With millions of Americans out of work, House Republicans are focusing in on real priorities: decimating private abortion coverage and crippling public funding for abortion, as Jessica Arons reports in RH Reality Check.
In AlterNet, Amanda Marcotte notes that the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, or H.R. 3, also redefines rape as "forcible rape" in order to determine whether a patient is eligible for a Medicaid-funded abortion. Under the Hyde Amendment, government-funded insurance programs can only cover abortions in cases of rape and incest, or to save the life of the mother. Note that the term "forcible rape" is legally meaningless. Supporters of the bill just want to go on the record as saying that a poor 13-year-old girl pregnant by a 30-year-old should be forced to give birth.
Feminist blogger Sady Doyle has launched a twitter campaign against the bill under the hashtag #dearjohn, a reference to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). Tweet to let him know how you feel about a bill that discriminates against 70% of rape victims because their rapes weren't violent enough for @johnboehner, append the hashtag #dearjohn.
Everybody chill out
A federal judge in Florida ruled the entire Affordable Care Act unconstitutional on Monday. However, as political scientist and court watcher Scott Lemieux explains at TAPPED, the ruling is not necessarily a death blow to health care reform:
[T]his ruling is less important than the controversy it will generate might suggest. Many cornerstone programs of the New Deal were held unconstitutional by lower courts before being upheld by the Supreme Court. This ruling tells us nothing we didn't already know: There is a faction of conservative judges who believe the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Unless this view has the support of five members of the Supreme Court -- which I still consider very unlikely -- it won't matter; Vinson's reasoning would have a much greater impact if adopted by the Court, but for this reason it is even less likely to be adopted by higher courts.
In a follow-up post, Lemieux explains the shaky legal reasoning behind Judge Robert Vinson's decision. The judge asserts bizarrely that being uninsured has no effect on interstate commerce. That premise is objectively false. Health insurers operate across state lines and the size and composition of their risk pools directly affects their business.
Given the glaring factual inaccuracies, Judge Vinson's decision may be overturned by a higher court before it gets to the Supreme Court.
Scamming Medicare
Terry J. Allen of In These Times win's the headline of the week award for an article entitled "Urology's Golden Revenue Stream." She reports that increasing numbers of urologists are investing millions on machines to irradiate prostate cancer in the office. The doctors can bill Medicare up to $40,000 per treatment, but they have to use the machines a lot to recoup the initial investment. So what does this mean for patients? Allen explains:
Rather than accessing centralized equipment and sharing costs, physicians are concentrating their own profits by buying expensive in-practice technologies that pay off only if regularly used. One result is overtreatment, which is driving up health care costs, exposing patients to unnecessary radiation and surgeries, and is frequently no better than cheaper approaches.
One third of Medicare patients with prostate cancer undergo the expensive IMRT therapy, as the procedure is known. In 2008, Medicare shelled out over a billion dollars on a treatment that has not shown to be any better for patients than less expensive therapies.
Obstetric fistula in the developing world
Reproductive Health Reality Check is running a special series on the human rights implications of obstetric fistula. Fistula is a devastating complication of unrelieved obstructed labor in which the baby's head gets stuck in the birth canal and presses against the soft tissues of the pelvis. If labor goes on long enough, the pressure will starve the pelvic tissues of blood, and they will die, creating a hole between the vagina and the bladder, and/or between the vagina and the rectum. Fistula patients face lifelong incontinence, chronic pain, and social ostracism.
The condition is virtually unknown in the developed world, where women with obstructed labor have access to cesarean delivery. However, an estimated 2 million women, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, have untreated fistulas with an estimated 50,000 to 100,000 new cases occurring each year. Without reconstructive surgery, these women will be incontinent for life.
Sarah Omega, a fistula survivor from Kenya, tells her story. Omega sustained a fistula when she delivered her first child at the age of 19. She suffered for 12 years before she finally obtained the surgery she needed. As Agnes Odhiambo explains in another installment in the series, fistula is a symptom of a dysfunctional health care system. Women suffer needlessly because they can't get access to quality health care.
The most likely victims of fistula are the most vulnerable members of their respective communities. Early childbearing increases a woman's risk of fistula. Pregnant rape victims may face even greater barriers to a safe delivery, thanks to the social stigma that accrues to victims of sexual violence in many societies. (Not to mention any names, House Republicans...)
