A Blue View

Critics Far Off The Mark On House Energy & Climate Change Bill

Now that the House Narrowly Passes Energy & Climate Change Bill the conservatives are going nuts with their doomsday objections. In this post, I want to respond to three of their typical objections.

First, there's the bill-in-isolation-does-nothing-to-mitigate-climate-change charge. Here's Chip Knappenberger:

Without a large reduction in the carbon dioxide emissions from both China and India—not just a commitment but an actual reduction—there will be nothing climatologically gained from any restrictions on U.S. emissions, regardless whether they come about from the Waxman-Markey bill (or other cap-and-trade proposals), from a direct carbon tax, or through some EPA regulations.

Yet these critics seem to consciously ignore the it's-only-fair-you-go-first argument, as captured by the Andrew Revin:

For the most part, developing countries, from  China and other giants to those struggling with deep poverty and  a profound lack of energy options, say any new actions on their part are predicated on two things:

- Much deeper cuts in gas emissions by industrialized countries that built their wealth largely by burning fossil fuels,

- That the world’s established powers pay for any costs borne by poorer nations as they adapt to climate change and shift away from business as usual on emissions.

Then they go further into hypocrisy land by criticizing, as a boon to foreign competitors, aspects of the bill specifically designed to create more of an international response. According to Nigel Purvis, the Waxman-Markey bill would

allocate $5 billion a year by 2020 for direct climate change assistance from the U.S. government to developing nations ($740 million for technology, $3.7 billion for tropical forest conservation, and $740 million for adaptation). In addition, the bill would mobilize an additional $3.5-$15 billion a year by 2020 from private companies for emissions mitigation in developing nations, depending on the cost and supply of international emission reductions compared to domestic action. Combined, U.S. international investments in climate change under Waxman-Markey would range from $8.5-20 billion a year in 2020 – less than is probably required but certainly a significant start.

You can't have it both ways guys: you can't say the bill won't help if just the US does it and then criticize the "foreign" parts of the bill. (Read why "tropical forest conservation is one of the most affordable and fastest ways to achieve large pollution reductions").

Finally, conservatives charge that it's too expensive.  Here's Conor Clarke response:

There's a fair amount of scaremongering going on about the costs of cap and trade. I get off the Jim Manzi train when he says that Waxman-Markey will be "a terrible deal for American taxpayers" because "it is projected to impose annual costs of about $1,100 per household (a little less than 1% of total consumption) by 2050." (That's from the EPA estimate.) That $1,100 looks like a lot, but of course the country is projected be almost three times richer in 2050 than it is now. Average household consumption in 2050 will be $164,348.

Here's an easy way of visualizing the costs of Waxman-Markey. The chart below shows projected U.S. GDP with and without Waxman-Markey (drawn from the data annex of the EPA's big estimate). Projected U.S. GDP without the bill is in orange; it's sitting behind projected GDP with the bill, which is in grey. The visible orange stripe is the difference between the two scenarios:

Nate Silver goes further, and in an interesting analysis arrives at these state-by-state cost in 2020:

 

Keep this map in mind when the Senate starts debating the House bill--I bet it's going to be a good predictor of support & opposition among the Democrats.

Weekly Radio Address

The President discusses the House Energy & Climate Change bill and urges the Senate to pass it:

House Narrowly Passes Energy & Climate Change Bill

From the NY Times:

The vote was the first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change. The legislation, which passed despite deep divisions among Democrats, could lead to profound changes in many sectors of the economy, including electric power generation, agriculture, manufacturing and construction.

The bill’s passage, by 219 to 212, with 44 Democrats voting against it, also established a marker for the United States when international negotiations on a new climate change treaty begin later this year.

At the heart of the legislation is a cap-and-trade system that sets a limit on overall emissions of heat-trapping gases while allowing utilities, manufacturers and other emitters to trade pollution permits, or allowances, among themselves. The cap would grow tighter over the years, pushing up the price of emissions and presumably driving industry to find cleaner ways of making energy.

As difficult as House passage proved, it is just the beginning of the energy and climate debate in Congress. The issue now moves to the Senate, where political divisions and regional differences are even more stark ...

The legislation, a patchwork of compromises, falls far short of what many European governments and environmentalists have said is needed to avert the worst effects of global warming. And it pitted liberal Democrats from the East and West Coasts against more conservative Democrats from areas dependent on coal for electricity and on heavy manufacturing for jobs.

While some environmentalists enthusiastically supported the legislation, others, including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, opposed it. Industry officials were split, with the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers opposing the bill and some of the nation’s biggest corporations, including Dow Chemical and Ford, backing it.

One Of Michael's Impacts

On Health Care Reform, “they’re playing hardball, and they’re serious about it.”

From Politico:

The Senate Finance Committee is pressuring hospitals and insurers

to follow the lead of the pharmaceutical industry and pony up to help pay for health reform, industry insiders say.

With the Democrats’ high-stakes gambit to overhaul the nation’s health care system coming with an eye-popping price tag of $1 trillion over 10 years, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has been tasked with finding that money — and has been privately reminding six major health groups of their pledge to President Barack Obama to find $2 trillion in savings over the next 10 years.

“Sen. Baucus believes that these industries have a lot to gain by health care reform. They have 46 million new customers coming their way, and they have a responsibility to participate in getting that done,” said Erin Shields, the Montana senator’s spokeswoman.

Some in the industry, though, take a darker view of the chairman's motives.

“They are shaking people down, and it’s fair to say that includes a broad range of health care stakeholders,” said a health care industry insider, who asked for anonymity to speak candidly without fear of retribution. “They’re playing hardball, and they’re serious about it.”

