Tag Archives: Republicans

SOLIDARITY: World buys pizza for Wisconsin protestors

Posted on by
1

Image via Ian’s Pizza on Facebook

Since the Koch brothers are imposing their agenda onto Wisconsin through Governor Walker, Governor Walker’s actions aren’t about fiscal responsibility but power. The governor is willing to give away tax breaks to corporations, but he isn’t interested in negotiating with union leaders who are willing to make concessions. Via the Honolulu Star-Advertiser:

[Governor Scott Walker] rejected $810 million in federal money that the state was getting to build a train line between Madison and Milwaukee, saying the project would ultimately cost the state too much to operate. He decided to turn the state’s Department of Commerce into a “public-private hybrid,” in which hundreds of workers would need to reapply for their jobs.

He and state lawmakers passed $117 million in tax breaks for businesses and others, a move that many of his critics point to now as a sign that Walker made the state’s budget gap worse, then claimed an emergency that requires sacrifices from unions. Technically, the tax cuts do not go into effect in this year’s budget (which Walker says includes a $137 million shortfall), but in the coming two-year budget, during which the gap is estimated at $3.6 billion.

Any reasonable person can see what’s really happening here. However, the Tea Party doesn’t care for reason or facts, and its members know nothing of governance. These people must be kept far from all three branches of government. More via Paul Krugman:

What Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin — and eventually, America — less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy. And that’s why anyone who believes that we need some counterweight to the political power of big money should be on the demonstrators’ side.

Some background: Wisconsin is indeed facing a budget crunch, although its difficulties are less severe than those facing many other states. Revenue has fallen in the face of a weak economy, while stimulus funds, which helped close the gap in 2009 and 2010, have faded away.

In this situation, it makes sense to call for shared sacrifice, including monetary concessions from state workers. And union leaders have signaled that they are, in fact, willing to make such concessions.

But Mr. Walker isn’t interested in making a deal. Partly that’s because he doesn’t want to share the sacrifice: even as he proclaims that Wisconsin faces a terrible fiscal crisis, he has been pushing through tax cuts that make the deficit worse. Mainly, however, he has made it clear that rather than bargaining with workers, he wants to end workers’ ability to bargain.

The bill that has inspired the demonstrations would strip away collective bargaining rights for many of the state’s workers, in effect busting public-employee unions. Tellingly, some workers — namely, those who tend to be Republican-leaning — are exempted from the ban; it’s as if Mr. Walker were flaunting the political nature of his actions.

Why bust the unions? As I said, it has nothing to do with helping Wisconsin deal with its current fiscal crisis. Nor is it likely to help the state’s budget prospects even in the long run: contrary to what you may have heard, public-sector workers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are paid somewhat less than private-sector workers with comparable qualifications, so there’s not much room for further pay squeezes.

So it’s not about the budget; it’s about the power.

.       .       .

You don’t have to love unions, you don’t have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that they’re among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy. Indeed, if America has become more oligarchic and less democratic over the last 30 years — which it has — that’s to an important extent due to the decline of private-sector unions.

And now Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to get rid of public-sector unions, too.

Republican policies merely concentrate wealth from the middle class into the hands of the rich. Indeed, trickle-down economics is merely a myth. Via The Business Insider:

Nationally, you remember, Republicans demanded an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich. They’re intent on extending them for the next ten years, at a cost of $900 billion. They’ve also led the way on cutting the estate tax, and on protecting Wall Street private equity and hedge-fund managers whose earnings are taxed at the capital gains rate of 15 percent.

Meanwhile, of course, more and more of the nation’s income and wealth has been concentrating at the top. In the late 1970s, the top got 9 percent of total income. Now it gets more than 20 percent.

So the problem isn’t that “we’ve” been spending too much. It’s that most Americans have been getting a steadily smaller share of the nation’s total income. And the super-rich have been contributing a steadily-declining share of their own incomes in taxes to support what the nation needs — both at the federal and at the state levels.

The coming showdowns and shutdowns must not mask what’s really going on. And Democrats should make sure the public understands what’s really at stake.

CLIMATE POLITICS: Outgoing Republican congressman warns his party about the consequences of climate-change skepticism

Posted on by
1

Political cartoons by Clay Bennett

Bob Inglis, a Republican congressman of South Carolina, “is often described as a casualty of the ‘Tea Party-ization’ of the GOP.” Recently, the congressman, in addressing his colleges, warned his party of the negative side effects from rampant climate-change skepticism and of “missed economic opportunities in clean energy development.” Via NYTimes.com:

Mr. Inglis used an analogy comparing the climate to a sick child.

“Your child is sick,” he said. “Ninety-eight doctors say treat him this way. Two say no, this other way is the way to go.”

By taking the minority viewpoint that carbon emissions are not a problem, “you’re taking a big risk with those kids,” he said.

On clean energy development, Mr. Inglis warned his Republican colleagues that China was preparing to “eat our lunch.”

“They plan on innovating around these problems, and selling to us, and the rest of the world, the technology that’ll lead the 21st century,” he said. “We may press the pause button for a few years, but China is pressing the fast-forward button.”