Preventing and repairing obstetric fistula is a major human rights issue. The U.S. should make this effort a high priority for foreign aid.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Below is a piece I wrote for The Huffington Post not long ago, which sums up the situation we knew we were dealing with after a deranged man tried to kill members of a Panama City, Florida School Board (and really well before that).
Clearly, there's a lot of anger in America right now.
Much of it justified, as some can afford shower curtain rings that would dwarf others' weekly wages (and the latter are the ones who are lucky enough to have jobs). When you take this fact, combine it with the Orwellian "Newspeak" so pervasive in our media (which David Neiwert has written so articulately about), and multiply that by the NRA's mission to fight for the rights of criminals, the mentally ill and even terrorists to have access to guns, you have a toxic stew, ready to erupt.
And that does not even begin to discuss the lack of mental health services we provide, which has only gotten worse since the onset of The Great Recession
Scene: Panama City, Florida. A school board meeting is interrupted by a man with a criminal record of assault (with a gun) waving a gun, and furious that his wife lost her job, his benefits have run out and the board members were unwilling to raise sales taxes so she and others like her wouldn't be fired (it should be noted that reports are still sketchy, so not all of what he says about his wife and himself during the five minutes when the board members try and talk him down can be confirmed yet).
Apparently, to make an omelette, you have to shoot a few eggs.
So the gun lobby marches on: Much harm, no foul.
The NRA has spent years trying to destroy and delegitimize the ATF, such that nobody has been leading this important law enforcement agency for the past 4 years. Why? Because they try and track where guns come from when they kill people. Crazy. right?
And of course we know that we are creating our very own Bonus Army, as millions are filled with despair and anxiety as we give them a pittance while extending tax cuts for people who make Richie Rich look like Oliver Twist.
So is this our future? Videos of killers wielding illegal guns and holding innocent people hostage -- or worse. Reality TV, gone very, very wrong.
Unless/until we decide that gun safety, economic equality, and preventing pundits from inciting riot/slandering whole groups of people on air are reforms worth fighting for. Stay tuned on this one. In the meantime, sadly, I can promise you one thing: Many mini-revolutions such as this will be televised.
And it will be ugly.
One more prediction after yesterday's' evil occurrence. There will be more, sadly, much more, unless we address these issues. A whole lot of mentally unstable & criminal minds just got a new idea from yesterday..
Since Christmas we've been talking about the story of Betsie Gallardo, a woman who is dying of cancer in a Florida prison.
When we last met, she was being starved to death, literally, at the direction of the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC), who had decided not only to withhold further treatment for her inoperable cancer, but to withdraw nutritional support as well.
Her adopted mother is fighting to have her discharged from prison so that she can die at home-and the DOC have recommended that she be released.
On December 9th, Florida's Board of Executive Clemency ("the Board") chose to ignore the DOC advice.
Since then, thanks to a whole bunch of outside pressure, things have changed, for the better, which we'll be talking about today.
On January 5th, the Board meets again-and if we do this right, we can bring some closure to this story.
If you were with us on Christmas Day you heard the story of Betsie Gallardo, who, unless something changes quickly, is going to be intentionally starved to death in a Florida prison after being convicted of spitting on a cop.
In fairness, the State did not decide simply to starve her; instead, the Department of Corrections (DOC) first chose to withhold any further treatment for her inoperable cancer...and then they decided to starve her to death.
Her adopted mother is trying to get her released on humanitarian grounds; the DOC recommended in October that she be allowed to go home and die, the Florida Parole Commission refused.
Governor Charlie Crist chairs the Executive Clemency Board, who could also agree to let her go...and so far, they've also refused to take action.
Funny thing is, the Governor and his Board have been more than willing to step in when other Floridians requested pardons and commutations, even in situations that seemed a lot less dire.
Today, we're going to look at that history-and to be honest, as with many things in the Sunshine State, from the outside...it all looks a bit bizarre.
There are many gifts to be given and received this holiday season; some that you can wrap and put under a tree, and some so intangible and ethereal that they cannot be held within the boundaries of paper and ribbon.
Instead, they exist within the boundaries of our hearts.
Among those intangible presents, few matter more than the chance to be with those we love-and at the time of our death, it's the most important thing of all.
We have a chance to bring all of this to a dying woman and her family-but the only way it can happen is if we convince the Florida Department of Corrections not to kill her first.
It's not a tale of light and joy-but if we get lucky, there could still be a happy ending.
