Holder In The Crosshairs

Let's put it into context or, as some would say, "consider the source."

Bernie Sanders might have said of Attorney General Eric Holder

Whenever you feel that you have lost your effectiveness or may be losing your effectiveness to the detriment of the job that you do, you have to evaluate that and make a decision. And I think we're at the time now where decisions have to be made.

We would be disappointed in the Vermont Senator who, as an Independent, may be the most genuine Democrat in the upper chamber.  But it was West Virginia Democrat (not the only Democrat there, but close), conservative Joe Manchin, who is expressing concern about the Attorney General, most recently  caught up in revelations about the NSA collecting phone records and Internet data.  Manchin adds
  
I’m wanting to do everything I can to fight the war on terror.  There will not be another day in my life, my children or grandchildren’s life they won’t have to be vigilant against terrorists wanting to do us harm. But do you give up everything as an American?

There are other reasons to wish Holder would take a hike or shuffle off to Buffalo, beginning with the failure of the Justice Department to bring criminal charges against any of the banksters who came close to bringing down the world economy.   On March 6, the AG testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee

I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute — if we do bring a criminal charge — it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.   I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.

That brought a rebuke from both a de facto and de jure Democratic Senator, Elizabeth Warren, who noted "Attorney General Holder’s testimony that the biggest banks are too-big-to-jail shows once again that it is past time to end too-big-to-fail."   Following this week's NSA revelation(s), Lauren Brown Jarvis, appearing on Current TV's The Young Turks, remarked "it doesn't matter if he stays or he goes."  Host, attorney, and graduate of the best high school in the United States, Cenk Uygur- noting the GOP's interest in bringing down the President- concurred, stating "well, I don't want Obama to go, but it is Obama, isn't it?"  Holder is, Uygur has suggested, this Administration's Colin Powell, who was perhaps the least supportive in Bush's circle of the Iraq War, but was sent out to make the case for a bad policy.

As Uygur recognizes, Eric Holder is following the path laid out for him by his boss and there is no indication of any space between the President and his Attorney General.   There is little chance that the acquisition of phone and Internet records will do much if any political harm to Barack Obama, with most professional Democrats, protective of the President whom Republicans want to destroy, loathe to question their party leader.  Republicans, for their part, have been aiming to destroy this presidency since it began, but finally have found an Administration program, spying on the American people, they can support.

Eric Holder may come or go, but Barack Obama will still be with us, and so will the policies which dramatically differ from what he supported as a candidate.




Share |

Another Con Job


Back when Senator Barack Obama was seeking the Democratic nomination for President, he was asked (as were other candidates) "whether he supports shielding telecommunications and Internet companies from lawsuits accusing them of illegal spying, Obama gave us a one-word response: "No.'"

That was a convenient stance taken by a Democratic candidate, one who also claimed to support a public option for health care and vowed he'd "put on a pair of comfortable shoes" and walk the picket line if workers were denied their rights.  Not in Wisconsin, apparently.

Those were the heady days, when Barack Obama's election would, we were assured, "make history."  Back in the day when he would say things like "My job this morning is to be so persuasive...that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack."

These, however, are the days when, lawyer, civil libertarian, and journalist Glenn Greenwald reports 

The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April.

The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries.

The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing.

The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19.

Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not covered.

In all likelihood, it's not only Verizon, and will likely continue.   Conor Friedersdorf tweets "This should be a litmus test for Republicans: either take action against this program, or never invoke liberty or limited government again."  But of course they will not take action because their small government rhetoric is, well, just rhetoric. As Alex Pareene points out

Conor Friedersdorf is right, but Republicans have mostly already failed this litmus test. Given the opportunity to limit the powers of the NSA during the Obama administration Republicans in the House and Senate voted to reauthorize the NSA’s post-9/11 expanded powers.

Ron Wyden has been crowing about this for some time. Because he is a Democrat criticizing his party from the left, his warnings and complaints have been given only cursory mention in the nonpartisan press, especially compared to the similar, but frequently much more ridiculous criticisms lobbied against the administration by Rand Paul.

If Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, or some other Repub is elected President, abuse of the Patriot Act will continue and there will be little that can be done about it, given that Obama now has normalized the national security state.  But no other Democrat will be given the same leeway afforded Mr. Yes We Can. Digby remarks

I'm pretty sure that something like that won't happen again any time soon. Indeed, the next Democratic nominee will likely not get the slightest benefit of the doubt as the pendulum swings hard the other way. And more importantly, Barack Obama is a once in a generation politician who had a very special relationship with the grassroots of the Democratic Party. I meet people all the time in civilian life who adore him. Most presidents don't have that deep and enduring bond with their voters. 

But even if one feels that bond, it's a good idea to pay close attention to any politician, even the ones you like and admire.

No need for concern.  There will be "close attention" paid to the next big thing in Democratic politics, perhaps even unwarranted cynicism, as liberals and moderates increasingly recognize how we were taken in by Barack Obama.


Share |

The Way Of Democrats, Or At Least One

Daily Kos, arguably the leading liberal/progressive blog in the nation, is oh, so bold. Laura Clawson links to Byron York of The Washington Examiner, who writes

Sen. Marco Rubio, the leading Republican behind the Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform bill, says he will not vote for the legislation he helped write and has staked his political future on, unless substantial changes are made before final Senate consideration.

Speaking with radio host Hugh Hewitt Tuesday, Rubio said the Senate should “strengthen the border security parts of this bill so that they’re stronger, so that they don’t give overwhelming discretion to the Department of Homeland Security.” He said he was working with other senators on amendments to do just that.

Then Hewitt asked: “If those amendments don’t pass, will you yourself support the bill that emerged from Judiciary, Senator Rubio?”

Rubio answered, “Well, I think if those amendments don’t pass, then I think we’ve got a bill that isn’t going to become law, and I think we’re wasting our time. So the answer is no.”

Linking to a report that Utah Republican Orrin Hatch will be proposing four new amendments to the legislation, Clawson notes

Democrats have already allowed Republicans to amend the bill, while backing off on an amendment that would have helped same-sex couples stay together. And Republicans still want more. Now Rubio is once again playing to the far right by threatening to walk if Republican demands aren't met. At the same time, House Republicans look likely to refuse any immigration bill containing a path to citizenship.

So far, so good. But instead of suggesting that, as Republicans move the goalposts on immigration reform as they did on health care and the budget, Democrats say "no," she continues

But as Markos has written, "Republicans aren't engaging on immigration reform out of the goodness of their hearts." The future of their party depends on improving their standing with Latino and Asian voters, and killing an immigration reform bill negotiated by four Republicans and four Democrats and subsequently weakened by Republicans is not the way to do that. Marco Rubio knows that, but apparently it's not enough to get him to consistently stand up to far-right primary voters.

She links to Moulitsas' earlier post, one in which he repeats the conventional wisdom that

Republicans really have no choice, they need to eat into the Democrats Latino base or render themselves irrelevant...

They need to decide: Are they actually going to compete for Latino votes, or will they doom themselves to permanent minority status by catering to their nativists?

The conventional wisdom there is wrong, as the aforementioned York argued in this column reporting the results of election analysis by Nate Silver (the Nate Silver, who correctly predicted the winner in 50 of 50 states in the last presidential election.  And in the District of Columbia, which even Marcos Huizenga Moulitsas could have predicted.)  It seems that if Mitt Romney had won 70% of the Hispanic vote- 26% more than the Spanish-speaking, Texas-walking George W. Bush had in 2005- he still would have lost (in the Electoral College) to Barack Obama.

Nonetheless, Markos is right that, given prevalence of the myth of the all-determining Latino vote, "Republicans aren't engaging on immigration reform out of the goodness of their hearts."  He does not acknowledge, however, that the GOP will respond by ensuring there is no clear, easily obtainable path to citizenship in the legislation, or will vote overwhelmingly against it. Neither is there even a suggestion, from either Clawson or the boss, that Democrats should balk if Repubs continue to strip the bill of meaningful reform.

