Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Want to Get Rid of Congress?
It’s Gone — Until Tomorrow, Anyway
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORNFor anybody who has ever been fed up at Washington and wanted to get rid of the United States Congress, today’s the day to celebrate. It’s gone. Sort of. But better enjoy it fast, because by noon on Wednesday, Congress will be back.
In accordance with the 20th Amendment to the Constitution, the terms of every member of the House expired at noon on Jan. 3. That was Monday, for anyone not sitting in front of a calendar. But in accordance with the adjournment resolution adopted by the House in December, the new Congress does not convene until noon on Wednesday. Only at that point will lawmakers be sworn into office and the new speaker, John A. Boehner, will take the gavel.
The Senate, meanwhile, still exists. Or at least two-thirds of its members (those who were not up for re-election in November) do not need to take the oath of office, and they remain in office even as the Senate has been in adjournment.
The result is an odd sort of limbo. From noon on Jan. 3 until noon on Jan. 5, “there is a Senate but not a House in my view,” said Norm Ornstein, an expert on the Congress at the American Enterprise Institute.
The issue may be highly technical and largely academic but not entirely. For instance, given that her term expired on Sunday, was Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, still the Speaker of the House and the second in line of succession to the presidency on Monday and Tuesday?
And who in fact was the House majority leader? Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, who held the job for the last four years, or Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, who will hold it for the next two?
Amid the confusion, it was a day when everyone seemed to be in the majority and no one was in the minority. An e-mail message from the majority leader press office announced a news briefing by Mr. Hoyer, while a message from a spokeswoman for Mr. Cantor, using her own e-mail account, announced a briefing by the “majority leader-elect.”
Presumably, sometime between now and noon on Wednesday, control of the “majority leader press” e-mail account will change hands. Exactly when that would happen, however, no one seemed to know for sure.
Mark Twain Censored
Professor Melissa Harris-Perry talks about the omission of the N-word from the newly revised Mark Twain's 'The Adventures of Huck Finn'
Bowdlerizing Huck
| Tue Jan. 4, 2011 11:25 AM PST
NewSouth Books plans to release an edition of Huckleberry Finn in which Mark Twain's 219 repetitions of the word "nigger" are replaced by "slave." Doug Mataconis is unhappy about this. Minor offensive scenes can be
removed from movies that are aired on TV "without taking away from the central themes of the story," he says,but:
removed from movies that are aired on TV "without taking away from the central themes of the story," he says,but:This is not the case with eitherSawyer or Finn, both books are set in a time period when racial tensions were a central part of life and are based, to a large degree, on the racially prejudices that Twain himself encountered as a child growing up in Missouri. This is especially true of Huckleberry Finn where, despite the fact that “the n-word” appears 219 times, it’s fairly obvious that Twain is condemning racial prejudice and that one of the central themes of the book is the process by which Huck discovers that the things he’d been taught by society by blacks were wrong, and that his companion him was, in fact, an heroic figure. Twain’s use of a word that, even in his time, was meant to be insulting and demeaning, was deliberate and removing it because of “sensitivities” seems to me to detract significantly from the overall power of the novel.
I think I'd agree with Doug in nearly every other case. But the problem with Huckleberry Finnis that, like it or not, most high school teachers only have two choices these days: teach a bowdlerized version or don't teach it at all. It's simply no longer possible to assign a book to American high school kids that assaults them with the word nigger so relentlessly. As Twain scholar Alan Gribben, who led the bowdlerization effort, explained, “After a number of talks, I was sought out by local teachers, and to a person they said we would love to teach [Tom Sawyer] and Huckleberry Finn, but we feel we can’t do it anymore. In the new classroom, it’s really not acceptable.”
Given that choice, I guess I'd bowdlerize. After all, the original text will remain available, and teachers can explain the wording change to their classes if they want to. (Though even that's probably difficult.) And frankly, I doubt that the power of the novel is compromised all that much for 17-year-olds by doing this. In fact, given the difference in the level of offensiveness of the word nigger in 2010 vs. 1884, it's entirely possible that in 2010 the bowdlerized version more closely resembles the intended emotional impact of the book than the original version does. Twain may have meant to shock, but I don't think he ever intended for the word to completely swamp the reader's emotional reaction to the book. Today, though, that's exactly what it does.
In any case, the only realistic alternative is that Huckleberry Finn vanishes from high schools and becomes a book taught solely at the university level. Maybe that's better. But I doubt it.
Reports: Boehner Backing Maria Cino In RNC Chair Fight
Incoming House Speaker John Boehner is backing Dick Cheney's choice for the next chair of the Republican National Commitee, according to multiple reports this afternoon.