MIAMI GARDENS, FLA - Kendrick Meek, Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, continues to consolidate support from Florida Democrats as he receives the endorsements of Rep. Mark S. Pafford (D-West Palm Beach), Rep. Darren Soto (D-Orlando), and Rep. Scott Randolph (D-Orlando). Statements by Rep. Pafford, Rep. Soto, Rep. Randolph and Kendrick Meek follow:
Rep. Pafford (D-West Palm Beach) said, "Kendrick Meek's career has always been defined by his commitment to the people of Florida. Like me, he has stood in opposition to big oil and offshore oil drilling to protect Florida's coastlines. Kendrick also understands the importance of protecting another natural resource: our children. As a father I am grateful that Kendrick fought to restrict class sizes so that our children can excel. I am honored to give Kendrick my support and will continue to fight with him for Florida."
"Kendrick Meek has a long and reliable record of supporting issues Hispanics care about, including a strong economy, advancing education through smaller class sizes, equality, and fair wages. He was a strong supporter of Justice Sotomayor's nomination and is against the Arizona style immigration law, issues important to our community. Kendrick Meek has asked for our support and I am honored to stand by him in Central Florida," said Rep. Soto (D-Orlando).
"Kendrick Meek has been protecting the people of Florida since his days as a Florida State Trooper. He's not afraid to stand up and speak truth to power. In his opposition to HB 1143, Kendrick stood for all women as a champion of choice. Kendrick is committed to securing justice for every Floridian, not just the ones with big pocketbooks. I am proud to stand by Kendrick and endorse his candidacy for the U.S. Senate," reported Rep. Randolph (D-Orlando)
"I am honored to have the support of these three outstanding public servants. They have each fought tirelessly for the state of Florida and aren't afraid to stand their ground on tough issues. These three men work relentlessly to protect the people of Florida because they understand what's at stake. They are leaders who have strong roots in Florida and in their communities. I value their vision and their insight as principled men of character. Florida is fortunate to have them and I am honored to receive their support," said Kendrick Meek, Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate.
Our campaign has also picked up the support of Al Gore, as he writes.
Florida has had its share of close elections, but this Senate race really ought to be a landslide. And it would be if people just look hard at the facts.
Kendrick Meek is the only one in this race who has consistently opposed offshore drilling. He is the only one who will ensure that we all have quality health care, and the only one who will focus on helping working Americans, rather than wealthy corporations.
Here is the bottom line: We have to help make sure Florida voters have all the facts about Kendrick and his opponents.
We've got just 42 days until Election Day, and Kendrick needs your help so he can keep his ads on the air and tell it like it is. His opponents are getting all the help they need - from corporations and special interests. Kendrick relies on you-his grassroots supporters. He needs you to make a donation today so he can raise $75,000 before the critical September 30 end-of-quarter deadline.
Click here to make an immediate donation to Kendrick's campaign. He needs his grassroots supporters to help him raise $75,000 by the September 30 deadline.
As you know, I'm working hard to raise awareness about the serious threats to our environment. One reason it's so hard is because the polluters don't want any protections for the environment that might reduce their profits, so they have managed thus far to kill climate change legislation that would have protected our children and grandchildren.
Unlike his opponents, Kendrick Meek never has been and never will be in the pocket of these special interests. He was against offshore drilling long before the terrible oil spill in the Gulf, and he's always worked to protect our beaches and wildlife, research and develop energy sources like solar power, and promote a better environment.
With Kendrick in the U.S. Senate, we can rest assured that there's somebody in Washington looking out for us. But that will happen only when he can raise the funds to stay on the air until Election Day-just 42 days away. You are an integral part of Kendrick's campaign because he relies on you for support, not oil companies and special interests.
Please make a donation to Kendrick's campaign today and help him reach his goal of raising $75,000 before the September 30 deadline. If he reaches this goal, I know he'll be able to win in November.
Once people get the facts, the choice will be clear and Kendrick Meek will be the new United States Senator from Florida. With your help today, we can make sure the facts get out.
Sincerely,
Al Gore
We are also having a Rally for Kendrick Meek with former vice president Al Gore.
THURSDAY, SEPT. 30TH
DOORS OPEN: 4:45PM
TAMPA LETTER CARRIERS HALL
3003 W CYPRESS ST
TAMPA, FL 33609
RESERVED TICKETS AVAILABLE ONLINE AT http://www.kendrickmeek.com/al... OR CALL 877-354-6335 FOR DISTRIBUTION LOCATIONS
Recently, the Wonk Room identified six Senate races and eight House races in which supporters of climate action are pitted against candidates who deny that climate change exists.