Industry representatives have offered cost-cutting measures, such as putting health records online and improving the management of chronic disease.

But they’ve been frustrated to discover that the Congressional Budget Office, whose estimates hold big sway, doesn’t count them as hard-dollar savings.

Programs like disease prevention will save money, but the practices are more recent and have not yet been fully incorporated by the conservative CBO, said Ken Thorpe, a professor of health policy at Emory University, who has worked with policymakers on reform.

So lawmakers are forced to ask industry giants to accept cuts on things like Medicare reimbursement rates, because those are savings that the CBO can “score.”

“There will be a lot of hand-wringing and back-channel griping about it, but the bottom line is that they’re doing it. It’s a real difference,” said Thorpe, in a reference to the committee’s hunt for CBO-sanctioned savings.

PhRMA, the pharmaceutical drug makers’ trade group, this week was the first group to cut a deal — that it would provide $80 billion in savings to help cover the cost of reform.

By getting in early, the drug companies hope to have bought themselves some credibility with lawmakers and the White House that will help stave off what they see as the more draconian option of price controls — a proposal favored by some Democrats, especially in the House.

And while $80 billion was more than what drug makers anticipated, “we have room to move now,” said a pharmaceutical industry source familiar with the package. “We came into it realistically. We knew we were going to have to pay our share. That’s why we’re first in the door. We planned for it for a long time.”

Next up, hospitals ... <Continue reading.>

Don't

Once Again Michelle Bachmann Shows She's Historically Illiterate And Is A Right-Wing, Conspiracy Nut

What an embarrassment to Minnesota. From ThinkProgress:

There are many things wrong with Bachmann and host Megyn Kelly’s so-called analysis: First, both women were shocked that the Census would ask for people’s telephone numbers. However, that information is not required by law, and is used only to contact recipients who have incomplete forms.

Second, Bachmann is confusing the 2010 Census and the American Community Survey (ACS), a long-form survey sent out to one in 40 households (0.0028 percent of the American public) each year. The Census, sent out once every ten years, asks only about one’s age, race, and the type of home one lives in. The ACS, started in 1996, collects more detailed data used to distribute more than $300 billion in federal funds to local communities.

Most importantly, the questions that Bachmann is so concerned about — questions she suggests might somehow lead to internment — are not new questions (not to mention they frequently overlap with information given to the IRS every year). Census questions on race have been asked since 1790; home language since 1890; rent since 1880; and income since 1940. The Census has asked what kind of heating fuel heats Americans’ homes since 1940. http://2010.census.gov/2010census/pdf/2010ACSnotebook.p...

Finally, it’s a federal crime for any Census worker to violate the confidentiality of the Census form, punishable by a federal prison sentence of up to five years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both.

Governing Is A Bitch: Obama Considering Indefinite Detention Order

Sobering news from the Wash Post:

Obama administration officials, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, are crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that an order, which would bypass Congress, could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

After months of internal debate over how to close the military facility in Cuba, White House officials are increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may be impossible. Several officials said there is concern in the White House that the administration may not be able to close the prison by the president's January deadline.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said that there is no executive order and that the administration has not decided whether to issue one. But one administration official suggested that the White House is already trying to build support for an order.

"Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order," the official said. Such an order could be rescinded and would not block later efforts to write legislation, but civil liberties groups generally oppose long-term detention, arguing that detainees should be prosecuted or released ...

In a May speech, President Obama broached the need for a system of long-term detention and suggested that it would include congressional and judicial oversight. "We must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone," he said.

President Obama Dunks Senior Advisors

A Political Cartoon Worth A Thousand Words

The indictment of America this cartoon represents is supported by unbelievable stories like this: Pastor Urges His Flock to Bring Guns to Church.

Evangelical Christianity In The American Military

A report from Al Jazeera. Are you worried? Wondering why the MSM isn't covering this?

The United States is a deeply religious country, over 90% believe in god and 80% believe in miracles. For the US military, dealing with its own religious identity has become an internal battle. Growing evidence points towards a rising influence of evangelical Christianity, and with two wars still raging in Muslim countries with significant religious overtones, there could be serious consequences for the US mission. Pentagon officials say incidents are isolated, aberrations occur, but others closely tied to the military and its religious leadership say a transformation is taking place with dire costs. On this weeks episode of Fault Lines, we look at the battle over the religious soul of the US military.

Also, we sit down with Brent Scowcroft, the National Security Advisor under Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush. He gives Fault Lines a fresh take on the issue of religion in the military and how it is impacting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Part I:

Part II:

Selfishness, And An Inability To Act In Their Own Self-Interest, Define The Farm Lobby

A scathing column on the farm lobby from Steven Pearlstein that also gives insight into what's so fundamentally wrong with Washington: 

The climate-change bill that is scheduled for a vote in the House today would over the next decade reduce by 17 percent the amount of greenhouse gases that businesses and individuals would be allowed to release. Those who generate most of those gases would gradually be forced to buy pollution permits, either from the government or from someone else who has extra allocations and is willing to sell them on the open market. By imposing what amounts to a tax on carbon emissions, the bill envisions, businesses and households will respond by reducing their energy consumption or switching to cleaner renewable sources of energy.

Because they are the source of most carbon emissions, factories, power plants and oil refineries would all be covered by the caps and be required to buy the permits, or allowances, as they are called. The one major source that is not covered is the American farm. From the start, everyone agreed that it would be an administrative nightmare to try to measure and regulate the amount of carbon produced on each farm. Given the power of the farm lobby, everyone agreed that it was also a political non-starter.