Boehner "has made at least one call to advocate" for ex-Republican National Convention chief Maria Cino, Roll Call reports. CNN's Peter Hamby first reported Boehner's lobbying effort, reporting that Bohener has made "calls" on Cino's behalf. In the past, Boehner had promised to stay out of the RNC fight.
Staff for Boehner didn't offer a response to Roll Call, but as the paper points out, Boehner giving Cino his support wouldn't be too surprising. Boehner's known Cino for years and his chief of staff served with Cino when she was part of the George W. Bush administration. Cino is among the more experienced political operatives in the race to be the next chair of the RNC, though she is generally seen as running near the back of the pack.
As Hamby wrote, the next RNC chair "will be chosen by the 168 party activists who make up the party organization, and no one else," which makes it unclear how important the outside backing of prominent Republicans like Cheney and Boehner will be for Cino in the end.
Still, every little bit counts, especially in the race that many see as still being up for grabs. RNC members will convene outside DC on Jan. 14 to choose a new chair as part of their annual Winter Meeting.
Dick Cheney's Disappearing Clout
The ex-VP's ebbing influence over GOP politics is on full display in the RNC chairman's race.
Tue Jan. 4, 2011 3:00 AM PST
Dick Cheney is routinely touted as the most influential vice president in US history. But within the GOP these days, he has little sway—or so it would appear from his role in the race to elect a new chairman of the Republican National Committee.In early December, Cheney made news when he waded into the contentious RNC battle. A half-dozen potential candidates were considering a challenge to current chairman Michael Steele, who has fallen out of favor with many RNC members over his handling of the party's affairs, and Cheney decided to throw his weight behind one of them: former Bush administration official Maria Cino.
Cheney headlined a December fundraiser for Cino hosted by Republican pundit Mary Matalin and also backed by Ed Gillespie, former counselor to President George W. Bush. In theory, Cheney's high-profile endorsement should have been a boon for Cino, who was challenging an incumbent but unpopular chairman. But by early January, when all the RNC candidates gathered in Washington for a debate hosted by Americans for Tax Reform, Cino was running dead last in a heat of five, according to most of the early whip counts.
Cino's poor showing in the RNC race begs the question of how much influence the former vice president still wields within his own party. According to a quick survey of debate attendees and participants, the answer is: not that much. When I asked Steele himself about Cheney's endorsement of his opponent, he laughed heartily and said, "It is what it is." He said he believed RNC members are "not easily moved by those things" and indicated that Cheney's endorsement wasn't having much of an influence on the race.
Steele, who is expected to lose his bid for reelection, wasn't just trying to put a better light on his own prospects. The same sentiment was echoed by other RNC members as well. Morton Blackwell, who has been Virginia's Republican national committeeman since 1988 and is a member of the RNC executive committee, told me, "Dick Cheney has many strengths, but influencing internal Republican Party politics is not one of the areas he has been involved in."
Like Steele, Blackwell believed Cheney's endorsement wouldn't have much of an effect on the outcome of the race, in part because Cheney picked a candidate who was not a current or recent member of the RNC. Blackwell said that it would be unprecedented for the RNC to pick someone outside the club in a year when Republicans don't occupy the White House. Cino has never been an RNC member, even though she was its deputy chair in 2004. Blackwell also revealed that Cheney doesn't seem to be working all that hard to get Cino elected. He said he has not been contacted by Cheney about his vote, which is going to Saul Anuzis, the former head of the Michigan GOP and a tea party favorite.
Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, who moderated Monday's RNC chair debate, pointed out that Cheney's endorsements have not panned out recently. In the GOP primary for Texas governor, he noted, Cheney endorsed Kay Bailey Hutchison, who lost badly to incumbent Rick Perry. Cheney also backed Trey Grayson in the GOP primary to fill the seat of retiring Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning, which ultimately went to tea party fave Rand Paul. "I don't know that he has a track record with endorsements," said Norquist.
Norquist allowed that while Cheney's endorsement probably didn't help Cino win any votes with the RNC, it may have helped her raise some money. Norquist estimated that it probably takes at least $50,000 to $100,000 to travel the country to meet with all the RNC members and pitch a candidacy to them, and Cheney probably helped considerably in raising those funds for Cino. Cino herself confirmed this after Monday's debate when I asked her how the former vice president had specifically helped her campaign. After offering some boilerplate about her long friendship with the Cheney family, she said the endorsement had allowed her to raise money to fund her campaign.
