Limbaugh spreads the hate

Markey on Nat'l Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Chairmen’s Mark

Nov 11, 2010:

Washington, D.C. – Representative Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) released the following statement: “The recommendations put forward by the chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform are going to have about as smooth a sail in Congress as the Splendor cruise ship had off the California coast. “While we must engage in a serious and robust debate on how to cut our nation’s debt, Draconian proposals that roll back Social Security benefits, end the mortgage interest deduction, tax workers’ health benefits or undermine the protections and safety net for middle-class American  families, our seniors, and some of our most vulnerable citizens are not acceptable.  “Deficit reduction must be a priority as we rebuild our economy, and the immediate step we can take to save our nation hundreds of billions of dollars is to begin now by allowing the Bush tax cuts for millionaires to expire.”

Putting Dream Act in Motion

Senator floats compromise for Bush Tax Cuts

Sanders on Deficit and Defense Spending with Rachel Maddow (MSNBC)

The Week in a Review

November 12, 2010

Sen. Bernie Sanders announced on Friday that he will work with members of Congress, labor unions, seniors’ organizations and others to develop progressive alternatives to proposals first floated on Wednesday by leaders of a White House deficit commission.  As Congress prepared to return to Washington on Monday for the first time since the midterm elections, a key debate shaped up over the fate of Bush-era tax cuts due to expire at the end of the year. What most Americans know about those and other public policy issues is filtered through a national news media dominated by fewer and fewer big corporations. Sanders opposes a proposed merger of NBC Universal and Comcast.
A Progressive Alternative In a letter, Sanders invited progressive activists and economists to meet next week to develop a progressive plan to reduce the deficit. “We all know that there are a number of fair ways to reduce deficits without harming the middle class and those who have already lost their jobs, homes, life savings and ability to send their kids to college.  The time has come to put these proposals into a package so that a fair and progressive deficit reduction plan will become part of the national discussion,” he said.
Social Security Sanders was among the first and most forceful to speak out Wednesday against a proposal to raise the Social Security retirement age to 69.  The idea was floated by former Sen. Alan Simpson and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, the leaders of a White House commission on budget deficits. Sanders sharply disputed their effort to pin the blame for deficits on Social Security. “The huge increase in the national debt in recent years was caused by two unpaid wars, tax breaks for the wealthy, a Medicare prescription drug bill written by the pharmaceutical industry, and the Wall Street bailout.  Unlike Social Security, none of these proposals were paid for. Not only has Social Security not contributed a dime to the deficit, it has a $2.6 trillion surplus.” To read Sanders’ complete statement, click here.
Military Spending One way to cut the $13.7 trillion national debt, Sanders said, would be for the Department of Defense to drop outdated and expensive Cold War-era programs and refocus on modern-day enemies. “Our military posture should be fighting international terrorism and al Qaeda,” he said.  “When the military budget was substantially increased we were fighting a major world power called the Soviet Union. We are still spending tens of billions of dollars a year on Cold War weapons systems except the Soviet Union no longer exists.” Citing other ways to save, Sanders mentioned Government Accountability Office studies he commissioned that found billions of dollars are wasted every year on unneeded spare parts.  To watch the MSNBC interview with Rachel Maddow, click here.
Taxes Another way to reduce red ink, according to Sanders, is to stop giving expensive tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans whose incomes have soared while the buying power of middle-class workers has shrunk. Senior White House adviser David Axelrod signaled on Thursday that the administration was ready to accept a temporary extension of all tax cuts due to expire at the end of the year. Backpedaling, the White House said all Axelrod was doing was restating President Obama’s willingness to compromise on extending Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in order to preserve expiring tax breaks for the middle class. Sanders favors renewing tax cuts for the middle class, but he said the White House should not bargain away $700 billion in tax breaks for the richest Americans for a decade. “The immediate problem the president has is he wants to compromise, but there’s no one to compromise with. You cannot keep reaching out to people who don’t want to work with you.”
Draw the Line President Obama repeatedly has turned the other cheek as Republicans rebuffed his efforts to work together. "I think compromise makes sense,” said Sanders, who throughout his career in Congress has reached across the aisle to pass legislation. “But when the job of the Republicans is to see he gets nothing through, their job in life is to be the 'party of no,' their job is to say he's going to be a one-term president and not cooperate, I think he's got to draw a line.”
Stop the NBC-Comcast Merger “There already is far too much media concentration in this country. We need more diversity. We need more local ownership. We need more viewpoints. We do not need another media giant run by a Republican supporter of George W. Bush,” Sanders said. The Federal Communications Commission is reviewing the transaction that would transfer NBC Universal broadcast licenses to Comcast, the largest U.S. cable provider. The deal also is under Justice Department antitrust review.

Coral Damage:

How Long Will Gulf Oil Disaster Impacts Linger?

from Wildlife Promise

0 11/11/2010 // 

Impacted coral (Credit: Lophelia II 2010; NOAA OER & BOEMRE)

“Decades and decades – if not hundreds of years.” That’s how long it could take coral affected by the Gulf oil disaster to recover, according to Dr. Doug Inkley, senior scientist for the National Wildlife Federation.
The new evidence of impact on corals was discovered by scientists on a research ship in the Gulf of Mexico. The research team, led by Penn State University biologist Charles Fisher, has spent hundreds of hours over the past decades studying deep corals with remotely-operated-vehicles (ROVs) and submersibles. Fisher’s team found a colony of dead and dying hard coral species at a depth of 4,500 feet and experts say it is a revelation that they have feared since the start of the disaster. What exactly this means for the Gulf has yet to be determined but it is hard evidence confirming the effects of oil and dispersants go well below the surface.
The discovery was made November 2 approximately seven miles southwest of the wellhead of the Deepwater Horizon. Fisher says the team made the discovery after investigating an area of the seafloor where NOAA models indicated one of the large oil plumes moved and persisted the longest. The team discovered a colony of hard coral with subtle impacts but as they kept moving they eventually found a large community of dead and dying coral.
“From the moment we arrived it was evident that these corals were severely impacted by something. This is the first evidence of an impact in the deep sea to animal communities,” said Fisher. Many of the colonies appeared to be dead with little or no living tissue. There was also a notable lack of colonization by other marine life and that many of the brittle stars appeared to be very discolored and immobile.