In a way, this commitment of (most) Democrats and liberals to immigration-enhancing legislation at any cost is analogous to the perspective of the Democratic establishment toward New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.  No More Mister Nice, while noting yesterday that the New Jersey governor will appoint a Republican to fill the Senate seat of the late, great Frank Lautenberg, reminded us that on October 19, 2012 Christie condemned Barack Obama, wailing "what the hell is he doing asking for another four years?  We're happy to give you a bus ticket to the outside, Mr. President."

Nevertheless,

Twelve days later, Christie and Obama got together to assess storm damage -- and Democrats swooned, forgetting that speech and nearly three years of Democrat-, liberal-, and labor-bashing. To me, watching it was like watching a battered spouse take back an abuser after seeing one bouquet of flowers in the abuser's hand.

NMMN recognizes something akin to the Stockholm Syndrome, in which the right-wing governor "doesn't have to change his policies. He doesn't have to change his rhetoric. All he has to do is throw a few bro-hugs at the president and Dems' hearts skip a beat."

A common thread is discernible, and that thread is at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  While Chris Christie, who recently hung out with the President at the New Jersey shore, is at least trying to be re-elected Obama has run his last race.  The "bro-hugs" went not inone direction, but also from the President to the governor, notwithstanding Christie's hostility toward mass transit, women's health care, teachers, public education, and medical marijuana patients. Barack Obama wants an immigration reform bill, whatever it looks like, and he wants Chris Christie re-elected governor, no matter what New Jersey looks like when he gets through with it.


Share |

Two Good Buddies, And  A Buono

He's right, you know.   Salon's Alex Pareene accurately portrays New Jersey governor Chris Christie as an extremist who

torpedoed a much-needed mass transit tunnel project, same-sex marriage, and early voting. He vetoed a minimum wage hike. He vetoed legislation designed to eliminate the gender wage gap. He withdrew from a regional carbon cap-and-trade agreement.He killed a Jersey version of the DREAM Act and cut funding for women’s health services, including eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood. Remember how pissed everyone got whenRepublicans in the U.S. House of Representatives tried to do the same thing? Many liberals seem to give Christie a pass for his anti-abortion views that they’d never give a “red state” Republican. (This is maybe because he used to be pro-choice, meaning he made the exact switch on the issue everyone trashed Romney for making.)

He’s not even consistently rhetorically moderate. In the past, while flirting with running for president, Christie has expressed doubts about evolution (which truly makes no sense, for a mainstream Catholic). He’s randomly vacillated on whether climate change is real or caused by humans, telling a town hall in 2010 that he didn’t believe in it, then in 2011 deciding that he did, and now simply dismissing the issue as a “distraction.”

For the 95% of the population which does not live in the greater New York metropolitan area and hence knows little about the Access to the Core transit project- for which the late Senator Frank Lautenberg was instrumental in securing funding- Pareene explains

Christie killing the Hudson tunnel project happened years ago, but it perfectly encapsulates his philosophy and governing style. It was bad policy: The federal government was desperate to spend money on the project, and at this point the only plan for relieving congestion on the two century-old tunnels shared by New Jersey Transit and Amtrak is Michael Bloomberg’s fantastical plan to extend New York’s subway to Secaucus — an idea that seems to befuddle the cash-strapped MTA. And it was done for a bad reason: To prevent gas taxes from having to rise to cover the state’s Transportation Trust Fund shortfall. Because killing a rail project in order to keep gasoline artificially cheap in the only region of the country where rail travel is common and popular wasn’t bad enough, the Government Accountability Office then outright accused Christie of lying about the project’s costs and the amount that the state would have to cover. Though perhaps he was being more honest when he explained that he killed the project because his former bond trader wife didn’t feel like walking all the way from Herald Square to Penn Station. No one in Christie’s national press fan club cared, obviously. (I imagine many of them are more likely to cross the Hudson in Town Cars.) It’s rare that a governor has an opportunity, especially so early in his term, to screw generations of future residents of his state. Christie seized on the chance.