One candidate, Allen West in Florida, asked "Al Gore to apologize to God," while another, David Harmer in California, said "Global warming is more a religion than a science." Such candidates simply ignore the science, and the consensus reports from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. They have nothing credible to respond to the logic of climate science - we've known for more than a century that carbon dioxide traps heat - or its scientific conclusions - no natural phenomena can explain the average temperatures of recent decades. They don't counter the science; they simply reject it.
The statements of these candidates make it clear this midterm election isn't about Democrats versus Republicans. It's about reality versus fantasy. It's about real policy solutions versus angry diatribes.
And it's the reason why this is one of the most important elections you can get active in. You thought the 2008 presidential election was big, and it was. But right now, we are fighting a battle to maintain straight-forward, reality-based lawmaking in Congress.
If this were just the same old two-party brawl, we could still make progress on clean energy solutions. There are plenty of Republican incumbents who (when pressed), will say they know America has to confront climate change (and even more will say so privately). There are also Republican lawmakers who act like statesmen -- leaders who engage in civil dialogue and make meaningful compromises.
But the Tea Party has yanked the GOP to the right, and all GOP candidates for the Senate now say climate change is not a threat worth acting on or that it doesn't even exist. Statements that should be viewed as loony are being portrayed as mainstream. We are facing the biggest environmental challenge of the century, and China is eating our lunch in the clean energy market, but GOP leaders are sticking with the old and the dirty.
They profess to hate cap and trade, despite the fact that it is a conservative, market-based idea that was first signed into law by President Bush in 1990 to curb acid rain, after being passed in the House by an overwhelming bi-partisan majority of 401-25 and in the Senate, 89-10. But hey, who cares about historical facts if they get in the way of campaign rhetoric?
I know we are in an anti-government year. I get it. But, at the end of the day, we cannot allow gross misrepresentations and disavowals of scientific data to rule the day. We have to fight back. Tea Party candidates operate on instinct not information, and it's up to us to set the record straight. Speak up at campaign events. Write letters to the editor. Email articles like this one that explain that rather than burdening homeowners with a so-called energy tax, the program to reduce global warming pollution from Northeastern power plants has SAVED consumers $900 million on their energy bills.
And don't be shy about talking to your neighbors. I was at a neighborhood party recently when a man started spouting crazy notions about taxes and the Constitution. I finally had to say, "Excuse me, but you are speaking falsehoods. It's okay to have your own opinions, but please don't represent them as facts."
This is where we are right now. We have to pull out our mommy voices and say it's time for everybody to do their homework.
That includes the media. Write a letter every time they talk about groups like Americans for Prosperity and fail to report that it is not a grassroots movement but is actually funded by the billionaire Koch brothers and other oil industry interests.
Maybe in the past you would have rolled your eyes at these kinds of misrepresentations. But now isn't the time to be privately distressed. Now is the time to be publicly engaged.
I assure you: if you think it is bad for climate science and clean energy solutions now, you have to realize that it will only get worse if we don't fight back.
According to the Times, the Republican Party has just selected Tampa to host the 2012 Republican National Convention. Located in the vital swing state Florida, Republican intentions with this pick are fairly straightforward.
Not all national conventions take place in swing states. This impression may be due to 2008, when both parties held conventions in fairly competitive (or not, as it turned out) states. In 2004, however, Republicans held their convention in New York City; Democrats in Boston.
On the other hand, holding national conventions in swing states does constitute good strategy. After Democrats held their 2008 convention in Denver, Colorado ended up voting more Democratic than the nation for the first time since 1964. Likewise, the Minneapolis Republican convention helped Senator John McCain stay competitive in Minnesota weeks after Michigan and Wisconsin began moving Democratic. Choosing Tampa is another variation on this strategy.
Tampa, highly populated and fairly diverse, is a good place to hold a political convention.
This is the tenth article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.
Today, we examine Florida's 24th Congressional District, on the east coast of Florida and covering portions of Brevard (including Titusville), Orange, Seminole and Volusia counties. With Cape Canaveral and the Kennedy Space Center, this area is known as the "Space Coast," and Titusville is nicknamed "Space City, USA." Since January 2009, the 24th congressional district has been represented in the U.S. House of Representatives by Democrat Suzanne Kosmas. This year, Rep. Kosmas is being challenged by State Representative Sandy Adams, who won a narrow, upset victory in the Republican primary in August over former Winter Park City Commissioner Karen Diebel and former Ruth's Chris Steak House CEO Craig Miller.
