaulding (202) 225-3461
(WASHINGTON, DC)– Congressman Gregory W. Meeks (NY-6), Senior Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Financial Services Committee and Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade released the following statement today in honor of Veterans Day:
“Veterans across this country deserve our praise and honor everyday, not just Veterans Day, as they have made significant sacrifices to protect our country in the highest manner possible. Our nation’s veterans have demonstrated their patriotism to this country through their strong commitment to protecting our democracy and sacrificing their time away from their loved ones. I am extremely grateful for the sacrifices that they make each and every day.
“I and my colleagues in the 111th Congress have been extremely successful in developing and implementing legislation to honor our veterans’ service by making sure our veterans have access to the highest quality of benefits possible. I have co-sponsored several bills to enable better care for all veterans and, particularly, legislation focused on veterans who have been wounded, homeless and are minorities. As a Congress, we have worked to expand economic opportunities, strengthen health care, improve benefits for troops and military families, and have made significant strides in rebuilding the American military.
“While great steps have been taken to expand and improve our veterans’ benefits, I look forward to working with President Obama and my colleagues in the 112th Congress to develop additional legislation to continue to make sure that our veterans have top quality healthcare and the educational benefits that they deserve.”
How Joe Lieberman helped the Democrats lose the election
By Ezra Klein
Since the election, there's been a lot of talk about what President Obama and the Democratic leadership could've done differently. I offered six ideas here. But there's been rather less discussion of what individual legislators could've done differently. Consider, for example, Joe Lieberman.
The health-care law doesn't really kick into effect until 2014. There are a couple of reasons for that. The most legitimate is that it takes some time to properly set up exchanges and subsidies, to dialogue with the industry and advocacy groups so the regulations work for both consumers and providers, and to give the various stakeholders time to adjust to the new rules and transition smoothly.
The less legitimate -- but perhaps more important -- reason was that self-described moderates in Congress (and eventually the President of the United States) arbitrarily decided that the bill shouldn't spend more than $900 billion over its first 10 years, no matter whether the bill cut and taxed its way to deficit neutrality. But for the system to work, it would have to spend more than that implied on a per-year basis. So the legislation's architects simply delayed its start. That way, the 10-year price tag was only capturing six years of spending. That got them to a per-year number that could actually work.
The problem, of course, is that this meant the bill didn't begin delivering benefits until 2014. But it was always possible to add provisions that would begin earlier, and thus would give the legislation supporters more quickly. A few of these -- for instance, allowing parents to keep children on their insurance until age 26 -- made it into the final law. But the most promising idea didn't. And it was Joe Lieberman's fault.
Late in the negotiations over the public option, a group of five conservative Democrats and five more-liberal Democrats seemed near to an unexpectedly smart compromise: Allow adults over 55 to buy into Medicare. This idea had a couple of different virtues: For one, it opened an effective and cheap program up to a group of Americans who often have the most trouble finding affordable insurance. For another, the Congressional Budget Office has said this policy would improve Medicare's finances by bringing healthier, younger applicants into the risk pool. Oh, and it's wildly popular with liberals, who want to see Medicare offered as an option to more people, and since Medicare is already up and running, it could've been implemented rapidly.
But Lieberman killed it. It was never really clear why. He'd been invited to the meetings where the compromise was developed, but he'd skipped them. He'd supported the idea when he ran for president with Al Gore, and he'd reaffirmed that support three months prior to its emergence in the health-care debate during an interview with the editorial board of the Connecticut Post. But now that it was on the table, he seemed to be groping for reasons to oppose it. About the best he managed was that it was "duplicative," which was about as nonsensical a position as could be imagined. Nevertheless, he swore to filibuster the bill if the buy-in option was added. The proposal was duly removed.
It's easy to say that this made for worse policy. Medicare buy-in was a smart, helpful idea that should've been included in the legislation. It's harder to say whether it had a defined political cost in the election: Liberals would've been a lot happier if they'd managed to add this to the law, and maybe more of them would've turned out to vote. Seniors might've been pleased to see Medicare's finances improved, and many of the people who would've been helped by the new rule would've been, well, their children. The law could've begun delivering benefits earlier, and maybe that would've helped its popularity. Polls of doctors and the public have repeatedly shown broad support for making Medicare available to more Americans.