But, for farmers, it wasn't enough to get a free pass on carbon emissions. They are unhappy that the effect of the caps and pollution permits will be to raise the price of their fuel, fertilizer and electricity. No matter that other Americans will suffer similar effects. In the mind of the entitled American farmer, any increase in costs or reduction in revenue -- whether from natural causes, market forces or government regulation -- must be compensated for by the government.

So farmers demanded that they be allowed to earn some extra cash by reducing the carbon footprint on their farms and selling these "offsets" to the factories and power plants unlucky enough to be subject to the carbon-cap regime. They want to be paid extra if they change the feedstock to cut down on cow burps and farts. Or if they use the no-till method for planting seeds, which doesn't release the carbon trapped in the soil. Or if they put in devices to trap the methane released from animal poop.

And they demanded to be paid not just if they do these things in the future, but also if they did them last year or the year before. They demanded the payments even if they are already getting a check from the government to do the same things as part of some other conservation program. And perhaps most notably, they demanded that the job of supervising this offset program be shifted from the Environmental Protection Agency, whose focus would actually be ensuring that the reductions are real, to the Department of Agriculture, which sees its mission as preserving, protecting and defending American farm subsidies.

Elmer's support for the climate-change bill, however, could not be had for merely a few billion dollars a year in offsets. There was also an ethanol boondoggle to protect.

It seems those pesky scientists over at the EPA had done a preliminary analysis showing that if you considered the indirect effects of producing a lot of additional corn-based ethanol -- like the need to make up for the lost food production somewhere else -- then ethanol might not qualify as a carbon-reducing "renewable fuel" under the 2007 energy bill, potentially jeopardizing ethanol's guaranteed market of 15 billion gallons a year. To rectify this gross injustice, Elmer demanded -- and won -- a five-year moratorium on any final determination while a study is conducted on how the EPA was conducting its study.

The GOP, The Family Values Party

 

 

 

Rush Limbaugh: Obama Drove Sanford To Cheat

Absolutely amazing ... I have no words.

"The perfect is the enemy of the good; but so is the not-good-enough-to-work"

Paul Krugman answers the question I posed earlier about the wisdom of Obama's health care pragmatism:

First, Mr. Obama offered a crystal-clear explanation of the case for health care reform, and especially of the case for a public option competing with private insurers. “If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care, if they tell us that they’re offering a good deal,” he asked, “then why is it that the government, which they say can’t run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That’s not logical.” But when asked whether the public option was non-negotiable he waffled, declaring that there are no “lines in the sand” ...

The point is that if you’re making big policy changes, the final form of the policy has to be good enough to do the job. You might think that half a loaf is always better than none — but it isn’t if the failure of half-measures ends up discrediting your whole policy approach ...

What will determine the success or failure of reform? Above all, the success of reform depends on successful cost control. We really, really don’t want to get into a position a few years from now where premiums are rising rapidly, many Americans are priced out of the insurance market despite government subsidies, and the cost of health care subsidies is a growing strain on the budget.

And that’s why the public plan is an important part of reform ...

It's worth reading the whole thing.

Ha Ha

Deficit Control Now Major Priority In Obama's Health Care Reform

I have mixed feelings about this.  Making it budget neutral will inevitably water it down, but increases its chances of passing ... and surviving future Republican administrations. What do you think?

From the NY Times:

It has become the trillion-dollar question: can President Obama find that much in spending cuts and tax increases to keep his campaign promise to overhaul the health care system, without adding to already huge deficits? Mr. Obama and the Democrats running Congress are deeply split over the possibilities.

House and Senate leaders do not like his ideas but cannot agree on alternatives. Other proposals that could reduce health care spending would take too long to show savings for purposes of Congress’s budget scorekeeping, and many would require big investments initially, such as for research into cost-effective treatments.

Meanwhile, special interests like insurance companies, employers and even sugar beet and corn growers are on alert to oppose anything that could hurt them.

Adding to the pressure, Republicans are back to attacking Democrats as tax-and-spenders. Yet they have not proposed how to pay for their own, more modest health care proposals. Nor did they offset the cost of creating the Medicare prescription drug benefit six years ago when they controlled Congress and held the White House. Its projected deficits exceed the shortfall for all of Social Security over the next 75 years, according to the program’s 2009 trustees report.

For some time, lawmakers and lobbyists privately assumed Mr. Obama would not hold the fiscal line for a deficit-neutral bill. Instead, he has reinforced it. Legislation “must and will be paid for,” he said in a news conference on Tuesday.

Worries about the economy hardened Mr. Obama’s resolve, administration officials say. “There’s a concern that if Congress were to pass a big health care bill that was heavily deficit-financed, financial markets could react negatively, with higher interest rates that could deepen the recession,” said Robert Greenstein, the executive director of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which supports the administration’s goal of a deficit-neutral health care overhaul.

Even so, each idea to cut spending or raise taxes has political pitfalls. A review of the options — and how dug in the opponents are — shows just how hard it will be for Mr. Obama to reshape the health system. <Continue to read snapshots of the major proposals>

More Iranian Political Cartoons (#iranelection)

You can find many more here.

 

75% Of Americans Want Government Regulation Of Greenhouse Gases

From the Wash Post (complete results):

Three-quarters of Americans think the federal government should regulate the release into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases from power plants, cars and factories to reduce global warming, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, with substantial majority support from Democrats, Republicans and independents.

But fewer Americans -- 52 percent -- support a cap-and-trade approach to limiting greenhouse gas emissions similar to the one the House may vote on as early as tomorrow. That is slightly less support than cap and trade enjoyed in a late July 2008 poll. Forty-two percent of those surveyed this month oppose such a program.