So far in this campaign, Kosmas has stressed her work in Congress is "to bring real, common-sense solutions to Central Florida, including extending the life of the Space Shuttle, funding the new Orlando VA Medical Center and cutting taxes for small businesses." For her part, Adams has argued that "record spending" and "debt are enslaving our children and grandchildren." Adams also has asserted that "[l]iberal special interests, hostile to American traditions, are systematically stripping our country of the ideals that make us exceptional."
In contrast, in 2008, the Florida LCV gave Sandy Adams a 39.3 rating on environmental issues. Even worse, Adams has signed the Americans for Prosperity "No Climate Tax Pledge" to "oppose legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue." Along these same lines, in early 2010, Adams sponsored a successful Florida House measure, urging Congress not to pass "cap and trade" legislation. Also, in this video from July 2010, Adams said that "cap and trade" really was "truly cap and tax" and vowed, "we have got to stand up...and fight to get our Congress back." In reality, of course, a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill would create a lot of jobs and cost households very little, so Sandy Adams is simply wrong when she disparages "cap and trade" as being nothing more than a new "tax." Also, it's pretty bold for Sandy Adams to be strongly against taking climate action, given that she wants to represent a district that could be partially underwater - at least if you believe the scientists - by the end of the century. Perhaps she might want to reconsider her stance on this issue?
The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.
This is the ninth article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.
Today, we examine Florida's 2nd Congressional District, covering the eastern part of the Florida panhandle and including Tallahassee. In recent months, the 2nd district's economy has taken a serious hit from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, with the tourism industry scrambling to lure visitors back to beaches in the area. Since 1997, Democrat Alan Boyd has represented the 2nd Congressional District. This year, Rep. Boyd is being challenged by Republican businessman Steve Southerland, who won the Republican primary easily over four opponents. Boyd also faced a bruising primary against State Senate Minority Leader Al Lawson, with Boyd winning by just 2 points, 51%-49%.
So far in this campaign, Boyd has talked about his work "pressuring BP to take swifter action on capping the well, containing the spill, cleaning affected areas and compensating victims," as well as his vote for "legislation that will save jobs for teachers, police officers, firefighters and public workers." For his part, Southerland has used the catch phrase, "We've had enough," and has attempted to link Boyd closely to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and "her San Francisco values."
On clean energy and environmental issues, Rep. Boyd has an excellent voting record. In 2009, for instance, Boyd received a 93% rating from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), and a 100% rating from Environment America. Boyd voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) an extraordinarily important piece of environmental legislation which the New York Times described as "the first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change." At the time of his "aye" vote, Boyd explained that ACES "may not be perfect, [but] it reflects our long-term energy needs and responds to our collective responsibility to ensure a better world for future generations." Boyd also countered misconceptions about the bill, including "that it would impose thousands of dollars in costs on the average household." Boyd has correctly countered, "This is simply not true," with the "nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office [having] analyzed the bill and [having] concluded it would cost 48 cents a day for families at its height in 2020 - around the cost of a postage stamp per day." Rep. Boyd is absolutely right, as you can see for yourself from looking at the CBO study.
In sharp contrast, Steve Southerland has signed the Americans for Prosperity "No Climate Tax Pledge" to "oppose legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue." On his website, Southerland calls cap and trade "an enormous energy tax on business that I believe will result in further losses for companies, job losses and increased debt." In this debate video, Southerland claims that the cap and trade bill "transfers our sovereignty and the wealth that this country has worked for [over the last] 240 years." Finally, Southerland blames "stringent environmental regulations" for limiting "oil, coal and natural gas exploration within our country."
This is all complete nonsense, of course. In fact, as noted above, the Congressional Budget Office has found that the tax burden to individual households from ACES would be minimal. Offsetting this would be enormous benefits to the economy, the country's balance of trade, the environment, and America's national security, as Pete Altman of the NRDC explains here. It might also be worth reminding Southerland of research by the University of Illinois, Yale University and the University of California, which found that "ACES has the potential to boost GDP by more than $100 billion, and create 1.9 million jobs." As to Southerland's comment about transferring "our sovereignty" and "wealth," the reality is the exact opposite, as slashing the amount of oil money we send to despotic regimes will enhance our sovereignty, our wealth and our security. It's highly unfortunate that Steve Southerland feels the need to base his campaign on such a shaky foundation.
