Tag Archives: democrats

GOP to Give Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Protection Agency the Darrell Issa Treatment

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Ever since Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) helped get the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau off the ground in 2010, Republicans have been trying to shut it down. GOPers drafted legislation to weaken the fledgling agency, which was designed to prevent mortgage lenders, credit card companies, and other financial institutions from screwing average Americans. The measures died. Republicans turned to the courts to gut the bureau. That effort failed. Now that Republicans control both houses of Congress, they have another weapon at their disposal: new subpoena powers they can deploy to blitz the CFPB with document requests.

The goal is obvious: dig out material the GOPers can use to embarrass the agency. And if nothing untoward is discovered, Republican legislators can at least pin down the bureau with onerous paperwork demands. Democrats fear Republicans’ new information-gathering abilities will make it easier for the agency’s foes to launch witch-hunt style investigations of the CFPB similar to those former House oversight committee chair Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) launched regarding Benghazi and the IRS.

All committees in both the House and the Senate have the right to subpoena federal agencies for information. But until recently, either the most senior committee member from the minority party had to sign off on a subpoena or the entire committee had to vote on the request. In the last Congress, six House committees okayed a rule change giving the committee chair unilateral subpoena power. On Tuesday, the House financial services committee—which has jurisdiction over the CFPB—voted along party lines to grant the same privilege to its Republican chairman, Jeb Hensarling of Texas.

Republicans already have a track record of looking for information that could tarnish the CFPB’s reputation, and Democrats fully expect Hensarling to continue down the same path. And now Hensarling, a fierce CFPB critic, will be able to more easily mount politically motivated investigations of the agency.

Without the rule change, GOPers could still push through the subpoenas. As the majority, Republicans on the committee could vote to approve an information request. But with its new subpoena superpowers, the committee can demand records without a vote—and, thus, can keep the process from the public eye, a spokesman for the committee Democrats says. No longer will there be a public hearing where lawmakers can debate the subpoenas and Democrats can make a case if they think Hensarling and the Republicans are abusing the privilege. Last year, for example, ranking Democratic member Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) used the public forum to convince Hensarling to back down on a Treasury Department subpoena.

Now, if Democrats want to keep GOPers from going on a fishing expedition aimed at tarnishing the CFPB, they won’t have as much of an opportunity to create a ruckus. At a committee hearing Tuesday, Waters, the senior Democrat on the panel, called the rules change “anti-democratic” and “insulting.” (Under the new rule, Waters will be given 48 hours notice before Hensarling issues a subpoena, so that she can alert the press if she wants.)

“We think it’s ridiculous that the Republican leadership is exporting the Issa model to the rest of the House,” a Democratic staffer told Politico. Several other House committees are expected to approve similar powers for their chairs this month.

Last year the GOP-dominated financial services committee voted to subpoena three CFPB officials to require them to testify in an ongoing investigation of alleged discrimination against minorities and women at the bureau. Democrats claimed the move was politically motivated.

Hensarling has not yet indicated how he might use the new subpoena powers. Some Republicans are unhappy with the CFPB’s plan to crack down on shady payday lenders, so Hensarling could potentially subpoena the data the agency is collecting in an attempt to prove the effort is overly invasive. Hensarling denies the new rule is undemocratic.

The CFPB did not respond to a request for comment.

Continued:  

GOP to Give Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Protection Agency the Darrell Issa Treatment

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on GOP to Give Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Protection Agency the Darrell Issa Treatment

Some Republican voters actually do want climate action

Some Republican voters actually do want climate action

By on 13 Jan 2015 10:07 amcommentsShare

The Republican electorate has more nuanced views on climate policy than many of the politicians it elects, according to new polling data. From the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication:

We find that solid majorities of self-identified moderate and liberal Republicans — who comprise 30% of the party — think global warming is happening (62% and 68% respectively). By contrast, 38% of conservative Republicans think global warming is happening. At the extreme, Tea Party Republicans (17% of the party) are the most dismissive — only 29% think global warming is happening.