Put all this together and it might've saved a few seats, or perhaps it wouldn't have saved any seats at all. Or maybe it would've changed everything. At any rate, it's the sort of thing that might've made a difference, and its absence was the result of one senator's incoherent intransigence. We're pretty used to looking for what the White House did wrong, and what the congressional leadership did wrong, but in a Senate where there were 60 Democrats for a time, there are a lot of cases where the decisions of one or two individual senators made a big difference to legislative outcomes. They deserve scrutiny, too.
The health-care law doesn't really kick into effect until 2014. There are a couple of reasons for that. The most legitimate is that it takes some time to properly set up exchanges and subsidies, to dialogue with the industry and advocacy groups so the regulations work for both consumers and providers, and to give the various stakeholders time to adjust to the new rules and transition smoothly.
The less legitimate -- but perhaps more important -- reason was that self-described moderates in Congress (and eventually the President of the United States) arbitrarily decided that the bill shouldn't spend more than $900 billion over its first 10 years, no matter whether the bill cut and taxed its way to deficit neutrality. But for the system to work, it would have to spend more than that implied on a per-year basis. So the legislation's architects simply delayed its start. That way, the 10-year price tag was only capturing six years of spending. That got them to a per-year number that could actually work.
The problem, of course, is that this meant the bill didn't begin delivering benefits until 2014. But it was always possible to add provisions that would begin earlier, and thus would give the legislation supporters more quickly. A few of these -- for instance, allowing parents to keep children on their insurance until age 26 -- made it into the final law. But the most promising idea didn't. And it was Joe Lieberman's fault.
Late in the negotiations over the public option, a group of five conservative Democrats and five more-liberal Democrats seemed near to an unexpectedly smart compromise: Allow adults over 55 to buy into Medicare. This idea had a couple of different virtues: For one, it opened an effective and cheap program up to a group of Americans who often have the most trouble finding affordable insurance. For another, the Congressional Budget Office has said this policy would improve Medicare's finances by bringing healthier, younger applicants into the risk pool. Oh, and it's wildly popular with liberals, who want to see Medicare offered as an option to more people, and since Medicare is already up and running, it could've been implemented rapidly.
But Lieberman killed it. It was never really clear why. He'd been invited to the meetings where the compromise was developed, but he'd skipped them. He'd supported the idea when he ran for president with Al Gore, and he'd reaffirmed that support three months prior to its emergence in the health-care debate during an interview with the editorial board of the Connecticut Post. But now that it was on the table, he seemed to be groping for reasons to oppose it. About the best he managed was that it was "duplicative," which was about as nonsensical a position as could be imagined. Nevertheless, he swore to filibuster the bill if the buy-in option was added. The proposal was duly removed.
It's easy to say that this made for worse policy. Medicare buy-in was a smart, helpful idea that should've been included in the legislation. It's harder to say whether it had a defined political cost in the election: Liberals would've been a lot happier if they'd managed to add this to the law, and maybe more of them would've turned out to vote. Seniors might've been pleased to see Medicare's finances improved, and many of the people who would've been helped by the new rule would've been, well, their children. The law could've begun delivering benefits earlier, and maybe that would've helped its popularity. Polls of doctors and the public have repeatedly shown broad support for making Medicare available to more Americans.
Put all this together and it might've saved a few seats, or perhaps it wouldn't have saved any seats at all. Or maybe it would've changed everything. At any rate, it's the sort of thing that might've made a difference, and its absence was the result of one senator's incoherent intransigence. We're pretty used to looking for what the White House did wrong, and what the congressional leadership did wrong, but in a Senate where there were 60 Democrats for a time, there are a lot of cases where the decisions of one or two individual senators made a big difference to legislative outcomes. They deserve scrutiny, too.
