Blog entry

Viva Las Vegas?

David Sirota — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:09:10 -0500

The week before last, I traveled to Las Vegas for the annual Progressive States Network/EARN conference for state legislators. It was a great event - lots of terrific legislators are planning to do a lot of really progressive things in the upcoming legislative sessions. But as I say in my new newspaper column this week, I left struck by the city of Las Vegas itself - and specifically struck by how it is such a perfect symbol for the predicament our country now faces.

Vegas* is a monument to our nation's environmental and economic hubris - and gluttony. It is the product of our long-held "what me, worry?" attitude about things like energy and water, its lights helping make Nevada the fastest growing carbon emitter in the country, its desert location threatening the existence of Lake Mead.

Likewise, Vegas' central industry - gambling - represents both desperation and the root core of what crushed our economy in the first place. People come to Vegas hoping beyond hope that they can bet their way out of economic pressure, and that gambling impulse is what now guides our financial industry towards catastrophe.

But the thing is, Vegas isn't just limited to Vegas - Vegas as a concept is people everywhere wasting energy in their homes, buying gas guzzlers, using too much water spending too much on credit and betting too big with their 401(k)'s. And so the question, as I say in the column, is whether we as a country can mature beyond that Vegas attitude during this moment of crisis? Are we ready for all the lifestyle and public policy sacrifices that this new era will demand? I think we are, but it's going to take a radical societal and legislative shifts.

Read the whole column here. Not surprisingly, it has elicited some angry responses from people who live in Vegas - such as this one in the Los Angeles Times that refuses to concede even the most basic point about the problem of fast-growing population centers in the most ecologically unsustainable environment's possible. But that' sto be expected - and if the column generates debate, then that's a good thing.

The column relies on grassroots support, so if you'd like to see my column regularly in your local paper, use this directory to find the contact info for your local editorial page editors. Get get in touch with them and point them to my Creators Syndicate site. Thanks, as always, for your ongoing readership and help contacting local editors. This column couldn't be what it is without your help.

* The best part about Vegas IMHO is that it is a major union success story in the service industry. While that doesn't negate my point about the entire concept and geography of Vegas, it is worth pointing out at this moment when the commentariat seems intent on bashing organized labor.

Four Holiday Gift Ideas for Progressives

David Sirota — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:53:55 -0500

If you're a procrastinator like me, then you are frantically scurrying at the last minute to pick up holiday gifts for friends and family. So let me suggest four great gifts for you or any progressives you know - gifts that make great presents and that also help build and support the progressive movement. Here they are in no particular order:

1. A SUBSCRIPTION TO IN THESE TIMES: For more than three decades, In These Times magazine has been a leading independent progressive voice, featuring news, reporting and analysis from a constellation of progressive movement stars. As Cornel West says, "In These Times is the most creative and challenging news magazine of the American Left." A one year subscription to this monthly magazine is just $24.95. Subscribe here.

2. THE UPRISING OR HOSTILE TAKEOVER: Forgive the shameless self-promotion, but I wouldn't be doing my job as a writer if I didn't suggest my books, The Uprising and Hostile Takeover, as solid holiday gifts. The Uprising, just released this summer, looks at the populist uprising on both the right and left that clearly impacted the 2008 campaign and promises to shape our politics in the next months and years. The Rocky Mountain News calls it "the perfect tome for rebels of all persuasions." Hostile Takeover, released in 2006, examines the corporate forces that still have a stranglehold on our government and that threaten to crush this potential era of change. The late great Molly Ivins says the book provides "handy weapons for progressives to fight back." You can order both books at your local bookstore, or online.

3. THE PROGRESSIVE BOOK CLUB: For an ongoing stream of progressive books at discounted prices, join the new Progressive Book Club, or give a gift membership. You can join online here.

4. SALON.COM PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP: Salon is one of the best progressive publications out there and it's premium membership gets you its full content. Get a premium membership here. It's worth it.