The governor chose not only "to screw generations of future residents" but also the current generation of women in New Jersey, as Pareene hints.   After the governor eliminated $7.5 million in family planning funds in the fiscal 2011 budget, in  2010 the New Jersey legislature voted to restore the funding.   The increase was restored and Christie responded with a veto.  The the Democratic-controlled legislature tried to override the veto but its effort failed when the five Republicans who had voted to restore the money opted to uphold the Governors' veto.   Christie claimed fiscal considerations but, when funding would have entailed a 9 to 1 federal-state match, the excuse shouldn't wash, though the mainstream media, enthralled with the Governor, didn't much care that the state's chief executive dislikes women women's health care.

Pareene adds that the Governor has

raised money and campaigned for (his good buddy) Steve King, the Muslim-hating Iowa madman. Here’s a perfect example of the limits of the “reasonable Republican” trope: One of the undeniably best things about Christie is his refusal to promote Islamophobia. He is also using his influence and national stature to ensure the continued reelection (and possible promotion to higher office!) of a modern-day McCarthyite bigot. Every major figure in the contemporary GOP bears some responsibility for the fact that nuts and bigots dominate the party, but Christie directly supports one of the worst of them.

After Christie appoints a Repub to Senator Lautenberg's seat, Pareene writes, "wealthy Democrats will likely continue donating to him. Misguided liberals and pundits will continue to say he’s not that conservative."   But the right-wing governor has a buddy more influential than Steve King, an additional reason wealthy donors and misguided liberals and pundits will continue to support him.  Late last month 

At one point, the pair took an unannounced stroll down the Point Pleasant Boardwalk before stopping at an arcade so Mr. Obama could try to win a teddy bear by throwing a football through a tire, in a game called “Touchdown Fever.” After a few misses, Mr. Obama seemed headed for another public athletic calamity, adding to a litany that includes a string of botched basketball free throws on the White House court last month, a horrifically ugly first pitch at a Washington Nationals game in 2010 and a display of bowling incompetence in Pennsylvania during the 2008 Democratic primaries.

But before the football tosses on Tuesday spiraled too far out of control for the president, Governor Teddy Bear himself stepped in and promptly split the rubber on his first try, earning a high-five from the First Beach Buddy.

“One and done,” Mr. Christie boasted, while the guy behind the counter presented Mr. Obama with a fuzzy “Chicago” bear, which he hoisted for the cameras.

One stop followed another, and

“I played a little Frog Bog,” Mr. Obama said at the Asbury Park Convention Hall. “And Governor Christie’s kids taught me the right technique for hitting the hammer to get those frogs in the buckets the way I was supposed to.” He also said, of course, that he met with people who are trying to rebuild after Hurricane Sandy.

Feel the love! It was easy to forget that the two chief executives were meeting with people trying to recover from Hurricane Sandy because it was at best a secondary objective of the visit.  But surely, promoting the New Jersey shore, incidentally appearing with a Republican running for re-election, is one of the few things a president too busy for partisan politics must find time for.   Or maybe not:  

President Barack Obama on Tuesday endorsed Massachusetts Senate candidate Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).

"Ed Markey is a passionate and effective champion for middle class and working families, and we need him in the Senate to keep moving our country forward," Obama said in a statement. "I share his commitment to common sense efforts to reduce gun violence, and I know he will be a critical vote on this issue. Massachusetts has a long history of Senators who have made a real difference for the Commonwealth and our nation, and I know Ed Markey will continue that great tradition."

Obama's endorsement hardly comes as a shock, considering both are Democrats and hold similar policy positions, with the exception of Obama's proposed cuts to social security, known as chained CPI, which Markey opposes. However, the president doesn't make endorsements in every race.

Markey faces Republican Gabriel Gomez in the general election. Despite speculationthat Gomez will be the "next Scott Brown," he trails Markey by about 11 points, according to HuffPost Pollster. The general election is June 25.

On Wednesday, First Lady Michelle Obama will headline a fundraiser for Markey, along with Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and William "Mo" Cowan (D-Mass.). Gomez and Markey are running to replace Cowan, who was appointed as an interim replacement for now-Secretary of State John Kerry.