The Washington Post-ABC News survey showed that support slipped slightly when people were asked whether they would be willing to pay higher prices in general or higher electricity bills in exchange for significant decreases in greenhouse gases ... The Post-ABC poll showed that six in 10 Americans favor U.S. action, even if other countries do less to confront climate change.

One of the sharpest dividing lines in attitudes toward climate legislation was age, with younger adults more receptive to cap and trade and federal regulation of greenhouse gases. Nearly two-thirds of those younger than 30 said they support cap and trade, and eight in 10 support federal limits on emissions. Among seniors, about four in 10 said they back a cap-and-trade proposal, and half favor federal intervention on emissions.

Sensitivity to increased prices is highest among those in households with incomes under $50,000. Nearly all of the drop-off in support for cap and trade or other greenhouse gas regulation comes among people who live in such households. Those in higher-income households were relatively unfazed by the increased costs.

War Is Peace To The House GOP

To the House GOP, Obama's proposed consumer financial protection agency would decrease protection for consumers. They also argue--apparently because they only have one set of arguments to use against all Obama initiatives--that this would put the government  between you and your doctor banker and have bureaucrats limiting your medical financial choices. Their inability to think, to devise a decent argument for the issue at hand is astounding. And good for all opposed to their outdated, discredited ideas.

Syria, Iran & Obama's Smart Move (#iranelection)

Joe Klein reacts to the news that the Obama To Return Ambassador To Syria After 4-Year Absence:

The Obama Administration has decided to send a U.S. Ambassador back to Syria, for the first time since Margaret Scobie was pulled by the Bush Administration, which was protesting the likely involvement of the Syrian government in the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. This is a wise move on several grounds. It is a reflection of productive negotiations between the U.S. and Syria just below the radar screen. It also sends an interesting signal to Iran, whose regime should begin to wonder if Syrians are shifting with the international tides, given the Iranian regime's public brutality and the recent defeat of Hizballah in the recent Lebanese elections. And it positions the U.S. as mediators in potential peace talks between Syria and Israel, which both sides have been pursuing through intermediaries for years.

The Syrians have been slightly uncomfortable with their Iran alliance for years, but they tend to move very slowly and cautiously in negotiations. This is a sign that something's bubbling in Damascus.

Al Jazeera English's Iran Desk On New Media's Role In Iran (#iranelection)

They interview the head of Google's politics team:

Those Public Health Insurance Option Polls Are Telling Us Framing Is Critical

Karen Tumulty had the same question I had about the difference in support for a public health insurance option in the recent NY Times & Wash Post polls.  She, however, beat me to a post:

As we have noted here before, two polls have shown three-quarters of the public support the idea of giving people the choice of a government-run health care plan similar to Medicare. But a new Washington Post survey throws some caveats on that proposition, and gets a very different result:

Survey questions that equate the public option approach with the popular, patient-friendly Medicare system tend to get high approval, as do ones that emphasize the prospect of more choices. But when framed with an explicit counterargument, the idea receives a more tepid response. In the new Post-ABC poll, 62 percent support the general concept, but when respondents were told that meant some insurers would go out of business, support dropped sharply, to 37 percent.

... This is important, because it tells us how the two sides are going to frame the debate going forward. Supporters of a public plan will emphasize choice and remind people how popular and successful Medicare has been. Opponents will raise the prospect of losing what you have. (And depending on how that public plan is designed, both arguments could be true.) Which meme takes root will very likely determine the outcome.

Public Health Insurance Option Cartoons

 

 

 

The GOP's Deep Freeze Gets Deeper

From the Wash Post:

Sanford's story is more than personal. For a Republican Party down on its luck, the governor's disappearance and subsequent rambling apology to his wife, his family, his close friends and all the people of South Carolina draw more unwelcome publicity to a party that needs but cannot seem to get any good news.

Coming a week after  Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) admitted to an extramarital affair, the scandal will impact the Republicans in several ways. First, it further damages the GOP brand, potentially driving away more voters or at least making it more difficult to win back some of those who abandoned the party in the past two elections. Second, it could disillusion social and religious conservatives -- a critically important part of the Republican coalition -- who may now wonder whether those who share the Republican label truly share their values. Third, the Sanford saga removes one more new-generation GOP leader from the field of prospective 2012 candidates, adding to doubts about the strength of the party's bench.

For Republicans, the long winter continues. "It's bad news," said Peter Wehner, a former Bush White House adviser, of the back-to-back confessions by Sanford and Ensign. "It reflects on them individually, but it reflects on the party. The Democrats are vulnerable on a number of areas, including scandals. They've had their own on a range of issues. But if you accept as I do that the Republican brand is hurt, this does more damage to it."

John Weaver, a longtime GOP strategist, said: "The voters have chosen new management [in the White House] for a reason, and this just reinforces it. It just makes the hill a little steeper for us." Looking toward 2012, Weaver joked, "At this rate, if you're a junior Jaycees president in Memphis, you could be in line for the nomination."

The Democrats In Congress

The GOP & Marriage Equality: "It's like taking lessons on sexual maturity from the Vatican"

Andrew Sullivan on Gov Mark Sanford:

I have to say the karma in all this is pretty profound. The party that has gone on and on and on to prevent me getting married, and prevent my own marriage from being recognized by the federal government is the party of David Vitter, Mark Sanford, Rush Limbaugh and Larry Craig. It's like taking lessons on sexual maturity from the Vatican. And, yes, Sanford was a dedicated opponent of gay couples being allowed to marry. He deserves forgiveness and compassion for his human failings; but he deserves censure for his public double standards. But here's what you learn: those GOP stalwarts who survive these affairs never change their positions on marriage equality. They never learn or evolve.