In these difficult economic times, it is more important than ever to build and support a strong progressive movement that helps move our country in a different direction. These are four different ways to give gifts and support the movement at the same time. I hope you'll consider them - and pass the ideas on to your friends. Happy holidays!

"Like Night and Day"

Terrance Heath — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:25:23 -0500

The winding down of the dark age of W feels like something like a long night's journey into day. (Apologies to Eugene O'Neill.) Granted, Republicans are doing everything they can on their way out to make sure the light at the end of the tunnel is indeed a train. (More on that later.) But the world's response to the incoming Obama administration is a nice reminder of what it's like to live in a world where people are actually glad to see us when we show up.

As John Kerry put it when he dropped by the United Nations' climate conference.

Senator John Kerry arrived at the United Nationsclimate conference here on Thursday and immediately reassured delegates that the United States would take strong measures to combat climate change.

“President Obama will be like night and day compared to President Bush,” Mr. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said at a news conference, adding, “Congress and the president-elect are committed to movement on mandatory goals as rapidly as possible.”

...Despite elation at the new United States presence, there was widespread concern among delegates that developed nations would be less willing to make the financial investments in climate change at a time of global recession. In opening the two-day meeting of environment ministers on Thursday morning, the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said there should be “no backsliding on our commitments.”

When was the last time people were "elated" to see us in the past eight years?

It will be different, as least to have an administration more interested in knowledge than belief, when it comes to determining policy, and will listen to scientist who are pretty much in agreement that climate change is "unequivocal" and human-caused, especially given the potential impact on security, public welfare, and global stability.

It will be even more different, and much nicer, to have a president who doesn't treat the whole subject like a big joke.

It was his final summit with the Group of 8, the leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia as well as the United States. President Bush, the most senior member of the group, was attending his eighth summit, and for years he withstood pressure to take a firmer stand against global warming.

It was the topic on the minds of summit partners and demonstrators.

His final words to the likes of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy: "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."

That was the report from the British press, citing "senior sources" who said Bush made the private joke as he was about to leave Japan on Wednesday.

It stunned his partners, according to the Telegraph, which said:

He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock.

The Independent offered this analysis: "His remarks were taken as a two-fingered salute from the president from Texas who is wedded to the oil industry." (Two-fingered? Yes, that's the V-for-victory sign, but in Britain it means something else, too, when the palm is turned inward.)

A White House spokesman responded to our inquiry: "I don't have anything on this for you."

Yeah. "I don't have anything on this for you." It's a phrase that could sum up the whole administration and the Republicans in general.

Progressive Mandate At Work: Waxman Named House Energy Chair

Bill Scher — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:40:14 -0500

Last week, the progressive mandate was felt in the Senate, as right-leaning Democratic Senator Max Baucus proposed legislation to guarantee health care for all.

Today, the progressive mandate was felt in the House, as the Democratic caucus voted 137-122 to remove longtime global warming skeptic Rep. John Dingell as chair of the House energy committee, in favor of environmental champion Rep. Henry Waxman.

The close vote should not be interpreted as a sign of deep ideological division on the environment -- though some differences certainly remain -- but a victory for the public interest in passing strong global warming legislation over the self-interest of protecting an inflexible seniority system for key congressional posts.

Democratic caucus members clearly felt the unmistakable progressive mandate for urgent and bold action, in order to junk House traditions today. With great public demand for ending our dependence on oil, averting a climate crisis and building a clean energy economy, congresspeople recognized that there will be no excuses if they don't get it done.

And most importantly, they rejected the nonsensical argument that you needed a chair who was closer to conservatives and corporations on environmental matters in order to get anything passed.

To get things passed, you need effective legislation that generates strong public backing to overcome special interest-backed obstruction.

Waxman showed his commitment to strong legislation. Dingell constantly needed to be pushed and dragged to do anything remotely helpful, and the caucus recognized that was not going to satisfy the progressive mandate.

Yesterday, the incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said President-Elect Obama will "throw long and deep" to solve the major crises facing America including energy.