In contrast to the current goal of Republican leaders in Congress to block EPA regulations on carbon dioxide, half of all Republicans (56%) support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, including conservatives (54%). Moderate and liberal Republicans are particularly likely to support the policy (74% and 71% respectively), while only 36% of Tea Party Republicans support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Unfortunately, as Republican politicians are often quick to point out, thinking global warming is happening is different from thinking that humans can do anything to stop it, or that it’s a bad thing. And a voter who believes that CO2 should be regulated as a pollutant is often not as keen to actually regulate the CO2 that is coming out of coal-burning power plants’ smoke stacks right now. The poll found “fewer than half of conservative Republicans (40%), and only one in four Tea Party Republicans (23%), support” the government imposing “strict carbon dioxide limits on existing coal-fired power plants.” And conservative and Tea Party Republicans make up 70 percent of the party.

Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

And unfortunately for that 44 percent of Republicans who support regulating CO2 from existing coal plants, as well as all the independents and Democrats in America who want to take action on climate change, the politicians currently in control of Congress tend to be beholden to the more radical elements of their party. Said radical elements are often the most politically engaged, and the most likely to turn up during a Republican primary and replace their incumbent with a previously-unheard-of, hard-right climate-change denier.

So, in an effort to keep those primarying forces at bay, 39 GOP senators have decided to remain deaf to mounting evidence and to ignore climate science, according to a Center for American Progress appraisal — that’s 72 percent of the Senate Republican caucus.

Jamie Fuller writes at The Washington Post that Republicans’ climate change views could shift — young Republicans tend to be more accepting of climate science. But such a shift would be slow, and there are powerful forces working in the opposite direction — the outsized influence of more radical elements of the party is one force, the fossil fuel industry’s multimillion-dollar lobbying budget is another.

So don’t expect Republican politicians to respond to nuance in their party anytime soon. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

sponsored post

In 2015, make a New Year’s resolution that will actually change the world

How the power of positive energy turns you into a climate superhero.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

See more here: 

Some Republican voters actually do want climate action

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Some Republican voters actually do want climate action

Elizabeth Warren Slams GOP for Hypocritical Push on Keystone XL

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is attacking Republicans for trying to force the Obama administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline while simultaneously promising Democrats a renewed spirit of bipartisanship in Congress.

“There’s going to be an energy hearing on Wednesday, and right now, the Republicans say they’re going to move forward on the Keystone pipeline,” Warren said Monday. “If we’re going to move forward on something how about something that more of us can agree on?”

“A bill that’s about energy conservation, energy efficiency, and about jobs and has strong bipartisan support. There is a place we can start.”

Separately, Warren told the editorial board of MassLive.com that the GOP’s push for Keystone belied the party’s purported eagerness to work with Democrats. “This tells me that with the Republican rhetoric that they are going to find things for us to work together on—their actions don’t match their words.”

Warren’s criticisms came a day before the White House formally announced that President Obama will veto legislation forcing his hand on the pipeline. Senate Democrats have previously expressed confidence that Republicans would be unable to override a veto.

“I think there will be enough Democratic votes to sustain the president’s veto,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday.

During last month’s end-of-year press conference, the president signaled his skepticism over the pipeline’s purported advantages for Americans, calling it a “nominal” benefit for US consumers and a boon for Canadian oil producers.

Continued here:

Elizabeth Warren Slams GOP for Hypocritical Push on Keystone XL

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Elizabeth Warren Slams GOP for Hypocritical Push on Keystone XL

The Itsy Bitsy Ambitions of John Boehner

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

You can’t accuse John Boehner of starry-eyed idealism:

When I ask him to name his top priority, he lays out not a grand legislative bargain but a seemingly modest managerial goal that has eluded him for much of his time at the top: exercising enough control over his conference to pass spending bills through regular order.