Brittle starfish on impacted coral (Credit: Lophelia II 2010, NOAA OER & BOEMRE)

Inkley says the discovery is exactly what he and many others have feared since the start of the disaster. How it will ultimately affect the ecosystem remains to be seen, but Inkley says that as the ecosystem degrades (now evident in dead coral on the sea floor), it will likely have a ripple impact to other organisms. “This is exactly what we feared. We suspected all along that there would be a large impact hidden underwater & we’re now seeing now seeing that,” said Inkley.
Fisher said that there is so little known about the deep sea that it is hard to determine what impacts this may have on other species or the overall health of the Gulf. The team took a variety of samples to test for the presence of hydrocarbons and for molecular evidence of genetic damage and physiological stress that would indicate exposure to oil or dispersants. Although they will engage in testing and further observation on another trip in December, he said it doesn’t necessarily mean that lab tests will provide any information.
“We just don’t know what we will find. We’re just going to go back there with an open mind and see what has changed. We want to discover new [damaged] sites and learn what the real impact was,” said Fisher.
Due to the nature and logistical difficulties in deep sea research and investigation, it is highly unlikely that teams will identify and ascertain all of the damage. The site of the discovery is at the right depth and direction to have been impacted by the deep-water plume and the impact was detected only a few months after the spill was contained. Inkley said that the effects of such deep-sea impacts may not be known for years to come but it is likely to have consequences that reach beyond the deepest depths of the ocean.
“Just given the age of these corals, it’s like chopping down a giant sequoia tree. It’s long-lived, going to take a very long time to replace and it won’t be without impact. We just don’t yet know what that is,” said Inkley.
The research was conducted as part of a four-year operation funded by NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration and Research and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, to study corals in the Gulf of Mexico. The scientists are working from the NOAA ship Ronald H. Brown and have carefully mapped and imaged the entire affected coral community so that it can be revisited in December.
Learn more about the Gulf oil disaster & the National Wildlife Federation’s response at NWF.org/OilSpill.

SRP jobs saved by stimulus funds, officials say

Officials say money preserved positions, speeded installation of 'smart meters'

 by Ryan Randazzo - Nov. 12, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2010/11/12/20101112srp-jobs-saved-by-stimulus.html#ixzz157yAX729

Salt River Project officials said that stimulus money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is preserving jobs for meter technicians, electricians and linemen at the non-profit, municipal utility.
Utility officials said that in addition to the long-term energy savings the stimulus projects will bring for SRP customers, the company also is able to keep many people on staff that otherwise would be laid off amid the sluggish economy.
The largest grant from the stimulus act for SRP was $56.9 million to speed up installation of "smart meters" for the company's 940,000 customers. So far, the company has spent about $13 million, according to records from the U.S. Department of Energy.

About 50 SRP employees are working on the project now, said Mike Lowe, SRP's customer-service manager.

"That is 50 people employed locally in this process today that would not be employed if not for the grant," Lowe said.

The new meters, similar to those being installed by utilities nationwide, allow utilities to control electric meters remotely via radio signals, without visiting customers.

They allow the utility to offer time-of-use rates to customers and are helping SRP avoid tens of thousands of service calls a month.

Lowe said the project should pay itself back in less than five years with the avoided costs of physically inspecting each meter for billing.

Customers with smart meters are able to check their power usage the next day online and can request e-mails from SRP estimating their monthly bill based on the amount of power they've been using.

The smart-meter project's price tag tops $114 million when the cost-sharing from SRP is included. The company already had planned smart meters for all its customers, but the stimulus project sped up the installations.

More than 580,000 SRP customers now have the meters, and Lowe said that, so far, SRP has not had to lay off any of the employees who formerly visited those customers to read how much power they had used and send them a bill.

"We have quite an incredible success story," he said. "We've helped them all find other work within SRP or outside the company."

Some of the meter readers also have retired or moved to other jobs on their own, he said.

The stimulus grant will help SRP convert all its customers to smart meters by 2013.

Once the installation is complete, he said, the company still will need the employees now installing the meters.

"We will need more professionals to run the systems and so forth," he said. "We will have an ongoing need for highly skilled people."

SRP also is using $3.1 million in stimulus funds to install solar-electric and water-heating systems on low-income homes, and for large solar projects on schools.

About 30 SRP electricians and linemen are being trained to install the solar-power systems, said Lori Singleton, SRP's sustainable-initiatives manager.

The employees will be trained on how to install the systems and will work on the projects in the next year, filling in time between their regular duties, which have slowed with the economy.

"The fact is we are using them and not laying them off," Singleton said.

Most of the money will go to solar-power systems at schools, lessening the schools' electric bills, she said.

SRP also is installing solar-electric systems on several group homes run by the Centers for Habilitation in Tempe and Marc Center in Mesa, which were selected for the projects based on their previous relationships with SRP, she said.

"They both have several group homes," she said. "We have been evaluating their homes to see which make the most sense for installing solar."

Saving money on their energy bills will allow the non-profits to put more money into their core programs, she said.

SRP also is working with Chicanos Por La Causa and Habitat for Humanity to install solar water-heating systems in low-income neighborhoods, she said.

The utility will use the stimulus money and its own funds to install about 11 school solar-power systems, 60 water-heating systems on low-income homes, and about 40 electric systems on group homes.

Arizona Public Service Co. also has several stimulus-funded initiatives. One is its test in Flagstaff to evaluate operating several solar-power systems on a single utility line, and it has a $4.4 million project similar to SRP's installing water heaters for low-income housing, spokesman Jim McDonald said.