But Cheney seems to be out of step with the current political climate, and the tea party movement in particular. His endorsement of Cino, while perhaps demonstrating loyalty to former Bush campaign foot soldiers, suggests he really doesn't know how to pick a winning candidate these days. After all, Cino has been lambasted by tea party activists for a serious transgression against conservative orthodoxy, namely that she had been a lobbyist for Pfizer, the pharma giant whose CEO lobbied hard to help pass President Obama's health care reform legislation. She's often referred to in conservative blogs as the "Obamacare lobbyist." During Monday's debate, she was asked directly about whether she lobbied for Obamacare. Her clumsy denial prompted real grumbling from what was an otherwise pretty tame crowd.
Cheney's endorsement and involvement in Cino's campaign also has complicated her attempts to woo social conservatives, who are lukewarm on Cheney these days but remain a powerful force at the RNC. The anti-gay-marriage National Organization for Marriage (NOM) helped vet questions for Monday's debate, so naturally one of the big social issues at the heart of the debate involved same-sex marriage. All of the other candidates emphatically asserted their belief in traditional marriage and bashed activist judges who had granted same-sex unions. But Cino, who's unmarried, was in bit of a bind on the question given that one of the organizers of her campaign committee is Cheney's daughter Mary, a lesbian who has been in a long-term relationship with a woman with whom she has two children. Cino's answer to the gay marriage question was succinct: "I believe in traditional marriage...I support the Republican platform."
It wasn't exactly a ringing endorsement, and during the debate, which was attended by NOM leaders Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown, NOM tweeted that Cino had earned a "C-" on her answer to the marriage question; the group suggested that she had not demonstrated sufficient opposition to same-sex marriage.
Still, Cino's opponent, Saul Anuzis, said he thought Cheney's endorsement hadn't effected the RNC race one way or another, though he was quick to add that he would have been "honored" to have Cheney's backing. The reason for the lack of any Cheney magic, he believes, is that the ex-VP's involvement comes at a time when the RNC members don't want a Beltway veteran running the show. The Cheney endorsement only highlighted the fact that Cino, he said, is "the quintessential Washington insider."
Steele, who is expected to lose his bid for reelection, wasn't just trying to put a better light on his own prospects. The same sentiment was echoed by other RNC members as well. Morton Blackwell, who has been Virginia's Republican national committeeman since 1988 and is a member of the RNC executive committee, told me, "Dick Cheney has many strengths, but influencing internal Republican Party politics is not one of the areas he has been involved in."
Like Steele, Blackwell believed Cheney's endorsement wouldn't have much of an effect on the outcome of the race, in part because Cheney picked a candidate who was not a current or recent member of the RNC. Blackwell said that it would be unprecedented for the RNC to pick someone outside the club in a year when Republicans don't occupy the White House. Cino has never been an RNC member, even though she was its deputy chair in 2004. Blackwell also revealed that Cheney doesn't seem to be working all that hard to get Cino elected. He said he has not been contacted by Cheney about his vote, which is going to Saul Anuzis, the former head of the Michigan GOP and a tea party favorite.
Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, who moderated Monday's RNC chair debate, pointed out that Cheney's endorsements have not panned out recently. In the GOP primary for Texas governor, he noted, Cheney endorsed Kay Bailey Hutchison, who lost badly to incumbent Rick Perry. Cheney also backed Trey Grayson in the GOP primary to fill the seat of retiring Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning, which ultimately went to tea party fave Rand Paul. "I don't know that he has a track record with endorsements," said Norquist.
Norquist allowed that while Cheney's endorsement probably didn't help Cino win any votes with the RNC, it may have helped her raise some money. Norquist estimated that it probably takes at least $50,000 to $100,000 to travel the country to meet with all the RNC members and pitch a candidacy to them, and Cheney probably helped considerably in raising those funds for Cino. Cino herself confirmed this after Monday's debate when I asked her how the former vice president had specifically helped her campaign. After offering some boilerplate about her long friendship with the Cheney family, she said the endorsement had allowed her to raise money to fund her campaign.
But Cheney seems to be out of step with the current political climate, and the tea party movement in particular. His endorsement of Cino, while perhaps demonstrating loyalty to former Bush campaign foot soldiers, suggests he really doesn't know how to pick a winning candidate these days. After all, Cino has been lambasted by tea party activists for a serious transgression against conservative orthodoxy, namely that she had been a lobbyist for Pfizer, the pharma giant whose CEO lobbied hard to help pass President Obama's health care reform legislation. She's often referred to in conservative blogs as the "Obamacare lobbyist." During Monday's debate, she was asked directly about whether she lobbied for Obamacare. Her clumsy denial prompted real grumbling from what was an otherwise pretty tame crowd.