Um, OK. That seems doable. But I’m not so sure about this:

The idea of a Boehner-Obama bargain late in the game is no idle fantasy….Boehner told me “bipartisanship” was in fact one of his top priorities for 2015, and, in private, in the wake of the 2013 shutdown debacle, Boehner told his inner circle that he has no problems passing big legislation “by working directly with the Democrats” if his own conference defies him again.

….That’s the way it worked in December: Two-thirds of Republicans joined about one-third of Democrats to pass a Boehner government-funding plan….When I asked Boehner if he worried Republicans would slam him for dealing with Democrats, he blew a puff of smoke and answered, “I don’t care.”

It’s true that during the recent lame-duck session, Boehner was willing to pass a compromise budget that alienated much of his own caucus and required lots of help from Democrats to pass. But will he be willing to do that when it comes to a “big deal on taxes, entitlements and government spending, trade and immigration”? I have my doubts, no matter how much we hear that Boehner and Obama are really tighter buddies than you’d think. It’s not just that Boehner really, truly has to be willing to defy a big chunk of his caucus, after all. He also has to be willing to take the risk of making genuine compromises in order to get a sizeable chunk of Democrats on board. Outside of budget deals, I’ve simply seen no evidence that Boehner is willing to do that—or, even if he is, that he has the mojo within his own caucus to get most of them to agree to such a deal.

But we’ll see. Maybe Boehner will surprise us. I just wouldn’t bet the farm on it.

Original article – 

The Itsy Bitsy Ambitions of John Boehner

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Itsy Bitsy Ambitions of John Boehner

Iowa to Democrats: Please, Please Have a Real Race So We Can Get Lots of Your Money

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last night I noticed a Wall Street Journal piece about Iowa Democrats being slow to “rally” around Hillary Clinton, but I only read the first couple of paragraphs before I got bored. Today, Ed Kilgore tells me I quit too soon. If I had read to the bottom, I would have learned that this phenomenon probably has nothing really to do with a desire for a more populist candidate:

State Democratic officials also want a contested race because that boosts the party apparatus and fundraising….“When we have these candidates out here running for office, we invite them to county dinners and the numbers swell at these events,” said Tom Henderson, chairman of Democratic Party in Polk County, which includes Des Moines. “So it is a great, great service for the Democratic Party to have these candidates running for office.”

Kilgore explains further:

You have to appreciate that candidates in both parties for state and local office in Iowa (and to a lesser extent, in other early states) are accustomed to enjoying the benefit of world-class mailing lists, state-of-the-art campaign infrastructures, and top-shelf campaign staffers from all over the country. These goodies come to them courtesy of presidential candidates, proto-presidential candidates, people who want to work on presidential campaigns, and people who want to influence presidential campaigns. This is why Iowans so fiercely protect their first-in-the-nation-caucus status, and also why they hate uncontested presidential nomination contests. So of course they don’t want HRC to win without a challenge.

Roger that. In any case, talk is cheap right now. My guess is that everything changes once HRC actually announces her candidacy. When that happens, I’ll bet everyone starts rallying just fine. Iowa Democrats might be eager for their quadrennial infusion of money and pandering, but not so eager that they want to risk being caught on the losing side. Once the pressure is on to become an early HRC supporter or else spend the rest of the year on the Clinton shit list, well, I have a feeling an awful lot of early supporters are suddenly going to come out of the woodwork. We’ll see.

This article:

Iowa to Democrats: Please, Please Have a Real Race So We Can Get Lots of Your Money

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Iowa to Democrats: Please, Please Have a Real Race So We Can Get Lots of Your Money

Jim Webb Wants to Be President. Too Bad He’s Awful on Climate Change.