By Ezra Klein | November 11, 2010; 1:30 PM ET
Six things Obama has done wrong
I spend a lot of time on this blog tussling with some of the less-satisfying critiques of the Obama administration. But it's also worth looking back over the last two years and asking what they could've done better.
A few conditions, however: First, I'm not including things that I'd have liked to see happen, but don't think Congress would've allowed. A public plan paying Medicare rates falls into this category. Second, I'm not including mistakes too dependent on 20/20 hindsight. The administration -- and the CBO, and the private forecasters -- all thought the recession would be milder than what we actually got. That's what led to the disastrous prediction that the stimulus would hold unemployment under 8 percent. But I'm not going to fault the administration for using the best data available at the time. And third, I'm restricting myself to the issue I cover. Glenn Greenwald and Adam Serwer and others have persuaded me that the administration's record on civil liberties and GLBT rights is, at best, checkered. But since I've not really dug into those issues myself, I'll leave them for someone else.
1) The tax cut that failed: The administration likes to brag that the stimulus was comprised substantially of tax cuts. Look how bipartisan! Only the tax cut they included was the Making Work Pay tax cut from the campaign. You don't get bipartisan points for doing the thing you wanted to do anyway, and they didn't. They also designed the tax cut to release slowly and be completely invisible to the people receiving it. This, they hoped, would make people spend more of the money. It's hard to say if it worked (Jared Bernstein convinced me that survey data isn't enough to say it didn't work). But politically, it's left only one out of 10 Americans aware that the Obama administration lowered their taxes.
2) Neglecting the Federal Reserve: Matthew Yglesias has made this critique better than I could've, so I'll outsource it to him. "A party whose leaders realized that economic results were the most important driver of public opinion wouldn't have renominated a conservative Republican to head the Federal Reserve. Even more astoundingly, having given Ben Bernanke a second term in office, the Obama administration didn't get around to nominating anyone to fill the other vacant posts on the Federal Reserve Board until April 2010."
3) The Fiscal Commission: I've come to see the "National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform" as a major error on at least a few levels. Remember, first, that it's a powerless executive body created after Republicans filibustered a bill that would've created a similar, but more powerful, commission in Congress. They did that because they didn't want to compromise on taxes. They're not going to compromise in the president's commission, either. So on the simplest level, the commission will fail, but in order to pretend it hasn't failed, it'll probably release some Social Security cuts that we probably shouldn't make anyway.
Worse, creating the Fiscal Commission accepted the argument that the problem is the deficit. It isn't. If the president wanted to change the economic conversation and show himself thinking long-term, we should've had an effort focused on a long-term growth strategy, in which fiscal sustainability would've been one pillar, but not the only pillar. Instead, the Commission's report will be a battle over deficit reduction in general and, most likely, Social Security in particular. Those are battles that Democrats -- and the economy -- will lose even if they win. How much better to have offered some deal this year pairing long-term deficit reduction with immediate stimulus, or to be looking towards a report next year that would be about growth and reform, not just about how best to manage contraction.
4) The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: I struggle with this one. The stimulus included measures designed to create jobs and help the economy immediately and measures designed to make investments and strengthen the economy over the longer-term. As a matter of policy, I fully support that. As a matter of politics, I think it made the bill look worse to people who didn't understand -- or support -- the dual mandate. Splitting the bills in two would've allowed for a cleaner stimulus, but it might have meant we didn't get the second bill -- and we needed it. Forcing the medical system to move towards electronic medical records was incredibly important. Which is why I'm conflicted on this.
5) The size and sale of the stimulus: By now, this is a familiar critique. Christina Romer thought we needed $1.2 trillion in stimulus. Then the recession turned out to be larger than we'd calculated. Then we got just $787 billion -- and not all of that was stimulus. I'm not here to argue about whether the administration could've gotten more by working Congress harder. I'm not smarter than Rahm Emanuel or Phil Schiliro. But the fact that this was a half-measure should have been communicated to the American people. Instead, we got figures and rhetoric arguing that a stimulus of this size would be sufficient. When it wasn't, the idea itself got discredited.