Democratic voters officially will nominate Barbara Buono today as she faces no organized opposition in the state's primary to oppose Chris Christie.   There will be, at some point, a decision whether Obama will officially endorse Christie's Democratic opponent, and whether the First Lady will headline a fundraiser for her, which the nominee would enthusiastically welcome in a state Obama easily won twice.  It may be difficult for the President, however; the governor  appeared in a photo shoot with Obama when the latter was locked in a close race with Mitt Romney days before the 2012 presidential election.   As a man of honor, Barack Obama may decide he has to return the favor, for which a down payment recently was made along the Jersey shore.


Share |

Health Care And Now Immigration

A while back,I wrote "Joan Walsh is a national treasure (though I reserve the right to criticize her in the future)."  Commenting on the application of President Obama's contraception regulations to Roman Catholic institutions, Walsh revealed "a singular understanding that one institution, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, speaks for itself, has been wrong, and has wronged its constituents, who deserve better." (Is there a special place in Hell for people who quote themselves? I hope not.)

It's sixteen months later, and Joan Walsh still understands what others don't.   Walsh has noticed that Democrats are willing to concede almost anything to obtain a super-super majority in the Senate, and she's blowing the whistle on them. Recognizing the "dynamic" that is playing out as Democrats strive to make comprehensive immigration reform palatable to Republicans, Walsh remarks

Gang of Eight leader Chuck Schumer told Politico, “Our goal is to get 70 votes. It is going to take a lot of work.” His GOP partner John McCain agrees. Supposedly 70 votes is the magic number that will shame enough members of the crackpot House GOP majority into supporting it when it gets to their chamber. But how bad will the bill have to get to reach that goal? (Also remember that the artificial 60-vote super-majority requirement is already a GOP-imposed barrier to progressive reform.)

She quotes a kindred spirit, America’s Voice executive director Frank Sharry, who wrote in a statement “We would remind them that it’s far better to pass a good bill with 60-70 votes than a hopelessly compromised bill with 70-80 votes. The Senate bill is already a carefully balanced compromise between the right and the left.”

It's unlikely, however, that Sharry or virtually anyone on the left other than Walsh has noticed

The immigration reform bill isn’t the only example of this dynamic. The Affordable Care Act incorporated more than 150 Republican amendments during the Senate committee process – and didn’t get a single Republican vote. Important liberal priorities like the public option, letting people buy into  Medicare before 65 and greater bargaining power to lower prescription drug costs all got traded away in search of nonexistent GOP support. I was pilloried by other liberals,on “Hardball” and on Twitter, for even briefly suggesting that no bill might be better than a bad bill. Same with the deals that ended the debt-ceiling hostage crisis – the “sugar-coated Satan sandwich” – and postponed the “fiscal cliff.”

Aside from the Rube Goldberg-nature of both immigration reform and health care and the major concessions made by liberals (allegedly) to improve chance of passage of the initiatives, there is a more specific connection between the Affordable Care Act and the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigra- tion Modernization Act (text here).  John Judis explains

Just look at the tortuous way the bill deals with immigrants’ access to the Affordable Care Act. The bill denies health insurance coverage to the eleven million undocumented workers, who will become “registered provisional immigrants” (RPIs), and to over 100,000 guest agricultural workers (who will get “blue cards” rather than “green cards”). Only after immigrants become permanent residents, which in the case of the eleven million undocumented will take a minimum of ten years and as long as 15 years, will they become eligible for Obamacare.

This is obviously bad health policy. Low-skilled immigrants who work in physically strenuous and polluted settings will be denied preventive coverage and treatment for chronic diseases, and if they acquire serious illnesses—tuberculosis, cirrhosis of the liver, and several cancers are common among immigrant farm workers—they will have to go to sequester-squeezed emergency rooms.

But it’s also bad economics. It creates an incentive for employers to hire the new immigrants over citizens or green-card holders and to provide neither with health insurance. Under the Affordable Care Act, employers with fewer than 50 workers do not have to buy health insurance for their employees, but businesses with 50 or more workers—which employ about three-quarters of American workers—either have to provide insurance or pay a fine for those workers who buy insurance through the exchanges the act creates. The fine is ordinarily $2,000 but can run as high as $3,000.

