Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
As I pick up the pace of work again, coming into the midterms, I have to get some stories cleared off the desk in order to make room for some others, and that's what we're about today.
We'll be talking about saving more than 300,000 of this country's most important jobs, and paying for it in a way that is not only good policy, but is a real problem for Republicans who are yelling "no new taxes!" once again while pretending they care about actually paying for actual spending and actually want to cut actual unemployment.
We have a bit of work to do today, but we want to keep it somewhat short...so let's get going.
It's been almost a year since I posted a diary although I comment occasionally and lurk often. Politics has had to take a back seat to paying the bills and other energy draining activities that I never anticipated having to struggle with as I approached my 60th year. However, as the primary and the election approach the intensity of the fund raising has increased from the usual constant drone to a deafening cacophony. I hate it!
On June 26, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 219-212 in favor of HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). Only eight Republicans - we'll call them the "Enlightened Eight" - voted "aye." These Republicans were Mary Bono-Mack (CA-45), Mike Castle (DE-AL), John McHugh (NY-23), Frank LoBiondo (NJ-2), Leonard Lance (NJ-7), Mark Kirk (IL-10), Dave Reichert (WA-8), and Christopher Smith (NJ-4).
Republicans voting for cap and trade in the year of the Tea Party? You'd think that they'd be dumped in the harbor by now. Instead, they're all doing fine. In fact, to date, not a single one of these Republicans has been successfully primaried by the "tea party" (or otherwise). Instead, we have two - Castle and Kirk - running for U.S. Senate, one (McHugh) who was appointed Secretary of the Army by President Obama, and five others - Bono-Mack, LoBiondo, Lance, Reichert, Smith - running for reelection.
Rep. Lance actually was challenged by not one, not two, but three "Tea Party" candidates. One of Lance's opponents, David Larsen, even produced this nifty video, helpfully explaining that "Leonard Lance Loves Cap & Trade Taxes." So, did this work? Did the Tea Partiers overthrow the tyrannical, crypto-liberal Lance? Uh, no. Instead, in the end, Lance received 56% of the vote, easily moving on to November.
Meanwhile, 100 miles or so south on the Jersey Turnpike, Rep. LoBiondo faced two "Tea Party" candidates - Donna Ward and Linda Biamonte - who also attacked on the cap-and-trade issue. According to Biamonte, cap and trade "is insidious and another tax policy... a funneling of money to Goldman Sachs and Al Gore through derivatives creating a carbon bubble like the housing bubble." You'd think that Republican primary voters in the year of the Tea Party would agree with this line of attack. Yet LoBiondo won with 75% of the vote.
Last but not least in New Jersey, Christopher Smith easily turned back a Tea Party challenger - Alan Bateman - by a more than 2:1 margin. Bateman had argued that "Obama knows he can count on Smith to support the United Nations' agenda to redistribute American wealth to foreign countries through international Cap & Trade agreements and other programs that threaten our sovereignty." Apparently, Republican voters in NJ-4 didn't buy that argument.
Across the country in California's 45th District, Mary Bono-Mack won 71% of the vote over Tea Party candidate Clayton Thibodeau on June 8. This, despite Thibodeau attacking Bono-Mack as "the only Republican west of the Mississippi to vote for Cap and Trade." Thibodeau also called cap and trade "frightening," claiming that government could force you to renovate your home or meet requirements before you purchase a home. Thibodeau's scare tactics on cap-and-trade clearly didn't play in CA-45.
Finally, in Washington's 8th Congressional District, incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert has drawn a Tea Party challenger named Ernest Huber, who writes that Cap and Trade "is widely viewed as an attempt at Soviet-style dictatorship using the environmental scam of global warming/climate change... written by the communist Apollo Alliance, which was led by the communist Van Jones, Obama's green jobs czar." We'll see how this argument plays with voters in Washington's 8th Congressional District, but something tells us it's not going to go over any better than in the New Jersey or California primaries.
In sum, it appears that it's quite possible for Republicans to vote for comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation and live (politically) to tell about it. The proof is in the primaries.
While we've all been busy watching the "oil spill live cam", a similar uncontrolled discharge has been taking place in Washington, DC
In this case, however, it's lobbyists that are spilling all over the landscape as the House and Senate attempt to merge their two visions of financial reform.
They're trying desperately to influence the outcome of the conference in which House and Senate negotiators have been engaged; this to craft the exact language of the reconciled legislation.
There's an additional element of drama hovering over the events as eight House members, including one of the most vocal of the Republican negotiators, face ethics questions related to this very bill.