6) It's the procedure, stupid: Here are four words we've really not heard out of the Obama administration: "Up-or-down vote." Obama has spoken occasionally about the filibuster, but the relentless perversion of the legislative process has not been made into a sufficient issue. The administration complains that they can only do what they can do, and they'd have done more if not for Congress, but there's been little effort and no political capital spent explaining -- much less changing -- the impediments to action. Many Americans think the administration has failed, and they've hardly even been exposed to the argument that they were actually stopped. Republican obstruction has been predictable since, at the least, the stimulus vote, but they never figured out a way to force the issue, or even really make it part of the story.
There are more, of course. But those are the six that spring to mind first.
Photo credit: arry Downing Photo.
By Ezra Klein | October 29, 2010; 4:52 PM ET
Fix of an Error
I apologize for the error of the video for Lawrence O'Donnell and Glenn Greenwald, I have fixed the video.
Hispanic Republican Group Slams GOP's "Extreme" Congressmen
An advocacy group warns Republicans against backing GOP immigration hawks poised to lead committees in the new Congress.
| Thu Nov. 11, 2010 11:29 AM PST
Somos Republicans—a fledging Hispanic GOP group—is protesting the likely appointment of Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) and Steve King (R-Iowa) to leadership positions in the next Congress, criticizing them for promoting anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant positions. The group submitted "a letter of concern" [1] on Tuesday to incoming House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor detailing their gripes with Smith, the likely chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and King, who's poised to lead the subcommittee on immigration:
Somos Republicans is now trying to push back against the GOP's reactionary turn. The group formed in Arizona after the passage of the state's infamous immigration law in April and chapters have since opened in Texas, California, Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, says founder Dee Dee Blase. "We've grown exponentially because of these [Arizona-like] laws. It's really causing us to mobilize and wake up, we're upset with these kinds of anti-immigrant rhetoric politicians." On its website, the organization describes [3] itself as supporting "Right to Life, Free Market Capitalism, Low Taxes, Small Government, Second Amendment, Traditional Marriage, and a Humane Immigration Reform that fits our Free Market economy and labor."
Congressmen Smith and King have repeatedly engaged in rhetoric that is aimed negatively toward Hispanics. Steve King has used defamatory language that is extremely offensive to Hispanics, which is found in numerous congressional records. We believe Steve King’s behavior is not appropriate for a high-level elected Republican who might be in charge of a committee that handles immigration rules. Steve King and Lamar Smith have adopted extreme positions on birthright citizenship, and promise legislation that would undermine the 14th amendment of the constitution, which both swore an oath to uphold…Somos Republicans adds that such anti-immigration extremism has helped drive Hispanics away from the GOP and would be a major political liability for the party in 2012:
Representatives Smith and King have engaged in an ill-advised platform and rhetoric that has…caused an exodus of Hispanic voters to the Democratic Party. We ask that you review Mr. King’s and Mr. Smith’s congressional statements desiring to “pass a bill out of the House to end the Constitution's birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants,” or what Steve King has made reference to “anchor babies.” We find both this rhetoric and this un-constitutional conduct reprehensible, insulting and a poor reflection upon Republicans because we don’t want our Party to be viewed as the Party of changing the United States Constitution.
[T]his insensitive and constant assailment on our Hispanic Community may push Hispanics further into the Independent, Libertarian or Democrat Party….It is our sincere belief that if representatives Smith and King were to become the Chairs of the House Judiciary and Subcommittee on Immigration, and if they indeed continue such insensitive rhetoric towards Hispanics, the conditions for a Republican presidential candidate to garner the necessary Electoral College Delegates to win the 2012 presidency will not be possible.Both King and Smith have made it clear that they will push for a major immigration crackdown in the next Congress, as I explained this week [2]. King has already vowed, for instance, to put forward a bill to prevent the children of illegal immigrants from becoming US citizens—a fringe idea that has gained renewed traction with the GOP's leap to the right on immigration.
