One of the frustrations of being a progressive is that the bar to clear for public support seems to be asymmetrically higher for progressive agenda items than conservative agenda items. More than anything else--the bias of the media, think tanks or other institutions, which is a related and relevant element--the political reality that less support is needed, say, to pass a tax cut for rich people or start a war than is needed to expand health care coverage or raise the minimum wage, testifies to the fact that the political system is generally skewed against progressive reforms.
And so it is with climate change. The USA Today reports today that Americans by a 17-point margin, 55 percent to 38 percent, support a global treaty to deal with climate change. In a democracy, no less one where Democrats control the entire federal government, that ought to be enough to political capital to get such a treaty done--and benefit politically, to boot. But I harbor no illusions that that 17-point margin translates directly into political victory the way that, say, a 17-point margin in favor of sending everyone in America a $300 tax rebate check or a 17-point margin in favor of the gun show loophole might.
Why? Because, obviously, entrenched and largely conservative powers in Washington rely on the fact that majorities can be thwarted. And they will no doubt continue to frame climate change actions as inimical to economic progress. Indeed, the same USA Today poll gives them ample fodder: by a 7:1 ratio Americans think the Obama administration should be focusing on the economy, not climate change. Economic progress and climate protection are not mutually-exclusive choices. And though I realize that the resources like time, attention and political capital that the president and his staff can actually invest in the economy and the environment are mutually-exclusive, you can be sure that calls to "focus on economy" will be used as a convenient distraction for climate change-deniers and others who oppose serious enviro reform.
In any case, this continues to be a teachable moment in which the Obama Administration, the Democratic Congress, Republicans who understand that climate change is real, and all others of good faith must continue to stress that the improving the economy and protecting the environment are not mutually-exclusive public agenda options. What saddens me is that Al Gore and others were having a much easier go of this process of public education before the economy went in the crapper. Teachable moments are tough enough in good times, but they are even harder when people are struggling to make their monthly payments. In that sense, the sad reality is that Obama's first summit in Copenhagen came at a bad time for the environment because it's a bad time for the domestic and global economies.
Still, it's encouraging to see that 55 percent figure. It's something to work with--and to point out repeatedly to critics of reform and climate change-deniers.
The gloves are off!
Continuing a theme for the day of backyard Illinois politics, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee -- which brought us the "Connecticut for Lieberman" ad -- is running a new ad in White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's backyard that more or less drops the public option gantlet down on Rahmbo.
The ad has a limited buy, but you can be sure a lot of folks will be watching it on YouTube and it should get ample play on the cable networks tonight. HuffPo's Sam Stein, who reminds us that Emanuel didn't take kindly to this sort of stuff back in August, has more.
Whatever else might be said about President Obama's policies related to terrorist detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, news that they will be relocated to a facility about two hours' driving distance west of Chicago disproves the idea that NIMBYism -- not in my back yard -- prevailed in the decision.
Conservatives long justified Guantánamo as a geographic limbo because, they said, we wouldn't want these terrorists living among us right here in the good ole U.S. of A. Now, I suppose an attempt by a terrorist group to break them out of their new home in Illinois could very well result in casualties or even fatalities for domestic Americans, but I doubt that will happen and there's even less chance of a breakout from within. Why? Because you can bet on this place being locked down like the supermax out in Florence, Colo.
On a related note, by sheer coincidence this is the second consecutive day I've linked to a New York Daily News story that had an accompanying reader poll. (Yesterday's was about the B+ grade President Obama gave himself.) And sure enough, as of this writing reader-respondents -- more than half of whom gave Obama an "F" yesterday -- by about a 2-to-1 margin to this on-scientific survey, in reply to a question about the propriety of moving the facility to Illinois, agreed with the statement "No. This only jeopardizes the safety of Americans."
Of course, local officials in Thomson, Ill., seem less worried about physical security than they do economic security. To wit:
With Guantanamo set to close next year, the economically ailing town about 150 miles west of Chicago repeatedly petitioned the feds to utilize its empty lockup, which was built as a maximum-security facility. Only about 200 of the 1,600 beds are filled at the $140 million prison that opened in 2001.
Seems fear of terrorism stops at the water's edge of local economic development.
WASHINGTON -- One of Joe Lieberman's colleagues in the Connecticut delegation doesn't think very highly of the way the "independent Democrat" has been mucking up healthcare reform legislation.
"Joe Lieberman has always been a person of conscience, and I take him at his word when he says he is opposed -- but the ball seems to move," Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, told a handful of reporters outside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office Monday afternoon.
Lieberman, of course, announced late Sunday that no matter how much support the idea of a Medicare buy-in might have garnered from other Senate moderates, he's not interested in playing along. Never mind that he supported a very similar plan only a few months ago.)