Mother Jones

Hillary Clinton may be dominating every poll of potential Democratic hopefuls for the White House, but some progressives are desperate to find a candidate who will challenge her from the left. Groups have sprung up to encourage Elizabeth Warren to take a stab at the nomination, but with the Massachusetts senator repeatedly saying she isn’t running, liberal activists will likely have to turn elsewhere—perhaps to socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) or Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley—if they aren’t satisfied with Clinton. But so far, the only Democratic alternative officially in the race is former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, who launched an exploratory committee in November.

A former Secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan, Webb is being touted by some on the left as an Appalachian populist who could champion causes Clinton would rather ignore. The Nation‘s William Greider, for example, lauded Webb’s presidential ambitions in a column headlined “Why Jim Webb Could be Hillary Clinton’s Worst Nightmare.” Greider praised Webb’s non-interventionist tendencies in foreign policy (Webb was a vocal opponent of the Iraq War). “I think of him as a vanguard politician—that rare type who is way out ahead of conventional wisdom and free to express big ideas the media herd regards as taboo,” Greider wrote, while acknowledging that Webb was unlikely to win.

There’s at least one key issue, however, on which Webb’s record is far from progressive: global warming. That’s a big deal. Unlike Obamacare and financial reform, much of the progress President Barack Obama has made on climate change rests on executive actions that his successor could undo. At first glance, Webb might look like a typical Democrat when it comes to environmental policy. The League of Conservation Voters gives him a lifetime score of 81 percent—on par with Hillary Clinton’s 82 percent rating, though far below Sanders at 95 percent. And unlike most of the Republican presidential hopefuls, he acknowledges that humans are causing climate change. He even supports solving the problem—at least in theory.

But when it came to actual legislation, Webb used his six years in the US Senate to stand in the way of Democratic efforts to combat climate change. Virginia, after all, is a coal state, and Webb regularly stood up for the coal industry, earning the ire of environmentalists. As Grist‘s Ben Adler succinctly summed it up, “Jim Webb sucks on climate change.”

Perhaps Webb’s biggest break with the standard Democratic position on climate is his vocal opposition to the use of EPA rules under the Clean Air Act to limit carbon emissions from coal power plants. Earlier this year, the Obama administration proposed regulations that could cut existing coal plant emissions by as much as 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Those new rules became a key factor in the historic climate deal Obama recently reached with China, and they will almost certainly figure prominently in next year’s Paris climate negotiations. But back in 2011, Webb went to the floor of the Senate to denounce the idea that the federal government has the power to regulate carbon emissions under existing law. “I am not convinced the Clean Air Act was ever intended to regulate or classify as a dangerous pollutant something as basic and ubiquitous in our atmosphere as carbon dioxide,” he said.

Webb also supported legislation from fellow coal-state Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) that would have delayed the EPA’s authority to add new rules governing coal plant emissions. “This regulatory framework is so broad and potentially far reaching that it could eventually touch nearly every facet of this nation’s economy, putting unnecessary burdens on our industries and driving many businesses overseas through policies that have been implemented purely at the discretion of the executive branch and absent the clearly stated intent of the Congress,” he said in a release.

But Webb’s opposition to major climate initiatives wasn’t limited to executive action. In 2008, Democrats (and a few Republicans) in Congress tried to pass a cap-and-trade bill that was intended to slow global warming by putting a price on carbon emissions. The bill would have likely been vetoed by then-President George W. Bush, but it never got that far. Webb was part of a cohort of Senate Democrats who blocked the measure. “We need to be able to address a national energy strategy and then try to work on environmental efficiencies as part of that plan,” Webb told Politico at the time. “We can’t just start with things like emission standards at a time when we’re at a crisis with the entire national energy policy.”

When cap and trade came up again in 2009—this time with Barack Obama in the Oval Office—Webb again played a major role in preventing the bill from passing the Senate. “It’s an enormously complex thing to implement,” Webb said of the 2009 bill. “There are a lot of people in the middle between the ‘cap’ and the ‘trade’ that are going to make a lot of money.” Webb also voted to prevent Senate Democrats from using budget reconciliation procedures to pass a cap and trade bill with simple majority, essentially dooming any hope for serious climate legislation during the first years of Obama’s presidency.