Businesses with 50 or more employees that choose to pay a fine rather than provide insurance will not have to pay fines for the RPIs or blue-card holders because they are not eligible for the exchanges. So employers will be able to save from $2,000 to $3,000 a year by hiring a new immigrant over an American citizen. For salaries that hover between $15,000 and $25,000, as they do in many immigrant-heavy industries, that’s no small savings. Even an advocate for low-income immigrants sees the language as a potential problem: “We don’t want them to hire immigrants over citizens because of that loophole,” says Sonal Ambegaokar, who analyzes health policy for the National Immigration Law Center. “We want a level playing field.”

The bill’s denial of coverage doesn’t only give immigrants an advantage over citizens when it comes to new hires. It also gives larger businesses that employ immigrants a reason to drop insurance altogether. If they offer insurance to one employee, they need to offer it to all employees, including immigrants. But if they deny it to everyone, they’ll only pay fines for workers who are citizens.

Denying health insurance coverage to employed illegal immigrants is a critical provision, one for which neither Senate Democrats wishing to accommodate their GOP colleagues nor those conservatives themselves are responsible. Judis continues

This all could have been avoided if Obama care had just insured undocumented immigrants in the first place. But in the fall of 2009, the administration, facing charges from Republicans that the health care bill secretly funded “illegal immigrants,” urged Senate Democrats to bar the undocumented from coverage. The administration, fearful of political trouble, reflexively carried this over to its own immigration-reform proposals. “The point was to get immigration done,” one White House official told me.

So we come full circle.  "The point was to get immigration done," the Administration believed two-and-a-half years ago.   Now, Gang of Eight leader Wall Street Schumer cites his goal as to get 70 votes, as if House Republicans care more about what Senators (not their favorite group of individuals) do than what either their corporate base or their popular base thinks about the legislation.  Pursuit of a magical 70% is so silly as to make one suspect that Democratic Senators, one eye focused on wealthy donors, are pleased to see the bill fashioned so as to drive down the wage rate.  Alas, in consideration of Occam's Law, passage of legislation for thes ake of passage of legislation  is a more likely motive.
   
Walsh argues, convincingly, "Democrats ought to hold the line" because "abandoning ever-larger categories of potential beneficiaries of the bill... is bad for undocumented immigrants, and bad for Democrats, too."   It is, she might have mentioned, bad for workers, thus bad for America, too.

We come full circle.  "The point was to get immigration done," the Administration believed two-and-a-half years ago.   Now, Gang of Eight leader Wall Street Schumer cites as his goal to get 70 votes, as if House Republicans care more about what Senators (not their favorite group of individuals) do than what either their corporate base or their popular base thinks about the legislation.  Democratic Senators, one eye focused on wealthy donors, may be pleased to see the bill fashioned to drive down the wage rate.  Clearly, however, they want a bill to get done.  Any bill.

Walsh argues, convincingly, "Democrats ought to hold the line" because "abandoning ever-larger categories of potential beneficiaries of the bill... is bad for undocumented immigrants, and bad for Democrats, too."   It is, she might have mentioned, bad for workers,and thus for America, too.

Share |

Supporting Shanghai

Bill McKibbben's 350.org has been fighting the good fight against construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Its website encourages opponents of construction to send a letter to the State Department including one or more of the following points:

Keystone XL will contribute dramatically to climate change. The State Department confirmed that tar sands fuel is up to 19% more greenhouse gas intensive than conventional fuel, and the tar sands industry admits that Keystone XL will lead to more tar sands production.

The total carbon pollution impacts of Keystone XL are the equivalent of putting 9 million cars on the road when considering the total emissions of tar sands and refining processes.

Contrary to claims made by supporters of the pipeline, the pipeline could end as many jobs as it creates with toxic spills in farmland or water resources.

Only 10% of the created jobs would be filled by local people living in communities along the route. 

Building a new pipeline now will lock us in to higher carbon emissions when we should be rapidly investing in renewable energy that cannot be exported and will  provide a secure energy future.