How Not to Win Friends in Washington, Tea Party Edition

— By Stephanie Mencimer

| Fri Nov. 12, 2010 10:20 AM PST

Watching the tea party movement try to take on the Washington establishment over the coming months may be one of the best forms of entertainment to be had this year, as the political novices try to match wits with people who've been playing the influence game for decades. Consider the latest:
In the wake of their big election "victory," the Tea Party Patriots (TPP) hastily organized an orientation session for newly elected members of Congress in DC. The national tea party umbrella group rented space at the swank Ronald Reagan building, arranged for more than 100 of its local coordinators to be flown in for the event, and even pulled Reagan-era attorney general Ed Meese out of the mothballs and signed him on as a keynote speaker. After shelling out more than $100,000, the group discovered that it wasn't the only one interested in getting to those newly elected freshmen. The Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank, had also organized a similar event. Worse still, it was scheduled for the same day and time as the tea party orientation. 
The tea partiers responded by lobbying the newly elected lawmakers to come to their event instead of the one organized by the Claremont Institute. TPP sent out an indignant email blast suggesting that Claremont was simply hosting a GOP event in disguise, and that the competing "orientation" was an attempt by lobbyists to get first crack at the freshman class. "DC insiders, the RNC, and lobbyists are already trying to push the Tea Party aside and co-opt the incoming Congressmen," the group wrote. TPP even asked its members to call the soon-to-be members of Congress and lobby them personally to come to the tea party event. This turned out to be a pretty bad idea. The email TPP circulated contained the personal cell phone numbers of some of the freshmen, who for a 24-hour stretch, received non-stop calls from tea partiers. Those calls did not, of course, go over well with their intended targets. On Friday, TPP sent out another email to activists urging them to stop calling the freshman, writing:

We listed the contact information we had for these freshmen and we now know that some of it was personal cell phone numbers or fax numbers. This list was the best information we had at the time. We also understand that sometimes members of Congress find it annoying to receive numerous calls from voters. But we encourage them to remember it is part of the job and they asked to be hired. This will not be the last time.

Not only that, but TPP included a few people on its list who hadn't actually won their elections, so the likes of Virginia's Keith Fimian and a few others also got assaulted with phone calls, prompting the group to acknowledge its bungling:

We need to offer our sincere apologies to a John Koster, Jesse Kelly, and Keith Fimian who ran for office and did not get elected but we had them listed on our list of people to call. These are people who stepped up and were willing to serve the public. They lost their elections and need to be able to get back to their lives. We offer our most sincere apologies to you for having melted your phone lines.

Meanwhile, the initial tea party hysteria over the Claremont Institute event proved to be, well, hysteria. Both Claremont and the RNC have said that the Institute's shindig had nothing at all to do with the GOP, and that it was actually proposed by the freshmen themselves. Given the JV nature of TPP's organizing effort in DC, it will be interesting to see just how the tea partiers are going to "orient" the incoming congressional freshman. It sounds like it's the tea partiers themselves who could use the tutorial on the ways of Washington.

Vice President Biden Honors "Those Who Served and Sacrificed"

Posted by Jesse Lee on November 12, 2010 at 04:05 PM EST

While the President joined around 1,400 base personnel and families and several hundred Korean vets in Seoul, the Vice President spent Veterans Day at Arlington National Cemetery and took part in a wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknowns.  Watch a quick video from his time there.

Vice President Joe Biden talks to blue star mothers at the Veterans' Day breakfast in the East Room of the White House, November 11, 2010. (Official White House Photo by David Lienemann)

Vice President Joe Biden leans over Chief of Staff of the Airforce General Schwartz at the Veterans Day breakfast in the East Room of the White House, November 11, 2010. (Official White House Photo by David Lienemann)

Vice President Joe Biden shakes hands after speaking at the Veterans Day ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia, November 11, 2010. (Official White House Photo by David Lienemann)

Attendees of the Veterans Day ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery sing God Bless America, in Arlington, Virginia, November 11, 2010. (Official White House Photo by David Lienemann)

Vice President Joe Biden talks to a family member in section 60 at Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia, November 11, 2010. (Official White House Photo by David Lienemann)                                    

Boehner files brief in favor of court challenge to healthcare reform

By Michael O'Brien - 11/12/10 04:34 PM ET

Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner (R-Fla.) filed a brief Friday in federal court in favor of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new healthcare reform law.

Boehner, mirroring a move made earlier this week by Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), filed an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief arguing that a key part of the healthcare reform bill signed into law earlier this year by President Obama should be struck down.

“I’m proud to stand with these states and the [National Federation of Independent Businesses] on behalf of America’s workers in the revolt against this job-killing health care law,” Boehner said in a statement.

“Of course, the easiest way to prevent this health care law from costing our economy more jobs is to heed the outcry for its repeal," Boehner added. "That’s why Republicans have made a pledge to America to repeal this job-killing health care law and replace it with reforms that bring down costs and protect American jobs.”

Boehner and McConnell's filings this week might be seen as supplements to their promises to try and repeal the new healthcare law, a cornerstone in their campaign platform this fall. Republican leaders acknowledge, though, that a full repeal could be difficult as long as Obama is in office.

The lawsuit, which originates in a Florida federal court, was filed by 20 state attorneys general and the NFIB. The suit argues that the so-called "individual mandate," the requirement that each individual have health insurance, is unconstitutional.

Rand Paul:

Fiscal commission report doesn't go far enough

By Jordan Fabian - 11/12/10 03:51 PM ET

The draft report issued by President Obama's fiscal commission does not do enough to bring down the nation's debt and deficits, Sen.-elect Rand Paul said Friday.
Paul (R-Ky.) wants the changes proposed by the bipartisan commission to take effect sooner, rather than over the course of several decades.

"The debt commission has some good ideas … but they are stretching it out over 30, 40, 50 years. I really think it’s going to be too little, too late," he told Fox News in an interview to air Friday afternoon. "I tend to not think that proposals are too serious if they are over such a long period of time and they end up getting changed over that time."