Cheney's endorsement and involvement in Cino's campaign also has complicated her attempts to woo social conservatives, who are lukewarm on Cheney these days but remain a powerful force at the RNC. The anti-gay-marriage National Organization for Marriage (NOM) helped vet questions for Monday's debate, so naturally one of the big social issues at the heart of the debate involved same-sex marriage. All of the other candidates emphatically asserted their belief in traditional marriage and bashed activist judges who had granted same-sex unions. But Cino, who's unmarried, was in bit of a bind on the question given that one of the organizers of her campaign committee is Cheney's daughter Mary, a lesbian who has been in a long-term relationship with a woman with whom she has two children. Cino's answer to the gay marriage question was succinct: "I believe in traditional marriage...I support the Republican platform."
It wasn't exactly a ringing endorsement, and during the debate, which was attended by NOM leaders Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown, NOM tweeted that Cino had earned a "C-" on her answer to the marriage question; the group suggested that she had not demonstrated sufficient opposition to same-sex marriage.
Still, Cino's opponent, Saul Anuzis, said he thought Cheney's endorsement hadn't effected the RNC race one way or another, though he was quick to add that he would have been "honored" to have Cheney's backing. The reason for the lack of any Cheney magic, he believes, is that the ex-VP's involvement comes at a time when the RNC members don't want a Beltway veteran running the show. The Cheney endorsement only highlighted the fact that Cino, he said, is "the quintessential Washington insider."
Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) On A Vote To Raise The Debt Ceiling:
“I Will Not Go There Willingly Again”
January 04, 2011 3:54 PM
One of the many potential hot-button issues the new Congress could face is a vote to raise the debt ceiling, which is currently about $500 million short from the current $14.3 trillion limit. And, there are plenty of Republicans who don’t like the prospect of doing this one bit.
Rep. Michael Burgess (R- TX) told ABC News' Top Line that “I have voted for it [to raise the debt limit] in the past and it was one of the worst things I ever did in my life. I will not go there willingly again.”
Burgess, like many of his Republican colleagues, wants to see significant cuts in spending before he makes any vote on raising the debt ceiling. “I think we should use this as an opportunity to really begin to get our arms around the amount of federal spending. “ Burgess said, “I understand that this is our opportunity to really get some meaningful change in the way this country spends its tax dollars. And the president has to be willing to work with us.”
In an interview last Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers Austan Goolsbee warned that defaulting on our debt would be “unprecedented” and “catastrophic.” Burgess, however, notes that “talk about not voting on the debt limit, not talking about the debt limit, it could threaten the stability of the Republic, I submit to you the level of debt we’re carrying right now does threaten the very fabric of our Republic.”
As for the fate of the President’s health care reform law, Burgess predicted that the January 12 vote in the House to repeal the law entirely will not only succeed but that “the numbers will startle some people.”
While many observers expect the House bill to go nowhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate, Burgess made clear that there’s plenty his committee can do to keep the pressure on the administration.
“Don’t forget, we have a subcommittee of Oversight Investigations on Energy and Commerce in my committee,” said Burgess. “One of the things we need to do, we haven’t done, since the bill was passed is have any of the people into the committee to talk about some of these new regulations and some of these new things that are going to be happening to real people as a consequence of the President signing this law. We’re going to be doing things we’ve never done as a federal government before and I think people need to know about the implications of that.”
Also joining the show was NDN President Simon Rosenberg who argues that this incoming GOP class is much more “radical and reactionary” than any in previous history. the second video that i could not embed.......
As for the fate of the President’s health care reform law, Burgess predicted that the January 12 vote in the House to repeal the law entirely will not only succeed but that “the numbers will startle some people.”
While many observers expect the House bill to go nowhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate, Burgess made clear that there’s plenty his committee can do to keep the pressure on the administration.
“Don’t forget, we have a subcommittee of Oversight Investigations on Energy and Commerce in my committee,” said Burgess. “One of the things we need to do, we haven’t done, since the bill was passed is have any of the people into the committee to talk about some of these new regulations and some of these new things that are going to be happening to real people as a consequence of the President signing this law. We’re going to be doing things we’ve never done as a federal government before and I think people need to know about the implications of that.”
Also joining the show was NDN President Simon Rosenberg who argues that this incoming GOP class is much more “radical and reactionary” than any in previous history. the second video that i could not embed.......
January 4, 2011
Fred Upton's Climate Changeup
The incoming chair of the House energy and commerce committee once called global warming a "serious problem." So why has he cooled to cutting emissions?
| Tue Jan. 4, 2011 3:00 AM PST
Does Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) have something to hide when it comes to his position on climate change?