Processing heavier, dirtier tar sands oil will increase the amount of toxic pollutants in communities near refineries that are already suffering fro high rates of asthma and cancer.

New data suggests that the current analyses of the impacts of tar sands under-estimate the climate impacts of tar sands pollution by at least 13% because they don't account for a high -carbon byproduct of the refining process used as a cheap alternative to coal:  petroleum coke.

The pipeline's risk to water has not changed at all with the new route. It still crosses the Sandhills and the Ogallala aquifer, and this was the reason that Gov. Heineman, Sen. Johanns and President Obama rejected the route the first time around.

The pipeline will cross more than 1,000 water bodies across 3 states and 875 miles threatening drinking water for people, farms, and ranches with a devastating tar sands sill.

This pipeline poses an unacceptable risk to water. Trans Canada's first Keystone pipeline spilled 14 times in the U.S. in its first year of operation, and Enbridge, another pipeline operator, suffered a spill of more than one million gallons in the Kalamazoo River in 2010.

 They're all good points.  But a Pew Research Center poll released on April 2 showed 66% of the public supporting construction and only 23% opposed.   The political director of CREDO, a progressive organization which in early April had organized a protest in San Francisco against the pipeline, maintained "That same poll also found that the majority of Americans want strong action on climate change. Most people don't know what Keystone really entails. When we explain to them that this is a foreign company using this project to burn some of the dirtiest oil on the Earth, they come around to seeing why it's a bad idea."

Sadly, more respondents than not in that poll supported more hydraulic fracturing, and only 42% of respondents agreed with the proposition (actually, fact) that the earth is warming, an due primarily to human activity. Still, mobilization of sufficient public opposition to construction of Keystone XL requires emphasis of its probable impact on the environment.  Most of the individuals likely to be sufficiently energized to act are on the left, and hence to be outraged at the impact on carbon emissions, drinking water, and climate change.

But... there is another factor,an additional reason to recognize construction of the pipeline is a scam foisted upon the American people by powerful corporate interests.  And it is the primary reason roughly two-thirds of the public support Keystone. Opposing this project, this website noted that in April

According to John Kemp, Reuters' Senior Market Analyst for Commodities and Energy, "if it is eventually given the go-ahead, Keystone will take crude from Alberta south across the United States to the U.S. Gulf Coast, from where it is likely to be loaded onto tankers for export via the expanded Panama Canal or the Cape of Good Hope to refineries in China, Korea and Japan... the problem for Keystone is that its original rationale of exporting oil to the United States has disappeared.  The replacement aim of exporting to China can be met more sensibly by developing a western pipeline across the Rockies."

Recently, MClatchy reported

Charles Ebinger , an energy expert at the center-left Brookings Insititution in Washington, said it is possible much of the Keystone oil flowing to the Gulf Coast could be exported.  It would carry Canadian oil so isn't covered by the U.S. law forbidding exports of American crude, he said.

And it could be exported as refined products the same as American oil already is, he said.  "You can't keep oil.  It's going to move to where market conditions direct it to move."

The Brookings Institution is largely a neo-liberal think tank, so it is unsurprising that sending oil abroad does not particularly concern Ebinger.  Funny it is that so many of the elite whose mantra is "energy independence" go squishy-soft when it comes to satisfying American consumers first.

 Industry supporters foster the assumption that domestic needs will be a priority..  Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), for instance, contends the pipeline will "help to counteract insufficient domestic oil supplies and reduce America’s dependence on less reliable foreign sources" and  "would help maintain adequate crude oil supplies for U.S. refineries and let us decrease dependence on foreign crude oil supplies from the Persian Gulf and Venezuela."  Representative Ed Marchi (D-Mass.) knows better, with Eleanor Clift explaining

At a congressional hearing in December, Markey asked the president of TransCanada if he would agree to allowing Keystone XL oil and its refined products to stay in the U.S. He said no. So Markey then proposed an amendment to that effect, and Republicans said no—that it couldn’t be done, because the market for oil is not just domestic; it’s global. What Canada wants to do, says Markey, “is create a connection between Alberta and Asia and use the United States as the place where the pipeline gets constructed. And so if that’s all we are is a middleman in this transaction, then the American people should know that.”