The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.
More than a month has passed, actually now it has been two. In the third week of June, I heard the song in my head for the first time. With each day that passes the volume increases. Friends, family, and familiars were privy to what has been a curiosity for me. Still haunted by what I know needs to be shared farther and wider, today I tell you my tale. The story begins with two Florida Democrats. Each aspires to fill the one open United States Senate seat. The date; June 22, 2010. I was amongst those invited to attend the initial Meek Greene debate.. The place? The Palm Beach Post headquarters. The time? Midday. The reality realized and the reason my mind marinated in the melody titled It's About Time. Today, Democrats, Progressives are not as they were.
"I don't really want to stop the show,
But I thought that you might like to know," That the choice becomes clearer.
"So let me introduce to you
The one and only" Carole Kaye, Candidate for Florida House District 86
Local Election Days are upon us. For months now candidates for elected office have roamed their regions. Everyday people have had ample opportunity to meet, greet, and yes, even eat a meal with aspirants. Often, one challenger's name is better known. He or she may be an incumbent, or closely associated with one. Consider the Florida House race in District 86. Two very different Democratic candidates Carole Kaye and Lori Berman appear on the ballot. Who are these office seekers? What will they do for my community, commerce, our children, and me? Boynton Beach, Delray Beach, and parts of Boca Raton constituents, who have not made politics their lives, search for answers as they travel to the polls.
Citizens are inundated with "information." Posters dot the landscape. Banners fly on Boulevards. Constituents don pins and place placards on their lawn. Windows and automobile bumpers have not escaped unscathed. Today, the message heard on avenue is "The time is now." Indeed, it is. Early voting began on August 9 and will continue through August 22, 2010. In Florida, while technically Primary Election Day is August 24, 2010, in reality it is today. In Palm Beach County House District 86, Primary Election Day is the final deciding date. Democrats with different styles compete for state House 86 seat. there is no Republican challenger in this race. The winner of the Primary will represent South Palm Beach County communities. Yet, many people do not feel equipped to decide. Whom might I cast a ballot for, the much lauded Lori Berman or the lesser known, highly qualified, Attorney, Educator, and person who for years has shared and cared for my backyard, Carole Penny Kaye.
Weekly Mulch: Why the Senate Climate Bill is Doomed
by Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), though down one man, finally released their stab at climate legislation this week. One of the most crucial sections in the bill covers off-shore oil drilling, an issue that was supposed to help solve the tricky math of reaching 60 votes. But since the Deepwater Horizon rig sank in the Gulf of Mexico, drilling has become a wedge issue.
Just a few weeks ago, off-shore drilling could have been a point of compromise around which Senators could rally votes to pass the climate bill; now the bill had to strike a new balance to mollify both potential allies who oppose drilling, like Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and those who support drilling, like Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA). The draft that Sen. Kerry and Sen. Lieberman released this week allows for expanded drilling but gives states veto power over new projects.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who worked on the bill, said that he had not seen the changes his two colleagues had made since he dropped out of the drafting process-but he looked forward to reviewing their work. Although Sen. Kerry says he thinks the bill can pass, without support from Sen. Graham or another Republican, chances are slim.
Next steps
Now that the two Senators have released the bill, the only work that remains is to pass it.
"There's not enough time for a bill to go through the committee process, get passed by the Senate, sent to conference, amended, and then passed by the full Congress before the midterms, and after the midterms Democrats will probably be reduced to 53 or 54 members in the Senate."
Not everyone agrees that the bill's chance are so dire, though.
"I think the chances are roughly as good as they've ever been in the Senate: low but non-trivial," says Grist's David Roberts.
Kerry's argument
But should green-minded politicos root for the bill's passage at all? Sen. Kerry and Sen. Lieberman worked closely with energy companies while drafting the bill, and the resulting legislation balances the need to reduce carbon emissions with the interests of prime polluters. The bill includes incentives for old energy industries like coal and natural gas, for instance, and exempts farmers from carbon caps.
On Wednesday, Sen. Kerry made his case to left-leaning environmentalists. "A comprehensive climate bill written purely for you and me - true believers - can't pass the Senate no matter how hard or passionate I fight on it," he wrote for Grist. The bill they have, he wrote, can pass, and that victory outweighs the compromises in the legislation.