Somos Republicans is now trying to push back against the GOP's reactionary turn. The group formed in Arizona after the passage of the state's infamous immigration law in April and chapters have since opened in Texas, California, Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, says founder Dee Dee Blase. "We've grown exponentially because of these [Arizona-like] laws. It's really causing us to mobilize and wake up, we're upset with these kinds of anti-immigrant rhetoric politicians." On its website, the organization describes [3] itself as supporting "Right to Life, Free Market Capitalism, Low Taxes, Small Government, Second Amendment, Traditional Marriage, and a Humane Immigration Reform that fits our Free Market economy and labor."
Blase says the group is also campaigning in support of the DREAM Act—which supports legalization for illegal immigrant students who have completed college or military service—and working to "stop the defamation of anchor babies," she adds. But the overarching focus for the nascent organization is the 2012 elections. Blase says the group aims to use lobbying, grassroots organizing, and other forms to advocacy to help the Republican Party recapture some 40 percent of Hispanic voters—up from the average of 30 percent—with plans to form a political action committee as well. She points to George W. Bush as a role model of a Hispanic-friendly Republican, noting that he captured 44 percent of the community's vote in 2004. But it's unclear who will step up to the plate within the ranks of the current GOP.
And though a record number [4] of Hispanic Republicans were elected to Congress this year, it's still uncertain whether they'd become heroes to the Latino community. Blase, for instance, says that she's still uncertain about where Marco Rubio stands on immigration and whether her group would support him, given his hedging on the issue on the campaign trail. And she warns that the GOP will be doomed in two years if its anti-immigrant fringe is allowed to dominate the debate: "If Boehner doesn't take heed, we're done."
And though a record number [4] of Hispanic Republicans were elected to Congress this year, it's still uncertain whether they'd become heroes to the Latino community. Blase, for instance, says that she's still uncertain about where Marco Rubio stands on immigration and whether her group would support him, given his hedging on the issue on the campaign trail. And she warns that the GOP will be doomed in two years if its anti-immigrant fringe is allowed to dominate the debate: "If Boehner doesn't take heed, we're done."
Troops OK With Gay Troops
| Wed Nov. 10, 2010 9:34 PM PST
This is unsurprising, but still welcome news:
A Pentagon study group has concluded that the military can lift the ban on gays serving openly in uniform with only minimal and isolated incidents of risk to the current war efforts, according to two people familiar with a draft of the report, which is due to President Obama on Dec. 1.Apparently the Marine Corps remains the biggest obstacle, but even there only 40% of all Marines are concerned about lifting the ban. That seems pretty manageable. I don't expect the reactionary right to change its tune on this regardless of the evidence, but this report might still be enough to break loose a few Republican votes for repeal of DADT in the lame duck session. Keep your fingers crossed.
More than 70 percent of respondents to a survey sent to active-duty and reserve troops over the summer said the effect of repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy would be positive, mixed or nonexistent, said two sources familiar with the document. The survey results led the report's authors to conclude that objections to openly gay colleagues would drop once troops were able to live and serve alongside them.
Why An Arctic Oil Spill Would Be Really, Really Bad
A report from an environment group warns that ice, freezing temperatures and high seas would overwhelm any clean-up attempts.
This article [1] first appeared on the Guardian [2] website.
The next big offshore oil disaster could take place in the remote Arctic seas where hurricane-force winds, 30-foot seas, sub-zero temperatures, and winter darkness would overwhelm any clean-up attempts, a new report warns.
With the ban on offshore drilling lifted in the Gulf of Mexico, big oil companies such as Royal Dutch Shell are pressing hard for the Obama administration to grant final approval to Arctic drilling. Shell has invested more than $2 billion to drill off Alaska's north coast, and is campaigning to begin next summer.
But the report, Oil Spill Prevention and Response in the US Arctic Ocean [3], by the Pew Environment Group [4], warns that oil companies are not ready to deal with a spill, despite the lessons of the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
"There is a lot of pressure by Shell to drill this summer," Marilyn Heiman, director of the US Arctic program at Pew said. "But the oil companies are just not prepared for the Arctic. The spill plans are thoroughly inadequate."