Other Republicans on the subcommittee stood by their doubts on climate change. Among those questioning the validity of climate science was Ralph Hall of Texas, the leading candidate to take the House Science and Technology gavel in next year’s Congress.

Sherwood Boehlert, a former Republican U.S. Representative from New York’s 24th District, also rebuked his Party’s denial of climate change. Via Think Progress:

In a Washington Post op-ed yesterday, former Republican Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (NY) articulated his confusion as to why “so many Republican senators and representatives think they are right and the world’s top scientific academies and scientists are wrong.” Allowing for debate over policy, Boehlert said he finds the GOP’s “dogged determination” to deny the actual science “incomprehensible”:

Watching the raft of newly elected GOP lawmakers converge on Washington, I couldn’t help thinking about an issue I hope our party will better address. I call on my fellow Republicans to open their minds to rethinking what has largely become our party’s line: denying that climate change and global warming are occurring and that they are largely due to human activities.[...]

Why do so many Republican senators and representatives think they are right and the world’s top scientific academies and scientists are wrong? I would like to be able to chalk it up to lack of information or misinformation.

I can understand arguments over proposed policy approaches to climate change. I served in Congress for 24 years. I know these are legitimate areas for debate. What I find incomprehensible is the dogged determination by some to discredit distinguished scientists and their findings.[...]

There is a natural aversion to more government regulation. But that should be included in the debate about how to respond to climate change, not as an excuse to deny the problem’s existence. The current practice of disparaging the science and the scientists only clouds our understanding and delays a solution.


CLIMATE POLITICS: Energy Committee chairman candidate claims God promised no more catastrophic climate change

Posted on by
Reply

It’s bad enough to blend politics and climate change, but U.S. Representative John Shimkus, a Republican from Illinois who’s seeking a chairmanship on the Energy and Commerce Committee, takes climate change denialism to another level. In the video below, Mr. Shimkus highlights everything that’s wrong with the GOP, and he illustrates how people use religion to impose their own biased and uninformed beliefs onto the rest of society. To declare that humans can’t destroy the Earth, because only God can, is foolish, ignorant, selfish, and unreasonable. Via Informed Comment.

CLIMATE POLITICS: Under Republican leadership, Texas has decided to ignore upcoming federal greenhouse gas emission rules

Posted on by
2

Image via melancholic optimist on Flickr

In Texas, the Republican Party is taking aim at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its obligation to regulate carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, held that the Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (footnotes omitted):

On the merits, the first question is whether § 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles in the event that it forms a “judgment” that such emissions contribute to climate change. We have little trouble concluding that it does. In relevant part, § 202(a)(1) provides that EPA “shall by regulation prescribe … standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in [the Administrator's] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). Because EPA believes that Congress did not intend it to regulate substances that contribute to climate change, the agency maintains that carbon dioxide is not an “air pollutant” within the meaning of the provision.

The statutory text forecloses EPA’s reading. The Clean Air Act’s sweeping definition of “air pollutant” includes “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical … substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air … .” § 7602(g) (emphasis added). On its face, the definition embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe, and underscores that intent through the repeated use of the word “any.” Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt “physical [and] chemical … substance [s] which [are] emitted into … the ambient air.” The statute is unambiguous.

SCOTUS also determined that the EPA can’t ignore science or its statutory obligations:

Under the Act’s clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. It has refused to do so, offering instead a laundry list of reasons not to regulate, including the existence of voluntary Executive Branch programs providing a response to global warming and impairment of the President’s ability to negotiate with developing nations to reduce emissions. These policy judgments have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change and do not amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment. Nor can EPA avoid its statutory obligation by noting the uncertainty surrounding various features of climate change and concluding that it would therefore be better not to regulate at this time. If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment, it must say so. The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists for it to make an endangerment finding. Instead, EPA rejected the rulemaking petition based on impermissible considerations. Its action was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” § 7607(d)(9). On remand, EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.

Despite SCOTUS’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, Texas, under Republican leadership, is “refus[ing] to meet new federal greenhouse gas emission rules that go into effect in January.” More via the Los Angeles Times:

Texas is staking out a role as the anti-California.

With Republicans in control of the House of Representatives, powerful Texans such as Rep. Joe L. Barton of the House Energy and Commerce Committee have vowed to check the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to use its existing authority to curtail greenhouse gases.

An even more ambitious challenge is coming directly from the Texas state government and leading Texas politicians. State Atty. Gen. Greg Abbott, with the support of Republican Gov. Rick Perry, has filed seven lawsuits against the EPA in the last nine months.

In some ways, Texas’ attack was bound to be bigger and bolder than it might have been from other states. After all, Texans proudly trace their lineage back to the defiant stand of Texas patriots at the Alamo and the days when Texas was an independent republic under the Lone Star flag.

ENERGY: Republicans vie for top spot on the House Energy and Commerce Committee

Posted on by
Reply

The new Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives will probably shift both climate and energy policy backwards or away from establishing renewables as the chief source of energy for the United States. It’s no secret that the Republican Party supports the fossil fuel industry and receives support from the fossil fuel industry. Also, members of the Republican Party aren’t shy about ignoring climate science, since members of the Republican Party frequently parrot anti-climate change nonsense in public.