That same year, Obama attended a United Nations summit in Copenhagen in a failed bid to hammer out an international climate accord. Obama sought a limited, nonbinding agreement in which the US and other countries would pledge to reduce their CO2 output. Webb wasn’t having it. Before Obama went abroad, Webb sent the president a letter asserting that he lacked the “unilateral power” to make such a deal.

Coal wasn’t the only polluting industry that found an ally in Webb. After the BP oil spill in 2010, the Obama administration put a hold on new offshore oil drilling, which provoked Webb. “In placing such a broad moratorium on offshore drilling, the Obama Administration has over-reacted to the circumstances surrounding the Deepwater Horizon disaster,” Webb said in a press release. At other times, Webb championed drilling projects off Virginia’s coasts and voted regularly for bills that would expand the territory in which oil companies could plant rigs offshore. “Unbelievable,” the Sierra Club once remarked of Webb’s support for offshore drilling. In 2012, Webb was one of just four Democrats in the Senate who voted to keep tax loopholes for oil companies.

But it’s Webb’s support for coal that most concerns environmentalists. “Jim Webb is an apologist for the coal industry,” says Brad Johnson, a climate activist who runs the website Hill Heat. “Unfortunately he doesn’t seem to realize that greenhouse pollution is the greatest threat we face to economic justice in this nation.”

View article:  

Jim Webb Wants to Be President. Too Bad He’s Awful on Climate Change.

Posted in Anchor, Energy, Inc., FF, GE, Hagen, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Jim Webb Wants to Be President. Too Bad He’s Awful on Climate Change.

Are Republicans Really Ready to Embrace Net Neutrality?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Well, this is unexpected. Democrats are generally in favor of net neutrality, the principle that all websites should be treated equally by internet service providers. Companies can’t pay extra for faster service and ISPs can’t slow down or block sites they don’t like. Naturally, since Democrats are in favor of this, Republicans are opposed. But maybe not all that opposed:

Republicans in Congress appear likely to introduce legislation next month aimed at preventing Internet providers from speeding up some Web sites over others….Industry officials said they are discussing details of the proposal with several Republican lawmakers, whom they declined to name. The officials also said the proposal is being backed by several large telecommunications companies, which they also declined to name.

One important piece of the proposed legislation would establish a new way for the FCC to regulate broadband providers by creating a separate provision of the Communications Act known as “Title X,” the people said. Title X would enshrine elements of the tough net neutrality principles called for by President Obama last month. For example, it would give FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler the authority to prevent broadband companies from blocking or slowing traffic to Web sites, or charging content companies such as Netflix for faster access to their subscribers — a tactic known as “paid prioritization.”

….“Consensus on this issue is really not that far apart,” said an industry official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were ongoing. “There’s common understanding that rules are needed to protect consumers.”

Huh. I wonder if this is for real? The reported price for supporting this legislation is relatively small: the FCC would be prohibited from regulating the internet as a common carrier under Title II, something that even net neutrality supporters agree is problematic. The problem is that although Title II would indeed enshrine net neutrality, it comes with a ton of baggage that was designed for telephone networks and doesn’t really translate well to the internet. This would require a lot of “regulatory forbearance” from the FCC, which is almost certain to end up being pretty messy. A new net-centric Title X, if it truly implements net neutrality, would be a much better solution. It would also be immune to court challenges.

One possibility for such a law would be a modified version of net neutrality. My sense has always been that the real goal of net neutrality supporters is to make sure that internet providers don’t provide fast lanes for companies willing to pay more, and don’t slow down or block companies they dislike (perhaps because the companies provide services they compete with). At the same time, everyone acknowledges that video requires a lot of bandwidth, and internet providers legitimately need incentives to build out their networks to handle the growing data demands of video. So why not have content-neutral rules that set tariffs based on the type of service provided? Video providers might have to pay more than, say, Joe’s Cafe, but all video providers would pay the same rate based on how much traffic they dump on the net. That rate would be subject to regulatory approval to prevent abuse.