The next big offshore oil disaster could take place in the remote Arctic seas where hurricane-force winds, 30-foot seas, sub-zero temperatures, and winter darkness would overwhelm any clean-up attempts, a new report warns.
With the ban on offshore drilling lifted in the Gulf of Mexico, big oil companies such as Royal Dutch Shell are pressing hard for the Obama administration to grant final approval to Arctic drilling. Shell has invested more than $2 billion to drill off Alaska's north coast, and is campaigning to begin next summer.
But the report, Oil Spill Prevention and Response in the US Arctic Ocean [3], by the Pew Environment Group [4], warns that oil companies are not ready to deal with a spill, despite the lessons of the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
"There is a lot of pressure by Shell to drill this summer," Marilyn Heiman, director of the US Arctic program at Pew said. "But the oil companies are just not prepared for the Arctic. The spill plans are thoroughly inadequate."
It took BP three months to bring its ruptured well under control [5]. The former chief executive, Tony Hayward, admitted this week that the company had to improvise its response [6] plan as it went along.
Trying to clean up a spill in the extreme conditions of the Arctic would be on an entirely different order of magnitude. "The risks, difficulties, and unknowns of oil exploration in the Arctic…are far greater than in any other area," the report said.
The consequences for the Arctic's environment would be dire, it said, wiping out populations of walrus, seal and polar bear and destroying the isolated indigenous communities that depend on hunting to survive.
Getting to the scene of a spill would be a challenge. The nearest major port, Dutch Harbor, is 1,300 nautical miles away from the drilling areas in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, and what few air landing strips exist are not connected to any road system. There are no coast guard vessels in either sea, and the nearest coast guard station is 950 miles by air away in Kodiak, Alaska.
Response teams would confront gale-force winds, massive blocks of ice and turbulent seas, total darkness for six weeks of the year, and extreme cold. Cranes would freeze and chemical dispersants, such as those used to break up the BP spill, might not work.
Then there is the ice. Left undetected, a pipeline leak could spread oil beneath the surface of sea ice. Ice floes could carry oil hundreds of miles away from the source. At freeze-up, oil can become trapped within ice within the space of four hours, remaining there until spring. If it becomes trapped within multi-year ice, oil could stay in the environment for years, or even a decade, the report said.
Pew and other environment groups this week ramped up their campaigns on offshore drilling, taking out full-page advertisements in gulf newspapers calling on the Senate to pass tougher offshore drilling regulations when it returns for its lame-duck session next week.
An oil spill bill passed in the house last summer, but has stalled in the Senate amid strong objection from the oil industry to provisions that would lift the current $75m cap on liability.
There is also increasing concern that the interior secretary, Ken Salazar, will lift the hold placed on Arctic drilling permits after the oil disaster in the gulf.
The report does not call for a complete ban on Arctic drilling, but it recommends far more extensive study of the potential environmental impacts of a spill before industry is allowed to go-ahead. "We need to take a surgical approach and see what areas should and should not be allowed," said Heiman.
The report also says that any spill response has to be tailored to the extreme Arctic conditions, and that oil companies be required to real-life test runs of their containment efforts.
"We can't be training them the moment the oil hits the water and the ground like we did in the Gulf," Heiman said. "There is much more work that needs to be done to protect the Arctic."
Trying to clean up a spill in the extreme conditions of the Arctic would be on an entirely different order of magnitude. "The risks, difficulties, and unknowns of oil exploration in the Arctic…are far greater than in any other area," the report said.
The consequences for the Arctic's environment would be dire, it said, wiping out populations of walrus, seal and polar bear and destroying the isolated indigenous communities that depend on hunting to survive.
Getting to the scene of a spill would be a challenge. The nearest major port, Dutch Harbor, is 1,300 nautical miles away from the drilling areas in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, and what few air landing strips exist are not connected to any road system. There are no coast guard vessels in either sea, and the nearest coast guard station is 950 miles by air away in Kodiak, Alaska.