The best part: if you're enough of a political geek, you can actually watch the events unfold, unedited and unfiltered, from the comfort of your very own computer.
So far, it's been amazing political theater, and if you follow along I'll tell you how you can get in on the fun, too.
It's part two of our "Netroots Nation Goes To Vegas Piano Bar Extravaganza", and in keeping with tradition that means we are again taking a story request.
This time we won't be talking about energy security or "climate security"; instead, we'll discuss retirement security, keeping your money for yourself instead of paying it out in "mystery fees", and how one of the "usual suspects" is at it again.
In the wake of Israel's deadly attack on those ships from around the world seeking to deliver humanitarian aid to the embargoed people of Gaza in international waters, what are our candidates and incumbent members of congress saying?
AIPAC has had tremendous power in Washington over our Middle East policy. No doubt they support the bloody illegal raid. And no doubt members and candidates would prefer to steer clear of this issue.
Is Israel's short-term militaristic interest the same as American interests?
Fletcher Features
The Impact of Shale Gas Technology on Geopolitics
Dr. Daniel Fine of MIT discusses how new technology in extracting gas will impact geopolitics and the environment
Dr. Daniel Fine of the Mining and Minerals Resources Institute at MIT addressed Fletcher students at a talk sponsored by the International Security Studies Program and offered his insights into how the development of new technology will allow the United States to tap vast, previously inaccessible, resources of natural gas that will impact everything from the price of gasoline to the ability of Chinese companies to buy equity in Russian natural gas fields.
The United States has a monopoly on "hydro-fracing" technology. The technology, short for hydraulic fracturing, releases natural gas trapped in shale deposits by injecting the deposits with high-pressure water mixed with sand and small amounts of chemical additives.
According to Dr. Fine, the "cloud over gas" used to be "do we have enough gas?" In 2003, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan declared that the United States did not have enough natural gas, and that it would be necessary to import liquid natural gas (LNG). This, said Dr. Fine, was clearly a mistake in the light of the new hydro-facing technology, not only because importing LNG poses a security risk to the United States, but because tapping natural gas from shale represents an economic "bonanza" in "the most [economically] repressed parts of the country:" western New York, western Pennsylvania and West Virginia, areas which suffer from high rates of unemployment, and are estimated to host 490 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The thousands of jobs that could be created in these areas could stand in the way of President Obama's pursuit of subsidies for renewable energy.
Another excellent article on Energy Security and Regulation! Enjoy!
Energy Security and the Regulation Imperative in a New Economic Era
Did the economic crisis stabilize oil prices? What is the future of energy security? Has China bypassed the United States in the green energy revolution? How will the global community approach the "fourth corridor" pipeline in relation to Iranian power and Russian resurgence?
Dr. Daniel Fine, research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Mining and Minerals Resources Institute, addressed a diverse set of energy-related questions at The Fletcher School on September 15. The presentation was part of the International Security Studies Program Global Speaker Series.
Dr. Fine indicated that Saudi Arabia views the current price of oil, roughly $70-75 per barrel, as reflecting a price that is both fair and natural. The 2007-2008 price spike, which increased the per barrel price 220% over its 2005 level, was accompanied by a mere 2.5% increase in consumption. According to Dr. Fine, this undermines the oft-cited argument that consumption spikes drive price increases.
The real story of runaway oil prices, Dr. Fine said, lies in the enormous amount of available credit in the 2007-2008, which allowed speculators to buy and hold massive reserves, disturbing traditional forces of supply and demand. Combined with a global finance system that neglected deposits and encouraged rampant buying and a lack of regulation, this perfect storm brought the financial world to its knees in September 2008.
As the global economy shows signs of recovery, Dr. Fine urged the audience to ignore speculators. So-called "geopolitical analysts" on major news shows, he said, are often self-interested frauds with no actual training in geopolitics, serving only to promote a product (oil, gas, or energy) and make faulty predictions.
In the framework of energy security, Dr. Fine cited President Obama's speeches in Cairo and on Wall Street, as evidence of the administration's movement away from hard power "oil politics" and toward Joseph Nye's conception of soft power. Dr. Fine cited President Obama's Cairo speech as the backbone of a new regional policy in which the United States will move away from energy independence and toward energy interdependence, working alongside the global community and with regulators to ensure transparency.