I dunno. Maybe that’s too complicated. Maybe it’s too hard to figure out traffic levels in a consistent way, and too hard to figure out how much video makes you a video provider. Maybe rules like this are too easy to game. In the end, it could be that the best bet is to simply agree on strong net neutrality, and then let ISPs charge their customers for bandwidth. If you watch a ton of Netflix, you’re going to pay more. If you just check email once a day, you’ll get a cheap plan.

In any case, it’s interesting that President Obama’s announcement of support for strong net neutrality has really had an effect. It apparently motivated the FCC to get more serious about Title II regulation, and this in turn has motivated the industry to concede the net neutrality fight as long as they can win congressional approval of a more reasonable set of rules. The devil is in the details, of course, and I have no doubt that industry lobbyists will do their best to craft rules favorable to themselves. Luckily, there’s a limit to how far they can go since it will almost certainly require Democratic support to pass a bill.

Anyway, this is all just rumors and reports of rumors at this point. Stay tuned to see if it actually pans out.

Original source: 

Are Republicans Really Ready to Embrace Net Neutrality?

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Are Republicans Really Ready to Embrace Net Neutrality?

Washington governor proposes big, bold climate plan

Washington governor proposes big, bold climate plan

By on 18 Dec 2014commentsShare

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) really wants his state to do something about climate change, but his legislature hasn’t been cooperative. So now he’s got an ambitious new climate proposal, and he hopes lawmakers on both sides of the aisle will give it a chance.

On Wednesday, Inslee proposed the Carbon Pollution Accountability Act, a cap-and-trade program for the state’s biggest polluters, which he estimates would raise about $1 billion a year. The proceeds would go into the state budget, helping to fund a major transportation initiative and education programs. “We can clean our air and our water at the same time we’re fixing our roads and bridges,” Inslee said at a press conference. “It’s a charge on pollution rather than people.” The governor’s proposal would also help the state meet the requirements of a 2008 law that mandates a 25 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2035, and further cuts after that.

A policy brief from the governor’s office explains the bill’s basics:

Through this act, Washington will set an annual limit on the total amount of carbon pollution that emitters may release into the air. Major polluters will need to purchase “allowances” for the pollution they emit. Each year, the number of available allowances will decline to ensure emissions are gradually reduced. This provides emitters the time to adjust and make a choice about how to manage their business. They can either invest in cleaner technology and improve their operation efficiency or simply pay for allowances whose cost will grow over time.

The act, according to the governor’s plan, would go into effect in 2016 and would only cover “sources that emit more than 25,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases per year” — of which there are about 130 in Washington state, including a coal-fired power plant, oil refineries, pulp and paper plants, and fuel distributors. Together they account for about 85 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.

And where would all that money from allowances go? The governor already has suggestions: $400 million would pay for repairing and greening transportation infrastructure. $380 million would go to public schools. And about $163.5 million would go to help poor families and energy-intensive industries adapt to cost increases that would come with the new program. $3.5 million would help administer the program.

There are other elements to the governor’s new climate plan too. From the Associated Press:

Inslee said he asked state regulators to draft a low-carbon fuel standard similar to California’s first-in-the-nation mandate. Inslee said he wants to hear from lawmakers and others before beginning a formal process on a rule that would require cleaner fuels over time.

Inslee also proposed extending a break on sales tax for the first $60,000 on the cost of an electric vehicle, creating a $60 million fund to support clean-energy research and improving state incentives for solar energy.