In the past, Upton—the incoming chair of the House energy and commerce committee—has advocated taking action on global warming. "I strongly believe that everything must be on the table as we seek to reduce carbon emissions," he once stated on his website. But that statement recently vanished from his site [1]—along with, it seems, his concern about global warming. Following a tea party-aided Republican takeover of the House and a heated fight for the chairmanship of the powerful committee, Upton's position on climate change has veered closer to those of his global-warming-denying caucus-mates. And he's now vowing to use his new role to thwart efforts to cut emissions.
In the past, Upton—the incoming chair of the House energy and commerce committee—has advocated taking action on global warming. "I strongly believe that everything must be on the table as we seek to reduce carbon emissions," he once stated on his website. But that statement recently vanished from his site [1]—along with, it seems, his concern about global warming. Following a tea party-aided Republican takeover of the House and a heated fight for the chairmanship of the powerful committee, Upton's position on climate change has veered closer to those of his global-warming-denying caucus-mates. And he's now vowing to use his new role to thwart efforts to cut emissions.
Late last week, Upton coauthored a Wall Street Journal op-ed [2] with Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group that has opposed action on climate change. In it, the pair wrote [3] that a new EPA regulation to curb greenhouse gas emissions, which took effect on Sunday, "presumes that carbon is a problem in need of regulation. We are not convinced." They also decried the carbon rules as "an unconstitutional power grab that will kill millions of jobs."
Phillips' position is not suprising. Denying climate change is an institutional priority for AFP, which has received millions from fossil fuel interests, including $5 million from the philanthropic arm of the oil and gas giant Koch Industries [4]. AFP has even coordinated a climate change-denying "Hot Air Tour," which made a stop in Cancun [5] last month during the UN climate summit there.
AFP's interest in thwarting EPA regulations is clear. But Upton is another story. Less than two years ago he declared [6], "Climate change is a serious problem that necessitates serious solutions," and he praised a wind energy program back home in Michigan. While Upton has staunchly opposed cap-and-trade legislation, over the years he's partnered with Democrats on a number of bills that would help cut emissions—including one to spur the development of carbon-capture and storage technology [7] for coal-fired power plants, another to improve lighting efficiency [8], and yet another to increase funding [9] for a Department of Energy loan program to help automakers retool factories to create more efficient vehicles. While other members of his caucus pledged to wage war [10] on compact fluorescent lightbulbs, Upton stood out as a voice of reason.
Just the same, Upton has gradually retreated from his moderate stance on climate change and carbon emissions. (See Brad Johnson's compendium [11] of quotes documenting Upton's shift.) Particularly telling was an Upton exchange with reporters at the UN's climate conference in Copenhagen in December 2009. There, he was asked several times in a press conference whether he believed that global warming was a problem, and twice declined to answer [12] directly. "I think we can lower our emissions," Upton said finally. "I think the world will be better off if we did that, and we can do it without cap and trade." But just a few weeks later, Upton claimed there is "no real science to verify" [13] that cutting emissions would stave off climate change.
In the months since Republicans claimed the House, Upton's taken a much harsher stance [14] against regulating emissions. He faced stiff competition [15] from more conservative members for the energy and commerce committee for the chairmanship, and he had to overcome complaints that he was "too moderate" [16] for the post. (Then there's the money factor: Koch was among Upton's top contributors [17] this election cycle, along with several other energy companies.)
Now Upton is floating the idea of [18] using the Congressional Review Act to block the EPA's new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. Under the obscure law, which is rarely invoked and even more rarely successful, Congress can overturn regulations from the executive branch within 60 days of their publication in the Federal Register. It's a pretty drastic move, especially to block regulations from the EPA that were based on a directive from the Supreme Court—and on overwhelming science, which Upton once recognized, indicating that the greenhouse gases do indeed pose a threat to humans [19].
During an interview with Chris Wallace this weekend, the Fox host called Upton out on his climate change waffling [20]. Upton largely dodged the question of how much of a problem he really thinks global warming really poses. Here's the exchange:
Phillips' position is not suprising. Denying climate change is an institutional priority for AFP, which has received millions from fossil fuel interests, including $5 million from the philanthropic arm of the oil and gas giant Koch Industries [4]. AFP has even coordinated a climate change-denying "Hot Air Tour," which made a stop in Cancun [5] last month during the UN climate summit there.