Paul's comments stand in contrast to criticism of the report on the right, which has mainly criticized the proposed tax increases.
The Tea Party-backed Paul often ran as an iconoclast on the campaign trail, touting his libertarian sensibilities about fiscal issues. He strongly opposes tax increases and recommended steep spending cuts to reduce the size of government.
Aside from the timeline, Paul did not specify how the report should be improved. Paul appeared to ease his opposition to earmark spending this week, though he did not go as far as to say that he fully supports the spending items.
Former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) proposed a $200 billion in cuts to domestic and defense spending as well as tax hikes as the basis of their plan to reduce the deficit to below 40 percent of GDP by 2035.
Other recommendations, like gradually raising the retirement age, would take full effect over the course of decades: The age would be raised to 69 by 2075.
The report was the "chairmen's mark," meaning the contents have not been approved by the bipartisan 18-member panel. It is set to finalize a plan by early December.
Paul suggested that the commissioners ought to be bolder in developing a solution.
"The report only came out a day or two ago. I guess I am just a little more bold than those in Washington," he said. "Those in Washington think a 30-year plan to balance the budget is bold, and I think that’s still anemic."

President Obama at the G-20 in Seoul: "Focusing on Growth"

Posted by Jesse Lee on November 12, 2010 at 12:40 PM EST

 For those wondering the amount of work that goes into a G-20 Summit, perusing the fact sheets below will give some idea of how much gets packed into these short events when leaders around the world come together.

• G-20: Fact Sheet on a New Global Framework to Fund Innovative SME Finance Models
• G-20: Fact Sheet on Sustainable External Imbalances and Orderly Global Adjustment
• G-20: Fact Sheet on IMF Reform
• G-20: Fact Sheet on U.S. Financial Reform and the G-20 Leaders' Agenda
• G-20: Fact Sheet on a Shared Commitment to Fighting Corruption
• G-20: Fact Sheet on Energy Issues
• G-20: Fact Sheet on the U.S. Global Development Policy and the G-20 Development Framework

The President went over some of the higlights in his opening remarks at a press conference in Seoul:

So here in Seoul, the question was whether our nations could work together to keep the global economy growing.  I know the commentary tends to focus on the inevitable areas of disagreement, but the fact is the 20 major economies gathered here are in broad agreement on the way forward -- an agreement that is based on a framework that was put forward by the United States.  And for the first time, we spelled out the actions that are required -- in four key areas -- to achieve the sustained and balanced growth that we need.
First, we agreed to keep focusing on growth.  At home, the United States has been doing our part by making historic investments in infrastructure and education, research and clean energy.  And as a consequence, our economy is growing again -– even as we must do more to ensure that that growth is sustained and translates into jobs for our people.
Here at Seoul, we agreed that growth must be balanced.  Countries with large deficits must work to reduce them, as we are doing in the United States, where we’re on track to cut our deficit in half by 2013, and where I’m prepared to make tough decisions to achieve that goal.  Likewise, countries with large surpluses must shift away from unhealthy dependence on exports and take steps to boost domestic demand.  As I’ve said, going forward, no nation should assume that their path to prosperity is paved simply with exports to the United States.
Second, we agreed that exchange rates must reflect economic realities.  Just as the major advanced economies need to keep working to preserve stability among reserve currencies, emerging economies need to allow for currencies that are market-driven. This is something that I raised yesterday with President Hu of China, and we will continue to closely watch the appreciation of China’s currency.  All of us need to avoid actions that perpetuate imbalances and give countries an undue advantage over one another.
Third, we took further steps to implement financial regulatory reform.  At home, we are implementing the toughest financial reform since the Great Depression, and we are expecting the same sense of urgency, rather than complacency, among our G20 partners.  Here in Seoul we agreed to new standards -- similar to those that we’ve passed in the United States -- to make sure that banks have the capital they need to withstand shocks and not take excessive risks that could lead to another crisis.  And we agreed on an approach to ensure that taxpayers are not asked to pay for future bank failures.
Fourth, we agreed to focus on development as a key driver of economic growth.  The work we did here today builds on a new development policy that I announced in September and recognizes that the most effective means of lifting people out of poverty is to create sustainable economic growth -– growth that will create the markets of the future.  We also agreed on an action plan to combat corruption, which in some countries is the single greatest barrier to economic progress.
Finally, we reaffirmed the need to avoid protectionism that stifles growth and instead pursue trade and investment through open markets.  That’s why, for example, we will continue to work towards a U.S.-Korea free trade agreement in the coming weeks -- not just any agreement, but the best agreement to create jobs both in America and Korea.
And that's why I spoke very frankly to my G20 partners today about the prospects of the Doha Round.  For just as emerging economies have gained a greater voice at international financial institutions -- in part because of the work we've done here at the G20 -- so, too, must they embrace their responsibilities to open markets to the trade and investment that creates jobs in all our countries.

And the Worst Climate Change Denier Award Goes To...

Who's the biggest climate change and environmental offender? Repower America recently asked its members this question. Though BP has certainly had a bad year when it comes down to it the worst of the worst in 2010 is Koch Industries.

This should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the company. A study this past spring by University of Massachusetts Amherst's Political Economy Research Institute found Koch Industries to be the tenth most polluting company in the US. This places it above companies like BP and Royal Dutch Shell. Residents in 28 states can thank Koch for ruining air quality.

The company also has a large stake in bad climate business beyond US borders: the company has a refinery that relies on Albert tar sands to produce 325,000 barrels of oil a day. Tar sands are even more energy intensive to extract and refine than regular oil.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Koch Industries is the second largest private company in the US, with a value of over $100 billion. It also happens to be in the energy business. The two brothers that run it, Charles and David Koch, are two of the wealthiest people in the country and also ardent libertarians. That means both the company and its owners have quite a bit of money to throw around and an agenda when it comes to climate change legislation and government oversight.

In the midterm election cycle, Koch Industries spent over $1 million to get California's Proposition 23 passed. The ballot measure would have repealed California's climate change legislation. Luckily, the effort failed.

However, Koch Industries' reach extends far beyond California state lines. Greenpeace estimates that from 2005 to 2008, "Koch Industries-controlled foundations contributed $24.9 million in funding to organizations of the 'climate denial machine.'" That money helped fund groups that blew ClimateGate out of proportion and think tanks like the Cato Institute which wrote in 2009 that Congress should "pass no legislation restricting emissions of carbon dioxide" and "inform the public about how little climate change would be prevented by proposed legislation."