Share |

Only in The Best Interests Of Workers

Senate Democrats and President Obama are determined to pass a version of comprehensive immigration reform, and any version will do.  Fox News reported last weekend

More than any other group, the high-tech industry got big wins in an immigration bill approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, thanks to a concerted lobbying effort, an ideally positioned Senate ally and relatively weak opposition.

The result amounted to a bonanza for the industry: unlimited green cards for foreigners with certain advanced U.S. degrees and a huge increase in visas for highly skilled foreign workers.

And thanks to the intervention of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the industry succeeded in greatly curtailing controls sought by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., aimed at protecting U.S. workers.

In exchange, Hatch voted for the bill when it passed the committee, helping boost its bipartisan momentum as it heads to the Senate floor next month. For Durbin and his allies in organized labor, winning Hatch's support was a bitter victory.

"There was an agreement with the tech industry and Sen. Hatch said he wanted more, and that was what it took to get his vote," Durbin said in an interview.

It's difficult to determine whether the senior senator from Illinois was being naive or instead trying to scam American workers when he claimed industry lobbyists "really used Senator Hatch's vote to improve their position in the bill. But I think in fairness now, I hope the industry is satisfied and they will not push this any further." He added "Look, these are companies looking to contribute to the American economy in a way that benefits American workers and American-trained foreign workers."

First, we're told the Orrin Hatch sold out to the industry or, as Durbin puts it, "really used Senator Hatch's vote to improve their position in the bill."  Those same industries, doncha know, are "looking to contribute to the American economy in a way that benefits American workers and American-trained foreign workers."

Uh, no.  Walter Hickey reviews a recent report from the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce and presents the following two charts, based on the authors' analysis of two sets of statistics (both from 2013):  the first from the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, the second the National Center for Education Statistics.

Hickey observes

64.5% of computer science majors are working in their major field.

18.7% of computer science majors are not working in the field because of pay, promotion or working conditions.

11.2% of computer science majors are not working in the field because jobs are not available.

The remaining 5.6% aren't working in CS because of job location or other factors.

It's the middle two of these four stats that are most concerning.

If Silicon Valley has a shortage of tech workers, why are 11% of CS majors claiming that there weren't jobs available?

Likewise, if there's such a desperate shortage, why is Silicon Valley not keeping compensation on pace with demand, in order to attract the 19% who cite pay or working conditions as a reason they're not working in tech?

Most importantly: Why is the technology industry citing a non-existent shortage of American STEM majors as the justification for raising the number of foreign born worker permits?

I think we know the answer to that, and it has to do with wages, and a conscious effort not "to contribute to the American economy in a way that benefits American workers."  Hickey acknowledges that the STEM sector wants to hold down salaries, but maintains additionally there "is a shortage of ultra-elite American-born talent, and Silicon Valley wants to hire the very best in the world. The view from Silicon Valley is that a lot of the U.S. talent, while bountiful in number, just doesn't stack up."

But as AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka wrote this past week in USA Today in response to the Judiciary Committee's action

Americans aren't looking for handouts. We aren't looking to be hired for jobs for which we lack essential qualifications. We just want a fair chance to use the skills we have earned — often at the cost of huge student loans — to work our way into the middle-class jobs of the future.

High-tech companies say there are "too few" American high-tech workers, but that's not true.

Today there are 20,000 fewer African-American computer programmers and system analysts employed than in 2008.

In the fields of computer and information science and engineering, U.S. colleges graduate 50% more students than there are new hires.

Basic supply and demand suggests that if there were too few qualified tech workers, their average salaries would be going up. But tech wages haven't risen since Bill Clinton was president.

Clearly, high tech is not looking to bring in H-1B visa holders for a few years at a time because there is a shortage of tech workers. They want a massive expansion of H-1B visa holders because they can pay them less.

This is not about innovation and job creation. It is about dollars and cents.

If American workers are to be sold out so that a comprehensive immigration bill can be enacted, it is, for some Senate Democrats and the President, mere collateral damage.


Share |