AFP's interest in thwarting EPA regulations is clear. But Upton is another story. Less than two years ago he declared [6], "Climate change is a serious problem that necessitates serious solutions," and he praised a wind energy program back home in Michigan. While Upton has staunchly opposed cap-and-trade legislation, over the years he's partnered with Democrats on a number of bills that would help cut emissions—including one to spur the development of carbon-capture and storage technology [7] for coal-fired power plants, another to improve lighting efficiency [8], and yet another to increase funding [9] for a Department of Energy loan program to help automakers retool factories to create more efficient vehicles. While other members of his caucus pledged to wage war [10] on compact fluorescent lightbulbs, Upton stood out as a voice of reason.
Just the same, Upton has gradually retreated from his moderate stance on climate change and carbon emissions. (See Brad Johnson's compendium [11] of quotes documenting Upton's shift.) Particularly telling was an Upton exchange with reporters at the UN's climate conference in Copenhagen in December 2009. There, he was asked several times in a press conference whether he believed that global warming was a problem, and twice declined to answer [12] directly. "I think we can lower our emissions," Upton said finally. "I think the world will be better off if we did that, and we can do it without cap and trade." But just a few weeks later, Upton claimed there is "no real science to verify" [13] that cutting emissions would stave off climate change.
In the months since Republicans claimed the House, Upton's taken a much harsher stance [14] against regulating emissions. He faced stiff competition [15] from more conservative members for the energy and commerce committee for the chairmanship, and he had to overcome complaints that he was "too moderate" [16] for the post. (Then there's the money factor: Koch was among Upton's top contributors [17] this election cycle, along with several other energy companies.)
Now Upton is floating the idea of [18] using the Congressional Review Act to block the EPA's new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. Under the obscure law, which is rarely invoked and even more rarely successful, Congress can overturn regulations from the executive branch within 60 days of their publication in the Federal Register. It's a pretty drastic move, especially to block regulations from the EPA that were based on a directive from the Supreme Court—and on overwhelming science, which Upton once recognized, indicating that the greenhouse gases do indeed pose a threat to humans [19].
During an interview with Chris Wallace this weekend, the Fox host called Upton out on his climate change waffling [20]. Upton largely dodged the question of how much of a problem he really thinks global warming really poses. Here's the exchange:
WALLACE: I want to follow up quickly on this with you and then I want to bring in Congressman Issa, on this question of EPA regulation. In the article that you co-wrote with the head of Americans for Prosperity, which is a group that is financed in part by oil companies, you say this -- "This presumes that carbon is a problem in need of regulation. We are not convinced."
But we checked, Congressman, on your congressional web site, and you say on the web site, "I strongly believe that everything must be on the table as we seek to reduce carbon emissions. Climate change is a serious problem that necessitates serious solutions."
So question, is carbon a problem or isn't it? And if it is, if you're going to kill the EPA regulation, what is your solution?
UPTON: We want to do this in a reasonable way. Before the end of the next decade, our country is going to need 30 to 40 more percent more electricity that we use today. So we need an all-of-the-above strategy. We need clean coal. We need natural gas. We need nuclear -- something that has not happened. We need a whole host of things.
WALLACE: Do we need to regulate carbon?
UPTON: I don't think that we have to regulate carbon to the degree we have a carbon tax or you have a cap-and-trade system. And the House spoke pretty loudly -- you know, you take that same cap-and- trade bill that passed the House last year. Today it would lose by 50 votes and it could never come up in the Senate. This is not -- this regulation process is not the way to proceed.The quote Wallace highlighted is no longer on Upton's website, though ThinkProgress has captured both an old version and the new one [21]. Given the atmosphere in Congress, it's likely Upton will follow through on his pledge to use his chairmanship to thwart environmental regulation. But it's worth remembering that Upton was once considered among the most moderate members of the GOP on the issue. No longer.
Palin re-tweet raises questions
January 4th, 2011
08:49 AM ET
 | CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney |
(CNN) – Normally, it’s what Sarah Palin tweets that makes news. This time it’s what she has re-tweeted.
The former Alaska governor Monday relayed a comment from gay conservative pundit Tammy Bruce, who was expressing her criticism over continued Republican opposition to the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell military policy that won congressional repeal late last month.
Now the political world is wondering just what Palin meant to express.
"But this hypocrisy is just truly too much. Enuf already–the more someone complains about the homos the more we should look under their bed,” Bruce’s original tweet read that was subsequently relayed by Palin.
"But this hypocrisy is just truly too much. Enuf already–the more someone complains about the homos the more we should look under their bed,” Bruce’s original tweet read that was subsequently relayed by Palin.
Bruce was thrilled with Palin’s re-tweet, saying it constitutes a clear signal the former Republican vice presidential nominee is a friend of the gay community.