Then there's the $37.9 million from 2006 to 2009 to directly lobby Congress about oil and energy issues. Given their funding for climate change skepticism and junk science, you'll never guess what they were likely asking Congressmen and Congresswomen for. That's a lot of climate change denial!

And here's the worst part: this is just the information that's available publicly. With the Supreme Court's ruling that allows corporate donors to remain anonymous, there's no telling how much money Koch Industries has really spent to delay and obfuscate climate change legislation. Yet despite David Koch's effort to make sure Koch Industries is "the biggest company you've never heard of," members of Repower America are onto them. Congratulations, Koch Industries! You have truly earned your 2010 Snake Oil Award.

GOP fiscal panel member hardens stance on report

By Jordan Fabian - 11/12/10 01:29 PM ET

A Republican member of President Obama's fiscal commission revealed he has deeper problems with the draft report released by the panel's co-chairmen than he previously suggested.
Rep. Dave Camp (Mich.), the incoming chairman of the House's tax-writing panel, said former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) favor tax increases he says are unhelpful.

“I don't like the idea of tax increases. The reason I don't is we have not demonstrated that we're serious about reducing spending," Camp said on Bloomberg's "Political Capital," which airs over the weekend. "There's been a really dramatic run-up in spending in the last couple years. We need to demonstrate to the American people that we're serious about reducing spending."The soon-to-be chairman's stance is yet another signal that the right, as well as the left, has a bone to pick with the report that proposes steep spending cuts, tax reform and sweeping changes to Social Security.

Camp, along with GOP fiscal panel members Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) and Jeb Hensarling (Texas), released a tight-lipped statement when Bowles and Simpson released their report Wednesday, saying they had "concerns with some of their specifics" but failed to elaborate.
The report, which has not been approved by the full commission, lays out dramatic changes to the U.S. tax code designed to raise revenue that include eliminating several popular tax credit, widening the tax base while lowering rates and gradually instituting a 15 percent increase of the federal gas tax.
It also calls for $200 billion in cuts to domestic and defense spending. Liberal Democrats have objected to the Social Security benefit cuts and spending reductions.
Camp did not dismiss the proposal outright, saying, "We've got some more work to do."
"So we've got some more work to do. But I do think they (fiscal commission) are to be commended for at least coming together with a proposal to try to reduce our deficit. It's so important for job creation, but we've got some more work to do."

Supreme Court lets 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy remain in place

By Michael O'Brien - 11/12/10 01:47 PM ET

The U.S. Supreme Court refused on Friday to pause enforcement of the military's ban on openly gay and lesbian service members while that policy faces a legal challenge.

The high court sided against the Log Cabin Republicans, a GOP gay rights group, that had asked that discharges of gay and lesbian members of the armed forces under the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy be suspended.

The Obama administration had argued that the ban should be allowed to stay in place while litigation continues. A federal court had struck down the policy as unconstitutional, and ordered that discharges made under the policy end immediately.

A federal appeals court had reversed that lower court, though, and allowed the current policy to remain in place, prompting the appeal that resulted in today's Supreme Court ruling.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said that the decision underscored the need for congressional action.

“While this is a disappointing decision, it demonstrates the need for Congress to take action now," she said in a statement. "The ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ policy undermines our national security, the integrity of our armed services, and the moral foundation upon which this country was founded. We must put our national security first and repeal this corrosive policy now.”
Updated 3:08 p.m.

Bobby Jindal, Reborn to Run

— By Kate Sheppard

| Fri Nov. 12, 2010 2:00 PM PST

— Photo by dsb nola, via Flickr.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's debut book, Leadership and Crisis, comes out on Monday, and Politico's preview makes it sound like the one-time-and-potentially-future GOP golden boy spends a significant part of it criticizing President Obama for playing politics with the Gulf oil spill. Jindal highlights this as evidence of the greater state of affairs in Washington, where, he writes, "Political posturing becomes more important than reality."
But wait—doesn't using your first book as a 39-year-old first-term governor and presidential hopeful to accuse the Obama administration of playing politics…amount to playing politics, too? During the crisis it was clear that Jindal saw the spill as a way to regain some national attention.
After his disastrous State of the Union rebuttal last year, his first foray into the national spotlight, Jindal laid fairly low. But in the wake of the spill, he spared no effort when it came to lobbing rhetorical bombs at the administration, including accusing it of "making excuses for BP" and lambasting the lack of "detailed plans" for response.
Jindal's criticism ignored the fact that, as a member of Congress, he himself played a major role in efforts to open vast new areas offshore for drilling—without doing anything in the way of improving regulations.
Jindal clearly saw his battles with the administration over the spill response as political opportunities. He hammered the White House on issues like building sand berms along the coast, even after the federal government gave the state permission to build them and even when the state was flagrantly violating the permits it was granted. Jindal's berm war was little more than political grandstanding, at the cost of long-term protection of his state's coastal ecosystems.
So it's little surprise that Jindal makes a big deal of this issue in his new book. Nor is it surprising that his supporters are already planning fundraisers for this "eventual presidential contender."

Earmarks, Schmearmarks

— By Kevin Drum

| Fri Nov. 12, 2010 11:08 AM PST

I am, of course, thrilled to see conservatives beating each other senseless over earmark reform. They've spent years demagoguing Democrats over it, and the spectacle of Sen. James Inhofe now complaining that he's being demagogued over earmarks is pretty priceless. Still, Inhofe makes an unassailable point: earmarks direct spending, they don't increase it. Actual overall appropriation levels are set separately, and earmarks merely take a bit of spending authority away from the federal bureaucracy and hand it directly to members of Congress. Over at The Corner, however, Stephen Spruiell offers a novel argument about why Inhofe is wrong:

Proponents of reform will readily concede that earmarks direct rather than add spending. But that is the problem: As long as powerful appropriators are getting to direct their share, they are less concerned with the overall size of the spending package. I think it’s fairly hard to dispute that point. The number of congressional earmarks doubled between 2001 and 2005, coinciding exactly with the years that congressional Republicans let non-defense discretionary spending grow at a rate not seen since the early seventies.
Senator Inhofe attempts to minimize the importance of this correlation by producing one of his own: “Over the course of the last several years, the overall number and dollar amount of earmarks has steadily decreased. During that same time, overall spending has ballooned by over $1.3 trillion.” Well, let’s just put it this way: Special inducements and temptations aren’t necessary to get a Democrat-controlled Congress signed up for more spending. The lesson of 2001 to 2005 is that earmarks hypnotize Republican majorities into spending like Democrats. Earmarks are our problem, not theirs.