Responses from the left
On Democracy Now!, Phil Radford, the executive director of GreenPeace USA, said that most environmental groups have given the bill little more than a "tepid endorsement." Radford squared off on the show with Joseph Romm of the Center for American Progress, who supports the bill.
"This will be the first bill ever passed by the Senate, if it were to pass, that would put us on a path to get off of fossil fuels," Romm said.
The two men were also divided over issues like the impact the climate bill could have on international negotiations.
They agreed, though, there is room for improvement; the only question is whether the politics of climate change will allow for the passage of a stronger bill any times soon. As Kevin Drum wrote, "If you think this year's bills are watered down, just wait until you see what a Congress with a hair-thin Democratic majority produces."
Coal and natural gas
Tripping up environmentalists now, though, are the hand-outs to dirty energy industries. The coal and natural gas industry could both benefit from the provisions of the Senate bill, for instance.
On GritTV, Jeff Biggers, a writer and educator who covers the coal industry, explained his frustration:
"The climate bill is a nice first step and a very well meaning effort for someone like Sen. Kerry who's been working on this issue for 20 years. But at the same time, because of the massive big coal lobby that has poured millions of dollars into lobbying congress on this climate legislation...there are all sorts of little panders and loopholes and exemptions."
"What we see in this bill is that Sen. Kerry and Lieberman want to ensure coal's future," he said.
The booming natural gas industry also had a hand in shaping the bill and benefited from it. Environmental groups like the Sierra Club favor natural gas as an energy source over coal, and as Kari Lydersen reports in Working In These Times, the industry is driving job growth at a time when the economy needs a boost.
But as Alex Halperin reported last month for The American Prospect, in the places where drilling is occurring, like Ithaca, NY, activists are arguing that the environmental risks could outweigh those economic benefits.
Drill or be drilled
That devil's bargain-risking natural resources for jobs in the energy industry-went the wrong way for the Gulf Coast, and states like Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida are paying the price even before the oil hits shore.
As I report in AlterNet, the Gulf's economy could lose billions of dollars and is suffering already from the misconception that its beaches are tarred with oil. With this catastrophe still fresh in voters' minds, the Senate climate bill proposes pushing new drilling initiatives 75 miles offshore and giving affected states veto power over these projects.
Depending on how long the memory of the Deepwater Horizon spill lasts, politicians could have a good reason to veto drilling. Public News Service reports that 55% of Floridians now oppose off-shore drilling, "almost a complete reversal from one year ago."
Blame game
Certainly no one is stepping up to take responsibility for the explosion off the coast of Louisiana, as the Washington Independent reports. At a hearing this week, officials from British Petroleum, which was operating the well, Transocean, which owns it, and Halliburton, which was doing contract work that may have caused the problem, all denied wrongdoing and pressed the blame on each other.
It's starting to look Halliburton played a key part. "The focus is increasingly shifting to the role of Halliburton, which poured the cement for the rig, as well as for another operation that spilled oil off the coast of Australia last August," writes Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones. The company apparently did not place a cement plug that would have kept gas in the well before emptying it of the mud that was holding in the flammable gas.
Anyone living in a state that could have new drilling off their coast should keep this catastrophe in mind if their politicians are given the option of vetoing new projects.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
In his first State of the Union address, President Barack Obama touched on climate issues only briefly. He called on the Senate to pass a climate bill, but did not give Congress a deadline or promise to veto weak legislation. Nor did he mention the Copenhagen climate conference, where international negotiators struggled to produce an agreement on limiting global carbon emissions.
The Obama administration's attitude towards climate change still represents a remarkable shift from the Bush years, when global warming was treated as little more than a fairy tale. But in the past year, Congressional squabbling has stalled climate legislation, and international negotiators nearly gridlocked in talks over carbon admissions at the multinational Copenhagen conference. Without strong leadership from the president, work to prevent this looming environmental crisis will stall.
Obama did address global warming skeptics, saying that they should support investment in clean energy, "because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy."
Despite his combative language, the president did not challenge Congress to push for real solutions to ballooning carbon emissions and energy consumption. As Forrest Wilder of The Texas Observer notes, Obama "uttered the phrase 'climate change' precisely once."
The Senate has already wait-listed the climate bill: Health care came first. With health care reform now in line behind work on jobs and bank regulation, climate legislation has little chance of passing the Senate in the coming months, let alone making it to the president's desk.