“I think @SarahPalinUSA RT my tweet is her first comment on DADT, treatment of gays & attempts to marginalize us–thank you Governor,” Bruce replied.
The Republican pro-gay rights group GOProud, of which Bruce holds a leadership role, also highlighted Palin's “Gay Friendly” tweet Tuesday in an e-mail to reporters.
Palin hasn't said anything more on the issue so it remains unclear exactly what she meant to convey, but the re-tweet is a rare comment from Palin when it comes to any issue involving gay rights – a likely hot-button issue in upcoming Republican primary presidential campaign given the recent repeal of the long- running military policy that forbade gay service members to serve openly.
It could also be a sign the former Alaska governor's stance on social issues beyond that of abortion is less understood by Republicans and Democrats alike than was previously believed.
A palin spokesperson was not immediately available for comment but Rebecca Mansour, a Palin aide, subsequently expressed skepticism on Twitter that the media would take notice of Palin re-tweeting “something that stands [with] gays.”
Where the Money Is
| Tue Jan. 4, 2011 1:53 PM PST
Over at Free Exchange, A.S. asks, "Are the rich making you poor?" Apparently not:
Talented traders and portfolio managers do make an obscene amount of money while other traders just get rich....The winner-takes-all nature of finance explains the income disparity within the industry. But it does not mean a Wall Street fat cat is getting rich at the expense of a more naïve investor whose stock holdings are limited to the mutual fund his 401(k) is in. The only thing that naïve investor is betting on is that the American economy will continue to grow and that companies will be profitable in the long run. Speculators actually can do this naïve investor a service. They can eliminate mispricing, promote efficiency, and provide market liquidity; this can enhance growth in the long run.
Well then, I have to ask yet again: where is this tsunami of money coming from? If financiers receive a greater fraction of national income than they did in the past, somebody else is getting less. That somebody is almost certainly you and 
me, whose wages haven't kept up with economic growth, thus creating a huge and growing pool of extra money for the financiers to hoover up.
me, whose wages haven't kept up with economic growth, thus creating a huge and growing pool of extra money for the financiers to hoover up.The only other alternative is that the modern financial sector is actually creating wealth that otherwise wouldn't be created. That is, their magic has caused the economy to grow faster, and they're merely reaping the benefits of growth they themselves are responsible for. I imagine this is a popular explanation among Wall Street bankers themselves, but does anyone else buy it? If it were true, surely it would show up in accelerated growth rates starting around 1980. Right?
Are the rich making you poor?
Jan 4th 2011, 16:35 by A.S. | NEW YORK
MOST adults accept that life is not fair, but the word fairness gets used a lot when we talk about income inequality. Is it right that some have so much material comfort and security, while others have so little? On the other hand, is it fair that talented, hard-working people must give away the fruits of their labour? What’s fair and whether it matters depend on one's personal values. But for policymakers, the important issue to think about is the nature of the income inequality. Are the rich getting richer while the poor and middle class stay the same? Or, are the rich getting rich at the expense of the poor? When the latter is true, the case for intervention is stronger.
According to a recent New York Times article the rich getting richer has made the poor worse off. The argument is that the poor and middle class become discouraged and give up:
Yet the increasingly outsize rewards accruing to the nation’s elite clutch of superstars threaten to gum up this incentive mechanism. If only a very lucky few can aspire to a big reward, most workers are likely to conclude that it is not worth the effort to try. The odds aren’t on their side.Inequality has been found to turn people off. A recent experiment conducted with workers at the University of California found that those who earned less than the typical wage for their pay unit and occupation became measurably less satisfied with their jobs, and more likely to look for another one if they found out the pay of their peers. Other experiments have found that winner-take-all games tend to elicit much less player effort — and more cheating — than those in which rewards are distributed more smoothly according to performance.
The logical leap between the two paragraphs is confusing. There’s a world of difference between being frustrated that the guy in the cubical next to you makes more for doing the same job and your feelings about the fact that Kim Kardashian made $6m last year. (Maybe your soul dies a little every time you watch “Keeping up with the Kardashians”, but the show probably does not make you want to give up on life all together.) Also the policy implications of this argument are unclear. It would be a terrible idea to put a limit on how much one person can earn because it makes someone else feel bad.
Tyler Cowen’s excellent essay on income inequality points out that envy and resentment tend to be local and not directed at economic superstars. Mr Cowen points out that as income inequality has increased, Americans (of all income levels) also experienced an increase in living standards, life expectancy and access to cheaper goods. An increase in well-being is probably more important than stagnant income.