Inslee has a long history as an environmentalist and climate hawk. He campaigned for governor in 2012 promising to boost clean energy in Washington. However, after winning the governorship, his green ambitions have been repeatedly foiled by the Republican majority (created by two Democrats who caucus with Republicans) in his state’s Senate. Now, after the 2014 elections, Inslee’s climate battle will be even more uphill: The Republican Senate majority only increased in November, while the Democratic majority in the state’s House of Representatives decreased, despite big money spent in the state by Tom Steyer and other green donors to try to turn the legislature Democratic.

Inslee hopes his new cap-and-trade proposal will draw bipartisan support because of the revenue it will bring in for good causes during a time when the state is facing a budget gap of about $2 billion. And Inslee’s allies in the environmental community (like Steyer, for better or worse) are already on board. Alan Durning, executive director of the Sightline Institute, a Seattle-based sustainability think tank, told The Seattle Times that Inslee’s plan would be “the most comprehensive and probably the most progressive carbon-pollution regulation system anywhere in the world.”

Becky Kelley of the Washington Environmental Council noted that the plan would also be a positive step forward for the Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy, a.k.a. the Pacific Coast Collaborative. California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia all signed a pact to work together on climate issues in October 2013. Among other economy-greening items, the pact called for the states and province to set a consistent price on carbon; California and British Columbia already have carbon pricing in place, and Inslee has been struggling to catch his state up. The act would be a big step in the right direction.

But many of Inslee’s statehouse adversaries aren’t enthusiastic. “An energy tax is really a tax on mobility and a tax on freedom,” declared Sen. Doug Ericksen (R), who chairs the Senate’s energy committee. Industry groups and conservative think tanks echoed that sentiment. “There’s lots of things we can do going forward. But the big rub going forward is if the governor insists on a big energy tax. That’s going to be a hard one.” Ericksen said he intends to hold hearings on the bill and consider counter-proposals. There will be a fight, and it’s optimistic to hope that the governor’s plan will make it through intact.

But Inslee has that optimism. “Unfortunately, from years past, people have looked at [climate] through ideological lenses,” he said. “Fortunately, that day is past.”

We’ll see.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Original article: 

Washington governor proposes big, bold climate plan

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Washington governor proposes big, bold climate plan

Here’s What Democrats Got Out of the Cromnibus

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The worst part of the “cromnibus” spending bill was the provision that guts a small piece of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill and allows banks to get back into the custom swaps business. So why did Democratic negotiators agree to this? In a long tick-tock published yesterday, Politico tells us:

During [] negotiations with House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), his Senate counterpart, agreed to keep the provision in exchange for more funding for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, according to aides.

OK. Democrats have been ambivalent about this particular provision of Dodd-Frank from the start, and therefore they were willing to cut a deal that allowed Republicans to repeal it. But what about the rest of the spending bill? Republicans got a bunch of venal little favors inserted, but what did Democrats get? Here’s retiring Rep. Jim Moran:

In 20 years of being on the appropriations bill, I haven’t seen a better compromise in terms of Democratic priorities. Implementing the Affordable Care Act, there’s a lot more money for early-childhood development — the only priority that got cut was the EPA but we gave them more money than the administration asked for….There were 26 riders that were extreme and would have devastated the Environmental Protection Agency in terms of the Clean Water and Clean Air Act administration; all of those were dropped. There were only two that were kept and they wouldn’t have been implemented this fiscal year. So, we got virtually everything that the Democrats tried to get.

And here is President Obama:

The Administration appreciates the bipartisan effort to include full-year appropriations legislation for most Government functions that allows for planning and provides certainty, while making progress toward appropriately investing in economic growth and opportunity, and adequately funding national security requirements. The Administration also appreciates the authorities and funding provided to enhance the U.S. Government’s response to the Ebola epidemic, and to implement the Administration’s strategy to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, as well as investments for the President’s early education agenda, Pell Grants, the bipartisan Manufacturing Institutes initiative, and extension of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program.