"Hypocrisy, a cornerstone of the Republican Party"

Cheaper, Generic Plan B To Sell Over The Counter

From the Wall St Journal:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday approved a generic version of the controversial Plan B morning-after contraceptive.

For now, the generic version, made by a unit of Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc., is available by prescription only for women 17 years old and younger, the FDA said in a press release. The generic version will become available for women 18 and older without a prescription on Aug. 24 ....

The approval follows an earlier decision to allow women under 17 years old to use an over-the-counter brand-name version of the Plan B contraceptive. That move, ordered by a federal judge in March, rolled back the 18-year-old age imposed by the Bush administration.

U.S. Pushes Back Against China's Drive For Increased Censorship Technology

It's interesting that they're taking a trade tack on this; it's probably the approach that has the most chance of succeeding. From the Wall St Journal:

Senior U.S. trade officials have called on China to revoke an order for all personal computers in China to be shipped with Web-filtering software, saying the requirement could conflict with China's obligations under the World Trade Organization.

According to a U.S. government official familiar with the matter, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke urged the Chinese government to reverse its decision in joint letters submitted to two Chinese ministries on Wednesday. It was the highest-level U.S. complaint so far against the software rules, due to take effect on July 1, and escalated a dispute over a plan that has already angered free-speech advocates.

The letters, sent separately to China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and the Ministry of Commerce, said the Chinese move raises "fundamental questions about regulatory transparency and compliance with a number of WTO rules," the official said.

U.S. technology industry groups warn that the filtering software could depress sales of PCs in China, the world's second largest PC market in terms of shipments.

The software, which the government says was designed to filter out pornography and other content inappropriate for children, has been found by researchers both inside and outside China to be capable of filtering political content as well. It would add an extra layer to China's already wide-reaching methods of regulating the Internet ...

WTO rules include agreements that are meant to prevent governments from erecting protectionist barriers to trade.

MIIT spokesman Wang Lijian declined to comment. "We don't have any updates on Green Dam for now," he said.

The U.S. letters "expressed that the U.S. government is seriously concerned about the Green Dam [requirement], including wide-ranging concerns about the scope of the measure, the censorship implications, trade impact and security flaws which create serious problems for the IT industry and Chinese consumers," the U.S. official said.

The official indicated that concerns over the past several weeks have been magnified by the Chinese government's unwillingness to explain the intent and scope of the new measure, which was introduced at short notice. Earlier, U.S. officials from the State and Commerce departments, as well as USTR officials based in Beijing, met with officials from MIIT and the Ministry of Commerce to express concerns that Green Dam would restrict access to the Internet and infringe on "internationally recognized rights to freedom of expression."

Separately, Japanese officials met with MIIT officials on Wednesday to express concern about Green Dam, according to a Japanese embassy official, who asked not to be identified. "The Japanese government also has a very big concern about this problem," the Japanese official said.

The Tobacco Industry & Kids

Change Comes To The College Financial Aid Process

What a great, modern idea: having the tax info questions answered by automatically pulling data from the IRS' computers! From the NY Times:

The administration’s proposal, to be announced Wednesday, comes in several stages. In January, when next year’s form goes online, about 20 percent of the questions will be eliminated, mostly by avoiding redundancies. For example, students who are at least 24, or married, will automatically be able to skip the 11 questions about their parents’ financial information, and low-income students will be able to skip the questions about assets, which are not used to determine their aid eligibility.

The administration will also seek legislation to simplify the form further ... Every year, millions of students and families must fill out the Fafsa form to apply for Pell grants, Stafford loans, Perkins loans, work-study programs and much state aid. But many are scared off by the form. Federal authorities estimate that 1.5 million students eligible for Pell grants did not apply.

And because the form is so complicated, a growing industry of paid consultants has sprung up to help families complete it.

Secretary Duncan plans to create an easy process for families to click on their online application to automatically fill in the financial data they have already filed with the Internal Revenue Service as part of their tax returns.

That process, which has long been under discussion, had been expected to take several years. But in recent months, when Education Department officials discussed it with I.R.S. officials, it seemed to be something that could be started in January, for students going into the spring or summer college semester.

The Neocon GOP, Obama & Iran (#iranelection)

 

U.S. To Return Ambassador To Syria After 4-Year Absence

From the Wash Post:

President Obama has decided to return a U.S. ambassador to Syria after an absence of more than four years, marking a significant step toward engaging an influential Arab nation long at odds with the United States ...

By returning a senior U.S. envoy to Damascus, the Syrian capital, the Obama administration is seeking to carve out a far larger role for the United States in the region as the president works to rehabilitate U.S. relations with the Islamic world and the Arab Middle East.

More Iranian Political Cartoons (#iranelection)

 

 

   

Argument Against Public Option "Not Logical" Says Obama

I wholeheartedly agree. From the NY Times:

In a White House news conference, Mr. Obama dismissed as “not logical” the suggestion that a public plan, which is intended to create more competition and therefore act as a brake on the rise of health insurance costs, would undermine the private insurance market. He argued that a government-run plan competing with private insurers would be an “important tool to discipline insurance companies” and scoffed at complaints that it could drive some out of business ...

With an uncertain fate for the public plan, the president and insurance companies clashed sharply Tuesday. Two hours before Mr. Obama’s news conference, the insurance industry fired off a new broadside against proposals for a public insurance plan.