Today, the House named someone who will catch the ball.

UPDATE: I think the blogosphere just exploded.

FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher: "This is a huge defeat for the Blue Dogs, who were hoping to use Dingell as a roadblock to keep any meaningful change from happening with regard to issues under the Committee's jurisdiction -- telecommunications and health care, energy and environmental protection, interstate commerce and consumer protection."

Calitics' David Dayen: "Waxman's Safe Climate Act sets the targets needed to mitigate the worst effects of global warming. It now becomes the working document in the House for anti-global warming legislation. And his constituency doesn't include a major polluting industry."

Washington Independent's Mike Lillis: "...could prove vital to the Obama administration’s energy-policy successes..."

Huffington Post's Pete Cenedella: "Feel the balance of power shifting in the American energy debate? ... It's not a stretch to say that the Big 3's woes, and their woeful appearance yesterday seeking a taxpayer handout, may have loomed large in Democrats' decision today to consign Dingell to the junkyard."

New Republic's Brad Plumer: "Waxman won because Democrats are increasingly focused on global warming and think now is the time to act, to make a decisive break from the do-nothing approach of the Bush administration"

Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Just as Daschle and Baucus have made reform of the healthcare system more likely, Waxman's new committee chairmanship makes a meaningful energy bill more likely."

Folo: "Bucket up, kids, we’re going places!"

Beyond Green: "It's a whole new day, folks."

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall: "Holy Crap."

Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "This is change we can believe in."

OpenLeft's Matt Stoller: "Cue conservative whining."

Auto Bailout No Reason To Kneecap Workers

Bill Scher — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:03:56 -0500

While many see the automotive industry crisis as an opportunity to help address our clean energy needs, conservatives see an opportunity to make workers earn less.

The Examiner editorial page claims:

The basic reason why Asian automakers make money on their U.S. plants and the Big Three don’t is because the latter must pay union wages that average $60,000 annually, plus gold-pated pension and health care benefits that double that amount per worker.

Left unmentioned is that Asian got ahead of the curve on building energy-efficient cars while Big 3 resisted higher fuel-efficiency standards, and Asian countries have universal health care which lightens the load on businesses.

But mentioned is that this supposedly lavish union pay package gives auto workers a whopping $60,000 a year. How dare these auto workers try to raise families on slightly above the median household income!

Yet New York Times columnist Tom Friedman jumps on the union-bashing bandwagon. The Wall Street Journal characterizes the Big 3 automakers as "money-losing, unionized manufacturers," which threatens their "viability."

Jonathan Tasini has a few words for the wage-haters:

Now, some will say: well, why should UAW members get such "rich" contracts? Let's first get real. UAW members are not living large, though compared to Wal-Mart workers they are better off.

And its not UAW pensions that are a problem. Its CEO pensions, for example, that are weighing down the auto companies, particularly GM.

But here is the larger point: if you tear up union contracts and cut wages and benefits, how the hell do our brilliant leaders think the consumer-driven economy will work? People are totally maxed out on their credit cards. Home equity cash is gone. If you cut wages, exactly how will 70 percent of the economy--consumer spending--be generated?

Any taxpayer funded-bailout should reap rewards for taxpayers, namely by helping us rapidly move to a clean energy economy.

Kneecapping taxpaying workers is not a good use of our taxpayer dollars.

UPDATE: Digby has more on the latest wave of union-bashing.

UPDATE 2: Tasini has more details on what those fat cat UAW workers actually make in salary and benefits.

The Next Bailout: Handouts or Hybrids?

Bill Scher — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:49:49 -0500

So another irresponsible industry is in deep trouble and wants a government bailout. This time, it's the auto industry. General Motors is literally worth nothing, according to Deutsche Bank, and needs "external government intervention" to survive. Ford and Chrysler are in sorry shape as well.

The disastrous turn of events follows decades of automakers successfully resisting proposals to strengthen government regulation, raise fuel-efficiency standards and ensure that America would build the cars of the future.