"Earmarks hypnotize Republican majorities into spending like Democrats." I love that. It's yet another example of a creative conservative argument that never would have occurred to me. It also suggests that Republicans are really cheap dates. Apparently all it takes to get them to spend like drunken sailors is a few million dollars each in earmarks. That's some party you have there, Stephen.
In any case, I don't really have a dog in this fight. Giving members of Congress some limited amount of say over how money is spent in their districts actually seems defensible to me, as long as it's public and transparent. On the other hand, the opportunities for mischief are pretty obvious too, so doing away with earmarks wouldn't bother me much. What's more, deep sixing earmarks entirely would have the salutary effect of (a) forcing alleged deficit hawks to talk about something a little more serious, and (b) putting an end to pretzel-bending arguments like Spruiell's. Count me in, I guess.

Grand Opening of the Nordex Manufacturing Facility in Jonesboro, Arkansas

Recovery.gov Track the Money

October 29, 2010

Statement by Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Today's Grand Opening of the Nordex Manufacturing Facility in Jonesboro, Arkansas

Recovery Act investment creates jobs, helps lay the foundation for a clean energy economy

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu issued the following statement on today's grand opening of the Nordex wind turbine manufacturing facility in Jonesboro. The facility was supported with funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, also known as the stimulus.
"Today's grand opening in Jonesboro is a sign of what's possible as we invest in the country's growing clean energy manufacturing sector," said U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu. "By bringing together investments from the public and private sector, the Recovery Act helped move this project forward, creating new jobs in Arkansas and strengthening America's economic competitiveness."
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON TODAY'S ANNOUNCEMENT
Under the Recovery Act, Nordex USA, Inc. received a tax credit for $22.2 million to assist in the creation of a wind turbine manufacturing facility in Jonesboro, Arkansas. The 150,000 square foot manufacturing plant is a world-class production facility will build components for 2.5 megawatt wind turbines that belong to Nordex's third generation turbine - the Gamma generation. The total planned investment for the site is $100 million, with further manufacturing capacity to be added in a second phase in line with market conditions.
Production began earlier this month, and the first assembled nacelle - the part of the turbine that sits above the tower and houses the engine and other key turbine components - was on display at today's event.

THE ULTIMATE ROLLER COASTER RIDE:

 A Brief History of Fossil Fuels

Posted Nov 8, 2010 by Richard Heinberg

Fossil fuels have powered human growth and ingenuity for centuries. Now that we're reaching the end of cheap and abundant oil and coal supplies, we're in for an exciting ride. While there's a real risk that we'll fall off a cliff, there's still time to control our transition to a post-carbon future.
And now, for your viewing and sharing pleasure we bring you 300 YEARS OF FOSSIL FUELED GROWTH IN 5 MINUTES:

Written and narrated by PCI Senior Fellow Richard Heinberg.

Animated by the wonderful team (we highly recommend them for animation projects) at MONSTRO DESIGN.

Background beats ("Can I Kick It?") by A Tribe Called Quest

What Should Macroeconomics Do?

This is one topic that is way over my head and I took Economics in College, If someone could explain it to me in plain everyday English please leave a detailed comment. I would be so appreciative.

What is wrong with American macroeconomics? In a nutshell, when  2007-9 came along every single macro textbook (including mine) and every  single macro course (save possibly Perry Mehrling's) was of little or  no use in helping people who had read or taken them to read publications  like the FT as they chronicled the downturn or understand the policy  debates hosted by the FT.

At the very minimum, a macro course should teach people enough about  the macroeconomy that they can then read the reporting of the FT. And it  should teach people enough about the theoretical approaches that  underpin policy advocacy that they can then understand and evaluate the  policies proposed in contributions to the FT.

What would such a macroeconomics course look like?

It would, I think, teach the five still-live theories of the causes of economic downturns that underpin people's analyses:

• The theory that high unemployment is produced by real wages stuck  at too high a level for a full-employment economy to sustain. It must  be suffered.
• The theory that high unemployment today is the unavoidable consequence of past overinvestment. It must be suffered
• The monetarist theory that a downturn is the result of a shortage  of liquid cash money which induces people desperate to build up their  cash balances to try to switch their spending away from  currently-produced goods and services. It is fixed by expanding the  money supply or increasing velocity and so reducing money demand
• The Keynesian--or is it Wicksellian?--or is it a  Hicksian?--theory that a downturn is the result of a shortage of bonds,  of vehicles that savings can use to transfer purchasing power into the  future which induces people desperate to build up their assets to try to  switch their spending away from currently-produced goods and services.  It is fixed by expanding the supply of bonds or reducing savings
• The Minskyite theory that a downturn is the result of an  overspeculation-caused panic that generates a shortage of safe  high-quality assets, of vehicles that people to park their wealth and be  sure it will not melt away while their backs are turned,  which induces  people desperate to build up their safe asset holdings to try to switch  their spending away from currently-produced goods and services. It is  fixed by expanding the supply of safe assets or restoring confidence and  so diminishing the demand for safety

All five of these theories need to be taught sympathetically, yet  critically. They all make claims about how the world works that might be  true--indeed, there are surely times and places when and where they are  true--and that can and should be evaluated.