“We do not believe that it is possible to create a government plan that could operate on a level playing field,” read a letter to the Senate from Karen M. Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, and Scott P. Serota, president of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. “Regardless of how it is initially structured, a government plan would use its built-in advantages to take over the health insurance market.”

Questions about a public plan are alive across Capitol Hill. The White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, attended a closed-door meeting of senators on Tuesday evening in an effort to assuage concerns.

Some leading Democrats, like Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, are refining the idea of a nonprofit consumer-owned cooperative as an alternative to a new government health insurance plan. Other Democrats, including Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, prefer a full-fledged government plan.

Mr. Obama sought to build support for his health care plan through the news conference, only his fourth since taking office. He also will hold town-hall-style meetings with voters, including an hourlong program to be broadcast Wednesday on ABC News from the White House ...

He brushed aside concerns that a government plan would drive private insurers out of business.

“If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care, if they tell us that they’re offering a good deal, then why is it that the government — which they say can’t run anything — suddenly is going to drive them out of business?” Mr. Obama said. “That’s not logical” ...

Mr. Conrad said senators were “very actively negotiating” on whether to create a new government insurance plan or a consumer-owned nonprofit cooperative to compete with private insurers.

The co-op, as now envisioned, would get federal money to start up, but after that it would have to survive on premiums and investment income, as commercial insurers do.

Mr. Conrad has proposed an initial infusion of $3 billion to $4 billion for the co-op. Mr. Schumer said the new entity needed at least $10 billion. Mr. Schumer said a strong public plan was needed because “in many areas of the country, one or two private insurers have a stranglehold on the entire market.”

Mr. Obama concurred and suggested that a government-run plan could create savings throughout the health care system. “If it turns out that the public plan, for example, is able to reduce administrative costs significantly,” he said, “then I’d like the insurance companies to take note.”

Healthy Americans Against Reforming Medicine: The Importance Of Having Private Fire Care Insurance

I didn't know there were pre-existing conditions for fire care insurance:

New Poll's Support For Public Option: 74% Dems, 64% Indies, 40% GOP

A new Wash Post / ABC News poll confirms the results of other recent polls: a large majority of Americans want the public option choice. 

Here are the health care questions:

 

And here are selected political questions:

Protesting The DNC In Boston Over DOMA

From Charles000:

After the Obama Administration's Department of Justice compared gay relationships to incestuous relationships in an infamous brief, gay rights activists and bloggers have called for shutting off the "gayTM." Vice President Biden came to Fenway Park in Boston for a major fundraiser on Tuesday, June 23rd -- and here's the protest against it. The DNC and Obama Administration can expect these protests at rallies across the country until they keep their promises on gay rights.

Among the highlights: The Boston Cops couldn't handle us across the street from the fundraiser -- and made us move several hundred feet further away, without great justification. MassEquality crossed the line, attending the fundraiser. Niether Lt. Gov. Tim Murray nor Mayor Menino recognized the crowds protesting.

Media Silence On Health Insurance Obscenities

And the Republicans are worried about government bureaucrats?! Read this post from Karen Tumulty and watch the video and you'll see how vile, mercenary and dangerous, the attacks on the public plan option are. Why is testimony like this not more widely disseminated by our corporate media? (The answer is self-evident.)

Paul Begala took note of our post the other day about some terribly tragic health insurance stories that had been told before the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversights and investigations. And he pointed out something else:

It was as dramatic as congressional testimony gets. Yet it got no airtime on the networks, nor, as far as I can tell, on cable news, although CNN.com did run a story. Time's Tumulty was all over it, as was Lisa Girion of The Lost Angeles Times. But the story did not make The New York Times.

Nor The Washington Post, which found space on the front page the morning after the hearing for a story on the cancellation of Fourth of July fireworks in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, but not a story on the cancellation of health insurance for deathly ill Americans who've paid their premiums.

Stupak, and the Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Henry Waxman, D-California, did their job. Why didn't the media do its? Why were the outrages uncovered by Stupak and Waxman un-covered by most of the media?

The more I thought about it, the more I realized what a missed opportunity this had been. There's no way I could possibly tell Robin Beaton's story nearly as powerfully as she did herself. So I asked C-SPAN's omnipotent Howard Mortman to dig up the clip out of their video library. Please watch this. It could happen to you or to someone you love.:

"The only real power Republicans have left is granted to them by" the Media

From Dan Froomkin:

The coverage of the latest wave of public-opinion polls has focused mostly on President Obama's ostensible political weaknesses. But the more important story may be the increased marginalization of his Republican opposition.

Three major polls out in the past week tell the same story: Of a Republican party that is widely disliked and mistrusted -- and that is becoming essentially irrelevant. Notably, on the single most polarizing aspect (the "public option") of the biggest political issue of the moment (Obama's proposed health-care overhaul), the public overwhelmingly supports Obama's position.

Republicans have essentially no power in the House. And even in the Senate, their ability to effectively block Obama is minimal without the cooperation of a handful of unreliable center-right Democrats.

In fact, the only real power Republicans have left is granted to them by a media culture that consistently clamors for bipartisan solutions, even as one of the parties increasingly represents a shrunken minority of hardened extremists.

Overall, public support for Obama remains very strong -- particularly considering all the unpleasantness he's having to deal with. The new Washington Post/ABC News poll finds his approval rating at 65 percent, with majority support for his handling of the economy, health care, international affairs, the threat of terrorism, the situation with Iran and global warming. His public support is slightly less than 50 percent in two areas: the budget deficit and the auto industry bailout.