Already this year, Congress has provided $25 billion in loans that U.S. manufacturers can only use to make cars that are at least 25% more efficient than their previous models. That's a nudge, not the transformation we need to rapidly move towards a clean energy economy.

Such irresponsibility shouldn't be rewarded, but exploited. With the auto industry in dire straits, we taxpayers have maximum leverage to demand the cars necessary to help lower energy costs, cut carbon emissions and reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

HybridsCars.com rightly calls for a "New Deal For Green Cars:"

The potential Detroit bailout is a once-in-a-lifetime crisis turned opportunity. A grand bargain is in the works: the federal government provides billions of dollars to the automakers, and in exchange, the automakers must retool to produce high-mpg gasoline cars, gas-electric vehicles, clean diesel cars, plug-in hybrids, and all-electric cars.

Al Gore's recent New York Times op-ed lays out the importance of a green car fleet by linking it to a new energy-efficient "smart electric grid:"

...we should begin the planning and construction of a unified national smart grid for the transport of renewable electricity from the rural places where it is mostly generated to the cities where it is mostly used. New high-voltage, low-loss underground lines can be designed with “smart” features that provide consumers with sophisticated information and easy-to-use tools for conserving electricity, eliminating inefficiency and reducing their energy bills. The cost of this modern grid — $400 billion over 10 years [or, $40 billion annually] — pales in comparison with the annual loss to American business of $120 billion due to the cascading failures that are endemic to our current balkanized and antiquated electricity lines.

[Also,] we should help America’s automobile industry (not only the Big Three but the innovative new startup companies as well) to convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity that will be available as the rest of this plan matures. In combination with the unified grid, a nationwide fleet of plug-in hybrids would also help to solve the problem of electricity storage. Think about it: with this sort of grid, cars could be charged during off-peak energy-use hours; during peak hours, when fewer cars are on the road, they could contribute their electricity back into the national grid.

That's huge savings -- not just in energy use and carbon emissions, but in cold hard cash.

President-Elect Barack Obama has tied his support for assisting automakers to our clean energy needs, saying in Friday's press conference: "The auto industry is the backbone of American manufacturing and a critical part of our attempt to reduce our dependence on foreign oil." But in these early days of presidential transition, he has not yet announced support for a specific plan.

Automobile manufacturers desperately need help to survive. Americans need a rapid transition to a clean energy economy to survive.

Help for one must come with help for us all. That's the only responsible thing to do.

UPDATE: The Wonk Room's Pat Garofalo writes:

If the auto industry bailout occurs, two things need to happen. First, it needs to have much stronger oversight than the bank bailout did. As CQ noted, “reports continue to circulate about the banks potentially hoarding portions of the $250 billion Treasury has offered to invest in exchange for senior preferred stock, or using the money for purposes other than lending.” Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) pointed out, “That was never the intent; that’s an abusive use of taxpayer money.”

More importantly though - as Pelosi and Reid said - “federal aid should come with ’strong conditions,’ such as requirements that car makers build more fuel-efficient vehicles.”

UPDATE 2: Joseph Romm at Climate Progress adds:

The Detroit deal has to be not just meeting the new fuel economy standards, but meeting them increasingly with hybrids. The deal has to be multiple plug in hybrids car models. And most important, the deal has to be a new management team that is wholly committed to that green inevitable transition, a team that will not waste a penny of the taxpayer-funded bailout lobbying against the even tougher standards and regulations that will be needed to avoid the harsh consequences of catastrophic global warming and peak oil.

And Huffington Post's Laurie David weighs in:

If Detroit needs more taxpayer bailouts to survive, we ought to demand some serious and real concessions in return, starting with an immediate cease-and-desist order for Detroit to drop its lawsuits against California, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Mexico and any other state that passes clean cars legislation requiring more efficient, less polluting vehicles. Enough already, Detroit. Stop fighting and start building clean cars now.