All five of these theories are best taught sympathetically by being  taught historically: as long traditions of thought that smart people  have used to try to understand a changing and confused world. Thus  Minskyism from its nineteenth century roots with Walter Bagehot or  perhaps Adam Smith grappling with nineteenth-century financial crises,  Keynesianism from its roots in Knut Wicksell's studies of disturbances  to the flow-of-funds, monetarism from its roots in John Stuart Mill  trying to understand the first industrial downturn in England in 1825,  overinvestment theories from their roots in Karl Marx grappling with the  crisis of 1848, high-real-wage from its roots in Nassau Senior's  examinations of technological unemployment in the pre-1850 Midlands--all  tussling with a set of problems first raised by Jean-Baptiste Say and  Thomas Robert Malthus.

That would be a macro course that would turn out graduates who could  read the FT--and who would be of great value to all the employers who  need people to process information from the FT.

These three pieces I found referenced and I thought they might peak some interest to readers

 Progress and Poverty by Henry George 1839 - 1897

Part of the Introduction

To Those Who,

Seeing the Vice and Misery That Spring From

The Unequal Distribution

Of Wealth and Privilege,

Feel the Possibility of a Higher Social State

And Would Strive For Its Attainment

San Francisco, March, 1879

Make for thyself a definition or description of the thing which is  presented to thee, so as to see distinctly what kind of a thing it is,  in its substance, in its nudity, in its complete entirety, and tell  thyself its proper name, and the names of the things of which it has  been compounded, and into which it will be resolved. For nothing is so  productive of elevation of mind as to be able to examine methodically  and truly every object which is presented to thee in life, and always to  look at things so as to see at the same time what kind of universe this  is, and what kind of use everything performs in it, and what value  everything has with reference to the whole, and what with reference to  man, who is a citizen of the highest city, of which all other cities are  like families; what each thing is, and of what it is composed, and how  long it is the nature of this thing to endure.

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus


 Progress and Poverty Updated by Bob Drake    


Part of the Introduction


WE OWE Bob Drake a debt of gratitude for this meticulous condensation and modernization of Henry George's great work. The original version had an elegance that evoked a passion for social justice among millions of readers in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. However, by the beginning of the twenty-first century, George's complex prose stood in the way of that intention for large numbers of people. Now his ideas can once again be widely accessible


 The Corruption of Economics Neo-classical Economics as a Strategem against Henry George 

by Mason Gaffney

Part of the Introduction

Neoclassical economics is the idiom of most economic discourse today. It is the paradigm that bends the twigs of young minds. Then it confines the fluorescence of older ones, like chicken-wire shaping a topiary. It took form about a hundred years ago, when Henry George and his reform proposals were a clear and present political danger and challenge to the landed and intellectual establishments of the world. Few people realize to what a degree the founders of Neoclassical economics changed the discipline for the express purpose of deflecting George, discomfiting his followers, and frustrating future students seeking to follow his arguments. The stratagem was semantic: to destroy the very words in which he expressed himself. Simon Patten expounded it succinctly. "Nothing pleases a ... single taxer better than ... to use the well-known economic theories ... [therefore] economic doctrine must be recast" (Patten 1908, p.219; Collier, 1979, p.270).

National Greatness Agenda by David Brooks

National Greatness Agenda

By DAVID BROOKS, NY Times

Elections come and go, but the United States is still careening toward bankruptcy. By 2020, the U.S. will be spending $1 trillion a year just to pay the interest on the national debt. Sometime between now and then the catastrophe will come.
It will come with amazing swiftness. The bond markets are with you until the second they are against you. When the psychology shifts and the fiscal crisis happens, the shock will be grievous: national humiliation, diminished power in the world, drastic cuts and spreading pain.
Nothing in this past election has averted this disaster. The Republicans talk about cutting deficits, but a party that campaigns to restore the $400 million in Medicare cuts included in the health care law is not serious about averting a fiscal meltdown. Some Democrats, meanwhile, don’t even bother to pretend. Look at the way many Democrats completely rejected the draft proposal unveiled by the chairmen of the fiscal commission. Nancy Pelosi, the public sector unions and many liberal commentators are not only unwilling to compromise to prevent a catastrophe, they’re unwilling to even consider a compromise. They seem to regard anybody who would negotiate as fundamentally immoral and unserious.
The report from the chairmen lists some of the best ways to raise revenue and cut spending. But it comes with no enactment strategy. In this climate, asking politicians to end the mortgage deduction and tax employer health care plans and raise capital gains taxes and cut benefits for affluent seniors is like asking them to jump on a buzzing sack full of live grenades. They won’t do it.
So we continue on the headlong path toward a national disaster. And along the way our dysfunctional political system will leave all sorts of other problems unaddressed: immigration, energy policy and on and on.
Yet, I’m optimistic right now. I’m optimistic because while our political system is a mess, the economic and social values of the country remain sound. My optimism is also based on the conviction that serious, vibrant societies don’t sit by and do nothing as their governments drive off a cliff.
Over the past few years, we have seen millions of people mobilize — some behind President Obama and others around the Tea Parties. The country is restive and looking for alternatives. And before the next round of voting begins, I suspect we will see another mass movement: a movement of people who don’t feel represented by either of the partisan orthodoxies; a movement of people who want to fundamentally change the norms, institutions and rigidities that cause our gridlock and threaten our country.
You can’t organize a movement like this around pain — around tax increases and spending cuts. But you can organize one around a broad revitalization agenda, and, above all, love of country.
It will take a revived patriotism to motivate Americans to do what needs to be done. It will take a revived patriotism to lift people out of their partisan cliques. How can you love your country if you hate the other half of it?
It will take a revived patriotism to get people to look beyond their short-term financial interest to see the long-term national threat. Do you really love your tax deduction more than America’s future greatness? Are you really unwilling to sacrifice your Social Security cost-of-living adjustment at a time when soldiers and Marines are sacrificing their lives for their country in Afghanistan?
Like the civil rights movement, this movement will ask Americans to live up to their best selves. But it will do other things besides.
It will have to restore the social norms that prevailed through much of American history: when narcissism and hyperpartisanship was mitigated by loyalties larger than tribe and self; when competition between the parties was limited and constructive, not total and fratricidal.
This movement will have to build institutions to support the leaders who make the hard bargains. As in the civil rights era, politicians won’t make big changes unless they are impelled and protected by a social upsurge.
Most important, this movement will have to develop a governing philosophy and a policy agenda. Right now, orthodox liberals and conservatives have their idea networks, and everybody else is intellectual roadkill. This coming movement will have to revive the American System: a governing philosophy that believes in targeted federal efforts to arouse growth, social mobility and responsibility.
Like the chairmen’s report, this movement could demand that Congress wipe out tax loopholes and begin anew. It could protect federal aid to the poor while reducing federal subsidies to the upper-middle class.
The coming movement may be a third party or it may support serious people in the existing two. Its goal will be unapologetic: preserving American pre-eminence. It will preserve America’s standing in the world on the grounds that this supremacy is a gift to our children and a blessing for the earth.