The new geopolitics, Dr. Fine noted, focus on the location of and environment that surrounds oil supplies. He indicated that this symbolizes a shift from "great salesmanship" to true political geography with an associated acknowledgement of the reality of sector specific risk. In this context, Dr. Fine discussed the "fourth corridor" pipeline route, popularly known as Nabucco, which will stretch across the Caspian Sea to Austria. Turkey's attempts to claim 15% of the overall revenue would, if successful, render the proposed pipeline uneconomic, while the tumult in Georgia poses enormous political risk to the project. Russia, which holds a virtual monopoly on European natural gas supply and is dabbling anew in great power politics, is vehemently opposed to Nabucco. This is one of the reasons, Dr. Fine stressed, that Russia does not want to see regime change in Iran; the current anti-Western hard line ensures Iran's illegitimacy in the West and thus prevents Iranian oil sales to Western powers.
Dr. Fine also touched on China and its crucial coal factor. China will inevitability decline the carbon emissions cap to be proposed at COP15, and India, along with other developing powers, will follow suit in rejecting emissions caps. But Dr. Fine argued that China's emphasis on carbon capture synchronization, or CCS, demonstrates its relative advantage over the West in certain green energy issues.
Dr. Fine concluded by citing President Obama's recent hard-line regulation speech on Wall Street as an outline of future policy. If regulation fails, Dr. Fine indicated it is likely that a pricing bubble will return in concert with a buying surge. But with regulation, and with stringent enforcement by both the U.S. and Europe, a permanent cap on oil prices can be established that will maintain transparency and coincide with the fair and natural price.
Frank Guinta is rolling out a website where he, as the appointed spokesperson for the people, asks them to set the terms of the dialog. He calls his newest website "YourHouseYourVoice.com"
(One irony I will mention on passing is that Guinta, like most neocons, likes to deride his opponents as "Marxists," "Communists," and "socialists"--- while himself espousing Marxist ideas. His whole concept of letting government wither away and letting corporate entities run everything is straight out of Lenin's playbook.)
The site contains a checklist of what he believes are the most important issues facing him as a hopeful US Representative. He is missing a few pretty important issues, and the ones he includes are all about protecting corporate persons from being interfered with by the government (which is run by natural persons.) It might be fun to show the list. You are supposed to pick 5 out of 10:
We kicked off our "30 house parties in 30 days" tour with a whirlwind this past week, visiting six living rooms, one retirement center, and one beautiful spring BBQ. I thought I'd take a minute to share what I've been seeing and hearing with you, to give you a sense of what kind of campaign we are running and what kind of a Congresswoman I will be if the voters of our district give me the honor of representing them in Congress.
I just watched the vote on the teevee. Health insurance reform has passed the House. The bill still needs more tweaking, but for all intents and purposes, the policy shift first attempted a century ago has been finally achieved on a national level.
Is it perfect? No. But it will do some things that will improve health care access for millions of Americans.
Reid's letter to McConnell is a thing of rare and exquisite beauty, or as my father-in-law is fond of telling me, Go f&^k yourself. (I don't know why, but people tell me it's my shining and agreeable personality that pisses him off.) It is often said that civility is the art of telling someone to go f%^k themselves and have that someone think it's probably a good idea. That's my brand of civility, and as I've said before, we should start worrying about building bridges when the other side stops shelling us.
My favorite passage from Reid, in his conclusion: "at the end of the process, the bill can pass only if it wins a democratic, up-or-down majority vote. If Republicans want to vote against a bill that reduces health care costs, fills the prescription drug "donut hole" for seniors and reduces the deficit, you will have every right to do so."
Relatedly, good news from the NY Times, via Mark Kleiman, on student loans. Eliminating the middle men, raising Pell Grant amounts, and softening payback. Awesome. It's starting to look like Dems are flexing legislative muscle...can we hope?
Monitor calls on "Tea Party Charlie" to tell the voters whether he truly supports the Tea Party's extremist agenda
Concord -- During his campaign announcement Charlie Bass praised the Tea Party saying he "loves 'em" and that their agenda is "exactly the same as mine."
Oh really?
The Tea Party has an extremist agenda that is out of touch with New Hampshire values. And today the Concord Monitor took "Tea Party Charlie" to task, calling on him to "let the voters know who they will be getting if they vote for him: Is it the Charlie Bass of the Main Street Republicans or Tea Party Charlie?"
The editorial posed a number of important questions including:
* "Does Bass believe, as some Tea Party members do, that global warming is a myth, or worse, a plot?
* "Does Bass really still believe that privatizing Social Security is a good idea?
* "Does he really believe... that the Obama administration is "coddling terrorists"?