Congress should set strict guidelines to ensure that Detroit moves as quickly as possible to get clean cars into American driveways where they can help power a new smart grid like the one Al Gore described in Sunday's New York Times. Congress should also open the process beyond the Big 3, offering financial support to smaller entrepreneurial carmakers for large-scale production of their innovative all-electric and plug-in hybrid prototypes which lack financing to move from the concept contests and into dealer showrooms and consumer hands.

"Center-Right Nation" Watch: AP Says Green Cmte Chair Threatens Green Legislation

Bill Scher — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 08:58:30 -0500

Check this second paragraph from an Associated Press story about the House battle to head the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which would play a critical role in any global warming legislation:

Obama has said he wants to act quickly on climate change. But crucial bipartisan support could be tested if liberal California Rep. Henry Waxman succeeds at unseating Chairman John Dingell of Michigan, the panel's top Democrat for 28 years and a key ally of automakers and electric utilities.

In other words, if House has a chairman like Waxman who actually wants the strong global warming legislation Obama called for during the campaign, then that would put the legislation at risk.

But if the House has a chairman who is "a key ally of automakers and electric utilities" like Dingell, who spent all of the last Congress being a thorn in the side of congressional leaders who wanted strong global warming legislation, then that would be great for Obama to "act quickly" with "crucial bipartisan support."

That literally makes no sense.

The article is also highly misleading by implying that Dingell and Obama share the same global warming position:

Last month Dingell and Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., unveiled a draft global warming bill based on dozens of hearings and white papers for reducing greenhouse gases by 80 percent by 2050 _ a reduction in line with what Obama has proposed.

Technically true, but there are lots of devils in the Dingell-Boucher details that make hitting the target dubious.

Further, Dingell's ally Boucher said in a recent interview that "The first way we can control program costs is by not charging industrial emitters." That is in direct opposition to Obama's stated position (PDF file) of having "all industries pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these valuable emission rights away to companies on the basis of their past pollution."

Of course, the fact that Dingell now supports any global warming bill at all is a major move leftward for him. But that only underscores the ridiculousness of the AP article.

Dingell moved because he was pushed to move by a strong progressive wind generated by the public and the congressional leadership.

Maybe Rep. Waxman would make it harder for good legislation to get passed by alienating right-leaning congresspeople. Or, maybe Waxman would help write good legislation that would generate enthusiastic support and pressure other politicians to hop on the bandwagon.

Maybe Rep. Dingell would eventually prove a useful ally in getting strong legislation passed. But let's not forget, these past two years he's already been the chairman! And strong legislation did not pass.

On what evidence should reporters presume Dingell's chairmanship is inherently beneficial?

America's progressive majority has long been supportive of strong action to avert a climate crisis. There is no basis to presume that having a committee chairman whose record has long been in line with the progressive majority is in any way a political setback to Obama's agenda.

Click here for more posts covering the "Center-Right Nation" Watch.

There Is No Debate: Clean Energy = Strong Economy

Bill Scher — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:56:06 -0400

For almost the entire history of the environment movement, its opponents framed the debate as "Environment vs. Jobs." Now, Robert Borosage optimistically asks if we'll soon see "a 21st-century Green New Deal" effectively connecting the environment and job growth as the The Apollo Alliance coalition of environmentalists, unions and businesses has long advocated.

There is reason to be optimistic. The false choice between environment and jobs has not entered the presidential race.

Read the final ad in our series for "a debate worthy of a great nation in crisis" and join the discussion.

In the second presidential debate, both Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain responded to the opening question about getting the economy back on track by citing energy independence. Later in the debate, both argued that we could create millions of green-collar jobs generating clean energy and energy-efficiency.

The two disagree significantly on the degree of public investment needed to achieve the goal. Obama supports investing $15 billion a year for 10 years "to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future." McCain supports some tax incentives and a "$300 million prize" for whoever first develop a battery package that can power "commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars." (The Apollo Alliance supports a $30 billion a year investment over 10 years.)