What’s the point of posting this laundry list? Curiosity. Last night a reader sent a tweet to me: “Honest question: what do progressives get out of this? ‘Govt not shutting down’ not enough.” I was stumped. I really had no idea whether Democrats had gotten anything in this bill, or if they were just caving in to a whole bunch of obnoxious Republican demands merely in exchange for keeping the government funded.

But as it turns out, Democrats did get a bunch of stuff they wanted. And of course, that’s in addition to getting the government funded before Republicans take over Congress in January, which is worthwhile all by itself. We can each decide for ourselves whether Democrats got enough, or if they should have held out for a better deal, but they weren’t left empty-handed.

So what I’m curious about is this: why are virtually no Democrats talking about this? As near as I can tell, there was literally no attempt to sell this compromise to the base, or to anyone else. As a result, the general feeling among progressives is simple: this bill was an unqualified cave-in from gutless Democrats who, once again, refused to fight back against Republican hostage taking. And as usual, Republicans won.

I understand that trying to defend a messy, backroom bill that trades some dull but responsible victories for a bunch of horrible little giveaways isn’t very appealing to anyone. And who knows? Maybe Democrats were afraid that if they crowed too much about the concessions they’d won it would just provoke the tea party wing of the Republican party and scuttle the bill. The tea partiers were already plenty pissed off about the cromnibus, after all.

Still, shouldn’t someone have been in charge of quietly making the progressive case for this bill? It wouldn’t have convinced everyone, but it might have reduced the grumbling within the base a little bit. Why was that not worth doing?

Read original article: 

Here’s What Democrats Got Out of the Cromnibus

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s What Democrats Got Out of the Cromnibus

The Budget Deal Gives the Pentagon Just As Much Money As It Got During the Iraq War

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Can’t Touch This: Why nobody in D.C. messes with the Pentagon budget.

Today’s the last day for Congress to pass a budget deal and avert a government shutdown. Part of the $1.1 trillion “Cromnibus” package is the 2015 defense budget. While there’s been some wrangling over pay and benefits for service members, finalizing the Pentagon budget has been relatively uncontentious.

That’s because the Pentagon is one of the few recipients of discretionary spending that most budget-slashing tea partiers and entitlement-friendly Democrats are reluctant to touch. If the current deal passes, the Pentagon’s total funding in the 2015 fiscal year, including war-fighting costs, will come in at around $554 billion—close to what it got during the height of the Iraq War.

To be fair, the Pentagon is making do with less. Its total budget has shrunk more than 20 percent since it recently peaked in 2010. The bipartisan sequestration deal that went into effect in 2013 is supposed to keep it on a diet for the foreseeable future. However, those budget caps are looking more and more like irksome suggestions rather than requirements. Congress gave the military a partial reprieve from the caps last year, and even President Obama has spoken out against “the draconian cuts that are called for in sequestration.”

The Pentagon’s proposed 2015 base budget comes in under the spending caps; yet its 2016 budget will face tighter constraints—if lawmakers stick to them. There’s already talk that the administration’s next defense budget will exceed the caps by $60 billion. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the Pentagon’s base budget will exceed the spending caps by more than $300 billion over the next six years.

One workaround for the budget caps is the Pentagon’s war-fighting budget, A.K.A. Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). Since it’s not part of the base budget subject to automatic caps, some critics have described it as “an off-budget war chest slush fund.” The current defense budget before Congress authorizes more than $63 billion for overseas operations, including ongoing operations in Afghanistan, the air campaign against ISIS, and the military response to Ebola in West Africa. There is no similar safety valve for non-defense discretionary programs, whose funding has dropped 15 percent since 2010, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

And just to keep things in perspective: Even with sequestration and the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, defense spending remains close to its highest level since World War II.

View original:  

The Budget Deal Gives the Pentagon Just As Much Money As It Got During the Iraq War

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Budget Deal Gives the Pentagon Just As Much Money As It Got During the Iraq War