By contrast, the Republican Party is viewed favorably by only 36 percent of the public, down from 51 percent three years ago, and the lowest in Washington Post polling history, but for a one-time blip in late 1998 on the eve of the Republican House's impeachment of Bill Clinton.

This Place Is Iran (#iranelection)

A very moving poem, set against the sounds of the boisterous Tehran night :

Confidence in Stimulus & The GOP Falls, Obama Still Riding High

A new poll from the Wash Post (complete results):

Barely half of Americans are now confident that President Obama's $787 billion stimulus measure will boost the economy, and the rapid rise in optimism about the state of the nation that followed the 2008 election has abated, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Overall, 52 percent now say the stimulus package has succeeded or will succeed in restoring the economy, compared with 59 percent two months ago. The falloff in confidence has been sharpest in the hard-hit Midwest, where fewer than half now see the government spending as succeeding. In April, six in 10 Midwesterners said the federal program had worked or would do so.

The tempered public outlook has not significantly affected Obama's overall approval rating, which at 65 percent in the new survey outpaces the ratings of Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton at similar points in their tenures. But new questions about the stimulus package's effectiveness underscore the stakes for the Obama administration in the months ahead as it pushes for big reforms in health care and energy at the same time it attempts to revive the nation's flagging economy.

Obama maintains leverage on these issues in part because of the continuing weakness of his opposition. The survey found the favorability ratings of congressional Republicans at their lowest point in more than a decade. Obama also has significant advantages over GOP lawmakers in terms of public trust on dealing with the economy, health care, the deficit and the threat of terrorism, despite broad-based Republican criticism of his early actions on these fronts ...

The falloff since April cuts across partisan lines. Confidence in the package's effectiveness has dropped from 81 percent to 73 percent among Democrats and from 32 percent to 26 percent among Republicans. Among independents, it has dropped from 56 percent to 50 percent. What was once a clearly positive assessment of the program among independents (56 to 39 percent) is now an almost even split (50 to 47 percent).

Public confidence in the direction of the country remains well above pre-election lows, but in the new survey, that indicator stopped rising for the first time since the election. In April, the number of Americans saying things were moving in a positive direction hit 50 percent for the first time in more than six years, up from single digits before the November election. In the new survey, 47 percent said they believe the country is moving in the right direction and 50 percent said it is pretty seriously off on the wrong track.

Obama's approval rating is slightly lower than it was in April, and his disapproval figure has risen by five percentage points. In general, public approval of his handling of major issues is lower than his overall rating. Still, majorities of Americans said they approved of Obama's handling of the economy, health care and global warming.

Two weak points on the domestic front remain: Obama still gets tepid marks on his handling of problems facing the big U.S. automakers, and as many people disapprove as approve of his handling of the federal budget deficit. On the deficit, intensity runs against the president, with 35 percent "strongly" disapproving, compared with 22 percent who say they are solidly behind his efforts.

More broadly, worries about the deficit remain widespread, with almost nine in 10 Americans saying they are "very" or "somewhat" concerned about its size.

One factor that continues to work for Obama, however, is that most Americans still see him as a new type of Democrat, one "who will be careful with the public's money," rather than an old-style, "tax-and-spend Democrat." By this point in 1993, Clinton had lost the new-style label, which he had maintained over the first months of his presidency ...

The poll found little change in underlying public attitudes toward government since the inauguration, with slightly more than half saying they prefer a smaller government with fewer services to a larger government with more services. Independents, however, now split 61 to 35 percent in favor of a smaller government; they were more narrowly divided on this question a year ago (52 to 44 percent), before the financial crisis hit.

As in previous polls, Obama's ratings on foreign policy are generally higher than on domestic issues. Six in 10 said they approve of his handling of international affairs, and 57 percent said they approve of his handling of the threat of terrorism. More said Obama's policies are making the United States safer than said they have weakened the country, but, as in April, a plurality said they have not made much of a difference.

But on specific questions about the use of torture in terrorism investigations and the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, there is still broad public pushback to his announced policies. Fewer than half, 45 percent, said they approve of shutting down the military prison, and when asked whether they would accept those terrorism suspects in their home states, support dropped to 37 percent ...

On Iran, some Republicans have criticized Obama's response to the recent anti-government demonstrations there, with critics saying he has not been vocal enough in promoting democracy and in siding with the protesters. In the new survey, 52 percent said they approved of how he has handled the situation ...

The state of the Republican Party remains grim. Just 22 percent of those surveyed identified themselves as Republicans, near April's decades-long low point. Thirty-six percent said they have a favorable impression of the GOP, and 56 percent said they have an unfavorable impression. (Fifty-three percent said they have a favorable view of the Democratic Party.)

Obama leads congressional Republicans by more than 20 points in public trust on dealing with health care, the deficit, terrorism and the economy. The margin on the economy has slipped since April, but it remains a hefty 55 percent to 31 percent.

Amazing! Senate Dems Have No Spine To Do What 72% Of Americans (87% of Dems) Want: A Public Option

Do these Democratic guys & gals think they'll win their primaries if they're perceived as beholden to the medical industrial complex instead of the 72% of Americans who want a public health care option?

Dean makes some interesting points in this clip, particularly his need a spine comment:

Derivatives To Be Regulated For The First Time

A hint of both why Obama's proposed financial regs weren't as revolutionary as some wanted (Obama's pragmatism required a proposal that would pass Congress) and how his executive management skills could nonetheless deliver fundamental regulatory change (an effective division of labor that'll regulate derivatives). From the Wash Post:

As Congress prepares to debate new rules for governing financial markets, federal regulators are taking steps to keep their turf wars from getting in the way of regulation.