But both support the rudimentary principle that government involvement is needed to move us to a clean energy economy, which would be good for the economy.

Does that mean that a Green New Deal is firmly in hand? No; the details of environment and energy policy always spark fierce legislative fights that will require smart and sustained engagement.

But it does mean that conservative attempts to dismiss a Green New Deal as akin to Nazi Germany can be easily marginalized. Because the parameters of the debate have been set.

This is no longer about environment vs. jobs. This is no longer about if our government should get involved in clean energy policy (as it already is with fossil fuel policy and nuclear policy).

The mandate for government action is clear. The remaining debate is how best to direct our government to build a clean energy economy.

If The Market Won't Push For Clean Energy, Government Must

Bill Scher — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:53:23 -0400

Yesterday's Washington Post headline posed the question, "As Fuel Prices Fall, Will Push For Alternatives Lose Steam?" The weakening "push" referred not to public policies but to market forces, as clean energy entrepreneurs lamented the increased difficultly with financing as oil prices have dropped sharply in the wake of the global financial crisis.

(Now gas is only double what it was when Bush became president! Woo-hoo!)

Of course, this is exactly why public policies are needed to build a clean energy economy. Without government, there is no sustained push. Only erratic markets.

Market forces, particularly when it comes to oil, are volatile. People may get that over time gas will continue to get more expensive as energy demand rises and supply dwindles. but no one knows exactly what the price will be month-to-month and year-to-year. Many consumers and businesses do not have the means, especially in recession, to make up-front investments into clean energy and energy-efficiency that would protect them from the wild unexpected swings of the oil market.

But our government can make those investments, make that push, stimulate the economy and stabilize the energy market over the long-term. The value of clean energy investment does not change even if the daily price of oil does.

The looming recession simply offers another reason for public investment: more jobs.

Just yesterday a new study found California's energy-efficiency policies created 1.5 million jobs since 1977. As the New York Times reported:

"Consumers were able to reduce energy spending," the study said, adding that "these savings were diverted to other demand."

“When consumers shift one dollar of demand from electricity to groceries,” the report said, they create jobs among retailers, wholesalers, food processors and other businesses.

One positive development in the presidential campaign is both major candidates embraced the logic that promoting clean energy and energy-efficiency creates jobs and grows the economy. The false choice between energy and the environment is losing oxygen.

But the ups and downs of the volatile oil markets are a reminder about the importance of our government to invest our resources and set rules that allow us to achieve long-term goals that are critical to the common good.

Because if markets on their own could solve our energy problems, they would have done so by now.

Happy Energy Freedom Day! ... Uh, Where's The Party?

Bill Scher — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:00:55 -0400

Today, the ban on most coastal drilling has officially expired. Conservatives planned to claim this day as "Energy Freedom Day." But the celebration seems awfully quiet.

Conservative politicians, who went into a "Drill, Baby, Drill" frenzy all summer, got exactly what they wanted. Yet they don't seem interested in bragging about it.

For example, in the presidential debate Friday, Sen. John McCain urged "we also have to have offshore drilling" as if congressional leaders hadn't already announced that they were going to let the ban expire.

Why might that be? Maybe because letting the ban expire is likely to expose the emptiness of the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" slogan.

They said would we pay less immediately.

They said we could get the oil in months.

They said that merely showing we were serious about drilling would prompt the oil markets to cut prices.

They said merely talking about drilling on the House floor in August already caused a drop a prices.

But in fact, on the day it was clear that the ban was dead, the price of gas only dropped a penny -- and it still remains more than double of what it was eight years ago. No "psychological benefit" as was promised.

When nothing happens right away, Big Oil's buddies don't want people to know their arguments were bankrupt. So they don't want people to even know that their "Drill, Baby, Drill" energy policy is now in place.

And the excuses are already coming. Check out my recent bloggingheads.tv segment with the Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll:

So "Happy Energy Freedom Day." Go celebrate and buy up all that cheap gas lying around.