The Bowles-Simpson Deficit Reduction Plan Doesn't Add Up

11 Nov 2010

Posted by Stan Collender



I decided to wait 24 hours for the dust and the entirely predictable massive overreaction to specific proposals to settle down a bit before commenting on the deficit reduction plan released yesterday by commission co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson.
My assessment: The plan definitely...and maddeningly...doesn't add up.
What Bowles and Simpson released was really nothing more than their own version of the annual report the Congressional Budget Office publishes on deficit reduction options.  It's the co-chairs laundry list of spending and revenue alternatives. But, for the most part, it's not a coherent plan that embodies a vision of what the government should be and do to match the fiscal constraints.
For example...The plan calls for a substantial reduction in federal employees.  A reduction in employees generally results in the government relying on more outside consultants to get the work done but, in addition to the recommended reductions-in-force, Bowles-Simpson also calls for a significant cuts in the use of contractors.
The combination of those two seems to indicate that the now smaller number of federal employees will have to do everything that was done before, that is, that they will have to be much more productive. But Bowles-Simpson also calls for a three-year freeze on federal employee salaries and that almost inevitably means an increasing number of federal workers will quit.   That will reduce rather than increase productivity as new and less experienced workers replace the more senior folks who will have left for greener pastures.
In other words, Bowles-Simpson projects substantial savings based on the expectation that a less experienced and much smaller federal workforce will be more productive and just as effective than the more experienced and larger workforce it replaces.  That makes absolutely no sense.
Bowles-Simpson seems to have been put together backwards.  Instead of starting with a plan about what the federal government should no longer do and then determining the savings from the smaller number of employees that would be needed to do what's left to be done, with limited exceptions the plan focuses on the reduced workforce but makes few assumptions, suggestions, or recommendations about what services the government should no longer provide.  The assumptions it does make don't appear to justify the cuts in the number of employees and contractors.
The type of proposals that are needed are: Should the government stop prosecuting and jailing as many criminals and should the sentences be shorter for those it convicts?  Should it fund less or no research on cancer and similar diseases?  Should the FBI no longer investigate white collar crime?  Should the military not be prepared to conduct as many operations?  Should veterans health care be eliminated?
I also find it hard to understand where the $3 billion annual reduction in farm subsidies comes from.  Is this a partial decision to get the federal government out of that business?  If subsidies to farmers are being cut, is that based on a decision to stop providing subsidies to all industries?  If not, what's the justification for singling out farmers?
Bowles-Simpson also doesn't add up because it relies on a variety of what in the past would have been ridiculed as budget gimmicks, such as mandating limits on certain costs without providing any real way of actually making that happen.
The most egregious gimmick, however, and the one that is a clear golden oldie in the federal budgeting world, is assuming $11 billion in annual savings from domestic discretionary spending by creating a committee to recommend the cuts.  This is nothing more than a modern-day version of the magic asterisk in unspecified future savings that David Stockman and Dick Darman relied on in 1981 to make the numbers in Ronald Reagan's first budget work.
Without this vision, without embodying an overarching concept for what the government should no longer do, Bowles-Simpson is just a series of one-off proposals that are a plan only in the sense that they are listed in the same document.
That makes each proposal relatively easy to criticize individually...exactly what's happened since the plan was released.

Obama Snubbed in Seoul

Gregory: U.S. at 'big moment' in debt debate

Democratic lawmaker:

White House sending 'mixed signals' on taxes

By Michael O'Brien - 11/12/10 10:06 AM ET

A House Democratic lawmaker complained Thursday evening that the White House is sending "mixed signals" on whether it intends to compromise on tax cuts.

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), a proponent of President Obama's initial plan to let tax cuts for top earners expire at the end of the year, said it was unclear where the administration stood now on the tax debate.

"I think we're getting mixed signals out of the White House right now," Lynch said on the Fox Business Network, referring to remarks made Thursday by White House senior adviser David Axelrod suggesting that the administration might be willing to compromise.

"We have to deal with the world as we find it," Axelrod told the Huffington Post of the tax debate. "The world of what it takes to get this done."

The White House has seemed to broadcast hints that it might be willing to reach some sort of compromise on the expiring tax cuts, especially after the major Republican victories in last week's midterm elections. Obama and Democratic leaders had previously favored extending all the tax cuts except for households earning more than $250,000 per year, and for individuals earning above $200,000.

Republicans have favored extending all the tax cuts for a few years, if not permanently, and have refused to allow separate votes on the middle-class and high-end tax cuts. The White House has suggested it might be willing to agree to a short-term extension of all the tax cuts, which are set to expire at year's end.

But the president has refused so far to clearly state his preference on how to proceed with the tax cuts. Obama is traveling in Asia and said Friday that he would not stake out a position until after he's had a chance to meet with congressional leaders next week.

"What I’ve said is that I’m going to meet with both the Republican and Democratic leaders late next week and we’re going to sit down and discuss how we move forward," Obama said at a press conference in Seoul, South Korea. "But I’m not going to negotiate here in Seoul.  My job is to negotiate back in Washington with Republican and Democratic leaders."

Lynch said, though, that the short-term extension might be unsatisfactory to Democrats like himself, who favor letting the high-end tax cuts expire. Some Democrats fear that a short-term extension this time would pave the way to more short-term extensions in the future.

"If you want to just kick the can down the road, you know, I don't know where we end up," Lynch said.