The two agencies responsible for overseeing financial trading have reached broad agreement over how, for the first time, to regulate the vast market in derivatives -- complex investments that last year magnified the problems spreading among financial firms.

At a congressional hearing yesterday, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary L. Schapiro proposed that her agency oversee derivatives linked to stocks, bonds and securities and that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversee all other derivatives. CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler, sitting beside her, didn't offer his own proposal, but a spokesman said Gensler agrees with Schapiro, except on one outstanding issue.

The multitrillion-dollar derivatives market, which currently isn't regulated, enables financial firms to speculate on whether stocks, bonds, currencies and natural resources, among other things, will rise or fall in value. A particular type of derivative called a credit-default swap exacerbated the financial crisis and contributed to the collapse of American International Group, which made bets on derivatives it could not afford. Credit-default swaps, which are linked to the value of bonds, would be overseen by the SEC under the proposed agreement.

The accord between the SEC and CFTC awaits action by Congress, which a decade ago exempted derivatives from regulation. In a plan for retooling financial regulation announced last week, the Obama administration proposed new rules and heightened oversight for derivatives and the firms that trade in them. But the administration left the division of labor up to the SEC and CFTC, both independent agencies.

In the past, the two agencies have clashed over which body had the best claim to oversee this market. The Obama administration had discussed a proposal to merge the two agencies but backed off the idea in part because of opposition on Capitol Hill, where different committees have jurisdiction over the SEC and CFTC.

It's All About Us: The Neocon GOP Vs. The Rest Of The GOP (& Common Sense)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

It's All About Us: The Neocon GOP's Attacks On Obama

From the Wash Post:

Iran's post-election tumult has exposed the sharply divergent ways in which the Obama administration and its Republican opponents view the nature of American power and the president's role in speaking to political dissent outside the borders of the United States.

The debate over how far Obama should go in encouraging the protesters who returned to the streets of Tehran amid clouds of tear gas Monday has emboldened Republicans, who see an opportunity to criticize his foreign policy as too timid. In recent days, GOP leaders have invoked the unambiguous Cold War rhetoric of Ronald Reagan as the model for the message Obama should be sending to the demonstrators, citing the inspiration it provided to millions of dissidents behind the Iron Curtain ...

"A direct parallel is now being drawn between the fight for freedom from Islamist tyranny in Iran and across the Middle East and the fight decades earlier for freedom from Soviet tyranny," said Nile Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"It's almost as if the president lacks confidence in the greatness of his own nation," he added. "He seems unwilling to aggressively project American global power, as if it were something to be ashamed of."

But Obama's shades-of-gray approach rejects comparison to an era when Communist bloc dissidents had virtually no access to the Western media and the world was more neatly divided between a pair of superpowers, not complicated by the set of ambitious regional powers such as Iran that the Obama administration is seeking to manage.

Since taking office, Obama has argued that reclaiming America's moral authority by ending torture and closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay provides essential diplomatic leverage to influence events in such strategic parts of the world as the Middle East and Central Asia. The speech he delivered to the Islamic world in Cairo eights days before the June 12 Iranian election sought to do that by providing what the president saw as an unvarnished accounting of U.S. policy in Iran, Iraq, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"We're trying to promote a foreign policy that advances our interests, not that makes us feel good about ourselves," said a senior administration official who, like others, declined to be identified, citing the sensitivity of the issue.

Iranian Resistance Videos (#iranelection)

The Cyber Arms Race Between Citizens & Censors (#iranelection)

From the NY Times:

At one time, authoritarian regimes could draw a shroud around the events in their countries by simply snipping the long-distance phone lines and restricting a few foreigners. But this is the new arena of censorship in the 21st century, a world where cellphone cameras, Twitter accounts and all the trappings of the World Wide Web have changed the ancient calculus of how much power governments actually have to sequester their nations from the eyes of the world and make it difficult for their own people to gather, dissent and rebel.

Iran’s sometimes faltering attempts to come to grips with this new reality are providing a laboratory for what can and cannot be done in this new media age — and providing lessons to other governments, watching with calculated interest from afar, about what they may be able to get away with should their own citizens take to the streets.

One early lesson is that it is easier for Iranian authorities to limit images and information within their own country than it is to stop them from spreading rapidly to the outside world. While Iran has severely restricted Internet access, a loose worldwide network of sympathizers has risen up to help keep activists and spontaneous filmmakers connected.

The pervasiveness of the Web makes censorship “a much more complicated job,” said John Palfrey, a co-director of Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society.

The Berkman Center estimates that about three dozen governments — as widely disparate as China, Cuba and Uzbekistan — extensively control their citizens’ access to the Internet. Of those, Iran is one of the most aggressive. Mr. Palfrey said the trend during this decade has been toward more, not less, censorship. “It’s almost impossible for the censor to win in an Internet world, but they’re putting up a good fight,” he said ...

Earlier this month, China blocked sites like YouTube to coincide with the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown.In Iran, the censorship has been more sophisticated, amounting to an extraordinary cyberduel. It feels at times as if communications within the country are being strained through a sieve, as the government slows down Web access and uses the latest spying technology to pinpoint opponents. But at least in limited ways, users are still able to send Twitter messages, or tweets, and transmit video to one another and to a world of online spectators ...

The Internet has “certainly broken 30 years of state control over what is seen and is unseen, what is visible versus invisible,” said Navtej Dhillon, an analyst with the Brookings Institution.

But taking pictures is an increasingly dangerous act in Iran. The police in Tehran confronted citizens who were trying to film near a memorial to Ms. Agha-Soltan on Monday.

Iranian Political Cartoons (#iranelection)