Response teams would confront gale-force winds, massive blocks of ice and turbulent seas, total darkness for six weeks of the year, and extreme cold. Cranes would freeze and chemical dispersants, such as those used to break up the BP spill, might not work.
Then there is the ice. Left undetected, a pipeline leak could spread oil beneath the surface of sea ice. Ice floes could carry oil hundreds of miles away from the source. At freeze-up, oil can become trapped within ice within the space of four hours, remaining there until spring. If it becomes trapped within multi-year ice, oil could stay in the environment for years, or even a decade, the report said.
Pew and other environment groups this week ramped up their campaigns on offshore drilling, taking out full-page advertisements in gulf newspapers calling on the Senate to pass tougher offshore drilling regulations when it returns for its lame-duck session next week.
An oil spill bill passed in the house last summer, but has stalled in the Senate amid strong objection from the oil industry to provisions that would lift the current $75m cap on liability.
There is also increasing concern that the interior secretary, Ken Salazar, will lift the hold placed on Arctic drilling permits after the oil disaster in the gulf.
The report does not call for a complete ban on Arctic drilling, but it recommends far more extensive study of the potential environmental impacts of a spill before industry is allowed to go-ahead. "We need to take a surgical approach and see what areas should and should not be allowed," said Heiman.
The report also says that any spill response has to be tailored to the extreme Arctic conditions, and that oil companies be required to real-life test runs of their containment efforts.
"We can't be training them the moment the oil hits the water and the ground like we did in the Gulf," Heiman said. "There is much more work that needs to be done to protect the Arctic."
Pelosi: After 'productive' Congress, fight for jobs goes on
By Nancy Pelosi
The results of last week's elections reflected the genuine frustration of the American people, who are justifiably angered by the continued high unemployment rate. While Democrats are also disappointed at the rate of job growth, it does not diminish what we have accomplished.
President Obama and this Congress were job creators from Day One, saving the country from the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. The Recovery Act created or saved more than 3 million jobs, and America is moving forward. October marks the 10th straight month of private sector job growth.
But much more needs to be done. Democrats will strive to work with the new Republican majority to create jobs, strengthen the middle class and reduce the deficit. And we will always fight to protect Social Security and Medicare, health care reform and Wall Street reform.
Congressional experts have called the 111th Congress the most productive Congress in a half-century. Our Democratic members took tough votes to support America's working families, putting the American people before politics and thinking of the next generation, not the next election.
Accomplishments
Democrats passed Wall Street reform to ensure that never again will the recklessness of some on Wall Street cause joblessness on Main Street. Our small business bill is now extending credit to small business owners so they can grow and hire. And we are committed to strengthening America's manufacturers — helping them with our "Make It in America" strategy, so our workers can make it in America. We made the largest investment in student aid in our nation's history, reducing the cost of loans to families and reducing the deficit. We achieved more progress over the last four years for our veterans and military families than any time since the passage of the original GI Bill in 1944. And we did all of this while restoring fiscal discipline to the Congress by making the pay-as-you-go rules the law of the land.
We are proud to have passed historic health insurance reform that includes a Patient's Bill of Rights to lower health costs and improve quality.
Republican ideas welcome
Democrats will continue to put forward innovative ideas, engage in entrepreneurial thinking and work to create the jobs for middle class prosperity. Republicans and Democrats must work together, with President Obama, to prepare for our nation for the 21st century while creating clean energy and infrastructure jobs. As we go forward, we welcome Republican ideas about job creation.
Though they elected a new majority in Congress, Americans did not vote for the special interests. They voted for jobs. Democrats remain committed to fighting for the people's interests, not the special interests.
While the election is over, the urgent needs of the American people remain. Over the past several days, I have spoken with my Democratic colleagues about where we go from here. I have heard from Americans across our country who are relying on us to continue our fight to create jobs, hopefully in a bipartisan way, and move our nation forward.
We will begin the 112th Congress with talented new colleagues, and also with a renewed dedication to fighting every day for jobs, economic recovery and the middle class.
Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is speaker of the House of Representatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)