If Congress lets this work wait until after the midterm elections, the United States will show up at international negotiations in December 2010 as a leader in carbon emissions yet again, but with little in hand to show a way forward.
Clean energy, not renewable energy
When the president did bring up climate issues, he focused on their connection between climate reform and potential job creation. Obama highlighted areas for growth, not in renewable energy fields like wind or solar power, but in nuclear power, natural gas, and clean coal.
Yes, these fuel sources could decrease the country's carbon emissions. But they are not solutions that will revolutionize energy production. Grist's David Roberts was floored that the speech omitted renewable energy entirely and kowtowed to a more conservative litany of energy projects. "I suppose it was done to flatter conservative Senators that will have to vote for the bill Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham are working on," he writes. (The three Senators are working on a version of the climate bill designed to appeal to Republicans.)
"But the SOTU is not a policy negotiation," Roberts says. "It's a bully pulpit, a chance to shape rather than respond to existing narratives."
Roberts argues that progressive supporters would benefit from a stronger message. If activists knew that the White House stands behind a real shift in America's energy policy, they could use that prompt to drive action on climate change.
What was missing
While touting the virtues of off-shore drilling, Obama overlooked other policies that could broker real change. Although he admonished Congress to pass a climate bill, he did not pressure the legislature on what he'd like that bill to include. He did not mention cap-and-trade, the mechanism the House bill relies on to tamp down emissions and dirty energy use.
President Obama did touch on transportation reforms that could decrease the country's use of fossil fuels.
"There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains," Obama said. He cited a high-speed rail project that broke ground on Tuesday in Tampa, FL, as evidence that America could best the rest of the world in creating new energy-efficient technology.
But one or two high-profile projects won't be enough to challenge Europe's network of high-speed trains or China's investments in solar power. The White House could put the country at the forefront of sustainable technologies, but it'll take more money than the president has committed. In AlterNet's ideal state of the union, projects like the railway would merit sustained attention and funding. Funding for the high-speed train came from this year's stimulus bill, and there's no guarantee that similar projects will find federal funding in the future.
"Continued support is still needed" for green jobs and clean energy, Alternet's editorial staff argues. "It's unclear yet how Obama's new proposal for a three-year spending freeze will apply to this sector, but a boost is what is needed, not cuts."
Green jobs
Michelle Chen argues for In These Times that the president is right to subordinate climate issues to economic policy. "The jobs angle is more than sugar-coating," she says. A recent Pew Research Center poll put climate change at the end of Americans' long list of cares, and a Brookings Institution study found that they're no longer willing to pay as much for greener products.
Jobless workers need green in their pockets most of all, and so far politicians' promises haven't made up for the slack economy.
"No matter how slick the marketing, confidence in green jobs may wilt even further absent real investments in the beleaguered blue-collar workforce," Chen writes.
Copenhagen accord losing momentum
The small role that climate change played in the state of the union address only emphasized the downward momentum of the issue since the United Nations conference on global warming in Copenhagen. Grist's Jonathan Hiskes talked to six leaders in climate change activism, and none of them offered a different strategy than they had last year.
That same stasis is showing up in Europe, as well. Spain, which currently leads the European Union, proposed that the European Union's negotiating position should remain the same as its position before the Copenhagen conference, according to Inter Press Service.
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), who's working on climate change legislation in the Senate, offered advice to climate activists at a clean energy forum in Washington, DC on Wednesday. Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard reports that Sen. Kerry encouraged his audience to get angrier, louder, and more active, in the mode of the conservative Tea Partiers, who have earned plenty of attention. After his speech, he also recalled the tactics that pushed landmark legislation like the Clean Air Act through Congress.
If climate change is going to play a larger role in the next state of the union, the citizens and groups concerned about this issue need to do something to put it on the agenda. Otherwise, next year, the president may find it just as easy to skim over it again.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Today, only three states have enacted laws that voting rights groups argue foster lifelong civic engagement among the nation's historically underrepresented group: Youth. These policies - implemented in Hawaii, Florida, and most recently, North Carolina - provide an opportunity for 16 and 17-year-olds to preregister to vote. However, merely providing preregistration opportunities is not enough to instill democratic participation in new voters. Such policies could be more effective when accompanied with education on how to be enfranchised, Florida policymakers say, and they hope to make the state a flagship for improved, youth-oriented election reform in 2010.
STATE BLOGS