But Mr Cowen is concerned that so much of America’s income disparity is the result of compensation in the finance industry. He worries that the current state of finance means the rich do get richer at the expense of others. One way this is true, he argues, derives from the very nature of finance. Extraordinary profits are made by spotting an “incorrect” price and trading on this. But not everyone can get rich this way. There is only so much money to be made in any one arbitrage opportunity. The first person who acts gets the biggest piece of the pie.
There’s a second reason why the financial sector abets income inequality: the “moving first” issue. Let’s say that some news hits the market and that traders interpret this news at different speeds. One trader figures out what the news means in a second, while the other traders require five seconds. Still other traders require an entire day or maybe even a month to figure things out. The early traders earn the extra money. They buy the proper assets early, at the lower prices, and reap most of the gains when the other, later traders pile on. Similarly, if you buy into a successful tech company in the early stages, you are “moving first” in a very effective manner, and you will capture most of the gains if that company hits it big.
The lucky talented traders and portfolio managers do make an obscene amount of money while other traders just get rich. But making money this way consistently is very hard. Sometimes you will be wrong or your timing will be off and you lose money. This is why the average American is not actively trading. Being consistently successful at it takes knowledge, expertise and capital. The winner-takes-all nature of finance explains the income disparity within the industry. But it does not mean a Wall Street fat cat is getting rich at the expense of a more naïve investor whose stock holdings are limited to the mutual fund his 401(k) is in. The only thing that naïve investor is betting on is that the American economy will continue to grow and that companies will be profitable in the long run. Speculators actually can do this naïve investor a service. They can eliminate mispricing, promote efficiency, and provide market liquidity; this can enhance growth in the long run.
Mr Cowen lists another reason why finance sector pay comes at the expense of the poor, which is very worrying and problematic. It stems from the distortions that exist in the industry. Mr Cowen reckons that the large rewards and guarantees of government bail-outs provide too much upside with too little downside. This asymmetry encourages excessive risk taking where the rich get the all the upside (when their bets pay off) and the poor and middle class bear the downside by being more adversely effected by recessions (when the bets go badly).
The solution to this problem is more regulation and credible policies that limit moral hazard. But that’s easier said than done. Regulation is a blunt tool. Rules that seem like a good idea in the abstract often have unintended consequences because banks can always increase profit by avoiding regulations. Regulatory arbitrage often causes distortions in certain markets and more opacity (see Basel I and II).
A good start might be to hire more qualified regulators. This is hard when the government cannot offer the millions the private sector does (again with finance pay being a problem). But this does not mean that putting arbitrary limits on finance sector compensations is a good idea. Firms will merely find a way around the limits or do more business abroad. Making compensation contingent on medium-term firm profitability is not guaranteed to work either. Many bank executives lost a fortune when their company stock at Lehman and Bear became nearly worthless, and this threat did not make them any more prudent. There are no easy answers, but understanding the nature of inequality and the aspects of it that require thoughtful remedies is a good start.
Big Changes in North Atlantic Currents
| Tue Jan. 4, 2011 2:16 PM PST
There's an important paper in early view in PNAS describing profound changes in the dominant currents of the North Atlantic since the 1970s. What's intriguing here—apart from the findings—is the method of determining these changes.
The authors used new technology to parse the story of ocean circulation from the story of ocean productivity using the skeletons of deepwater gorgonian corals. Specifically, they employed a process of amino acid analysis of nitrogen stable isotopes (δ15N-AA), as recorded in the growth rings of corals living between Newfoundland and Maine.
The technique promises to be a kind of Rosetta Stone for deciphering the ecological and physical history of the oceans.
A deep-water gorgonian coral. Image courtesy of Sanctuary Quest 2002, NOAA/OER.The results reveal a sharply declining influence of the Labrador Current (colder, less saline, and nutrient-poor) in favor of Gulf Stream waters (warmer, saltier, nutrient-rich) since the 1970s, compared to the previous 1,800 years. 
Image courtesy PNAS.
Image courtesy PNAS.The interplay between the Labrador Current and the Gulf Stream is a crucial component of the North Atlantic Oscillation, one of the major climate drivers for North America and Europe.
We therefore conclude that changes in nitrate source partitioning may be tied to recent, human-caused changes in global climate. These results highlight the importance of novel and creative proxies like δ15 N-AA for investigating the links between climate change and ecosystem functioning beyond the last few decades of scientific observations.
The paper:
- Owen A. Sherwood, Moritz F. Lehmann, Carsten J. Schubert, David B. Scott, and Matthew D. McCarthy. Nutrient regime shift in the western North Atlantic indicated by compound-specific δ15N of deep-sea gorgonian coral. PNAS. January 3, 2011.DOI:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)