Read the full editorial below.
Is Bass truly steeped in Tea Party agenda?
One of the basic rules of Republican politics is "run to the right" in the primary and "move to the middle" for the general election. But Charlie Bass, our Charlie Bass, a tea-partier? You gotta be kidding.
In announcing his run for Congress this month, Bass summed up the Tea Party members like this: "I love them. God bless every single one of them. Their agenda is exactly the same as mine."
It's impossible to characterize Tea Party members accurately, since the ad hoc party has no real platform, at least one all its incarnations agree with. Many of its members appear to believe, however, that the country is going to Hell in a handbasket and some sort of revolution is called for. Does Charlie? Who knows?
Bass was once a moderate Republican in the Walter Peterson, Susan McLane mold, but what is Charlie now? Like Bass, plenty of people in both parties are interested in eliminating wasteful spending and reducing deficits. But does Bass believe, as some Tea Party members do, that global warming is a myth, or worse, a plot? Does he really believe, as he claims on his website, that the Obama administration is "coddling terrorists"? Or, as he claimed in his announcement speech, that the stimulus program - which has helped keep New Hampshire and lots of other states afloat - was a failure?
Does Bass, a onetime head of the moderate Main Street Republicans in Congress - a group that later backed the bailout of Wall Street and big banks - truly believe that cutting taxes is the right response to a deficit caused in good measure by cutting taxes? And after the stock market halved the retirement funds of seniors who panicked and took their money out at or near the bottom, does Bass really still believe that privatizing Social Security is a good idea?
It can't be easy for Bass to move to the right of his primary opponents, radio talk show host Jennifer Horn and former state representative Bob Guida. Both have talked a more conservative game. But that appears to be his plan. If he succeeds, it will take such a long way back to the middle that he'd better pack a lunch.
Bass needs to let voters know who they will be getting if they vote for him: Is it the Charlie Bass of the Main Street Republicans or Tea Party Charlie?
(http://www.concordmonitor.com)
(Posted by Harrell Kirstein, deputy press secretary for the New Hampshire Democratic Party)
For a more detailed look at what I outlined here yesterday please pay a visit to Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) website where he outlines his "Roadmap", or "Contract with on America 2.0"
TPM's Christina Bellantoni
The roadmap has a GOP grab-bag of tax cuts, eliminating capital gains taxes, interest income taxes, the alternative minimum tax and estate tax Republicans dubbed the "death" tax. It also increases the standard deduction for tax filers.
It also eliminates the top three tax brackets for the wealthy.
"These are very, very dramatic changes in the tax code ... likely to lose a tremendous amount of revenue," said Jim Horney, director of federal fiscal policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBBP).
It tries to replace these with an 8.5 % "consumption tax", which according to Bellantoni, experts have said would increase the burden to the lower and middle classes by taxing all goods and services. Also, the revenue raised by this tax would not offset the revenue lost by the tax cuts.
The attached news brief from Reuters says it all - one in 7+ Americans is receiving food stamps. The USDA expects an average enrollment in 2010 of 40.5 million people.
http://www.forexyard.com/en/ne...
The BLS is reporting the U6 unemployment rate at 16.5% - more than 25 million Americans unemployed or underemployed.
When viewed through the lens of tightening credit markets and skyrocketing health insurance premiums, it's hard to see where job growth occurs. To be polite, the president's $5K tax credit for job creation is grossly inadequate for creating any meaningful employment. There's simply no demand.
Steve Benen, by far the most valuable source for this Democrat these days for national politics, notes an editorial in the WaPo today from AEI of all places!
(This affects all of us. We need to stay informed. Thank you for the diary, John. - Jennnifer Daler. (Bumped) - promoted by Dean Barker)
Wall Street financial services companies are preparing to pay out record year end bonuses (read WaPo article here), while Main Street continues to struggle with the loss of over 7 million jobs, record home foreclosures, record numbers of working families fighting to stay above water in paying for their home and monthly bills. Yet, Wall Street CEO's don't understand why Americans are so angry?!
With the Primary (September 14th) now 9 months away I thought we should do another round with the known candidates. (We will do this more often in the months ahead.)
The one week filing period does not even open till June 2 so there are plenty of time for others to enter the race.
That said, among our intentional candidates, if the primary was held today for whom would you vote?
Of course outcomes of this poll are not scientific as they only reflect the views of Blue Hampshire readers who choose to participate. Participation is free and easy (kinda like Sunday Morning) but you do need to be a registered user to play. Operators are standing by, get your account today.