House Democrats have, generally, been pretty irritated by the Senate's inability to move forward even with a version of legislation well to the right of the bill the House has already passed. "The caucus is frustrated in general with the Senate that was bringing this health bill up in June and here we are Christmas, and they're still laboring over the package," Larson said. "Any time, whether it's Joe Lieberman or [Nebraska Sen.] Ben Nelson or someone who is critical to obtaining 60 votes -- or whether it's the Gang of Four or the Gang of Six, you name it, whatever gang is operating at the time -- the thing is, any one of them, or a collection of them, can hold up the process. And I think that's extraordinarily frustrating for our caucus."
But Lieberman, who endorsed John McCain last year over President Obama and escaped without much retribution, presents a special case. "It's certainly beyond frustration," Larson said. "In terms of the concern over an issue that's critical to the nation and President Obama, as Social Security was to FDR and Medicare was to Lyndon Johnson -- that's why people are beyond frustrated." Asked what other Connecticut Democrats could to about Lieberman, Larson laughed. "Pray," he said.
Still, hope springs eternal in the hearts of high-ranking House Democrats. "In the final analysis, I think most senators are going to be hard-pressed to stop healthcare from having a vote," Larson said. "It does go back to 'Mr. Smith goes to Washington.' The general public has a sense that you may disagree on policy, but certainly people are entitled to a vote in the Senate on healthcare... This is too big of an issue, too big of a historic moment, to say that a bill can't be voted on."
Whether Lieberman shares Larson's sense of the importance of the issue, of course, remains to be seen.
President Obama dressing down financial services bigwigs at the White House today? Goldman Sachs chief refusing to come down for the meeting, citing inclement weather? (See our own Andrew Leonard here for more about that, although Salon's Mike Madden tells me by email that the three CEOs who missed the meeting in person still participated in the meeting, but by telephone.)
Hmmmmmm, whatever the case with the no-shows, perhaps the White House is feeling a bit sensitive about rising disgruntlement from the Left, as recently stirred anew by Matt Taibbi's latest Rolling Stone piece and the kerfuffle between Taibbi and TAPPED's Tim Fernholz.
Let's examine choice bits from what the President said after his face-to-face meeting today with those dastardly CEOs, the full remarks of which can be read here at the White House website:
...[o]ne year ago, when many of these institutions were on the verge of collapse -- a predicament largely of their own making, oftentimes because they failed to manage risk properly -- we took difficult, and, frankly, unpopular steps to pull them back from the brink...
Today, due to the timely loans from the American people, our financial system has stabilized, the stock market has sprung back to life, our economy is growing, and our banks are once again recording profits...
So my main message in today's meeting was very simple: that America's banks received extraordinary assistance from American taxpayers to rebuild their industry -- and now that they're back on their feet, we expect an extraordinary commitment from them to help rebuild our economy.
That starts with finding ways to help creditworthy small and medium-size businesses get the loans that they need to open their doors, grow their operations, and create new jobs....I've been hearing from bankers that they're willing to lend, but face a shortage of creditworthy individuals and businesses.
...[g]iven the difficulty businesspeople are having as lending has declined, and given the exceptional assistance banks received to get them through a difficult time, we expect them to explore every responsible way to help get our economy moving again.
And I heard from these executives that they are engaging in various programs like "second look" programs, hiring more folks, raising their target goals in terms of lending -- all of which sounded positive, but we expect some results, because I'm getting too many letters from small businesses who explain that they are creditworthy and banks that they've had a long-term relationship with are still having problems giving them loans....
We also discussed the need to pass meaningful financial reform that will protect American consumers from exploitation and American -- the American economy from another financial crisis of the kind which we just came out of...
Now, I should note that around the table all the financial industry executives said they supported financial regulatory reform. The problem is there's a big gap between what I'm hearing here in the White House and the activities of lobbyists on behalf of these institutions or associations of which they're a member up on Capitol Hill. I urged them to close that gap, and they assured me that they would make every effort to do so.
Well, now. I didn't hear/see any audio or video of this address, but Obama sounds a bit peeved. We'll see if his actions back up his words, but the emphases I've added to the transcript below note the president's reference to "unpopular" bailout actions, letters of complaints, and Obama's own complaint that there's a disconnect between what the execs are telling him in person and what their lobbyists are doing over on Capitol Hill. So, on paper at least, he seems peeved. I hope he actually is.
And if it was in fact a meeting missed in person out of pique, I'm glad to hear Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and others are miffed. I just pray this is not a bit of kabuki theatre for short-term political consumption.
A few weeks ago I wrote a column for the Baltimore Sun (original link no longer public) along with a post at 538.com, where I blog regularly, in defense of the U.S. Post Office and postal employees. But hey, that doesn't me they get to skirt their responsibility to pay their federal taxes!
Apparently, however, postal workers and a variety of other federal employees, including many military service personnel, collectively owe the federal treasury more than $3 billion. Post employees are most numerous, but that is a bit misleading given that the USPS is the second largest government employer after the military. Still, their "scofflaw" rate of 3.95 percent is more than a third higher than the total federal employee average of 2.8 percent. And since the postal employees scofflaw rate is factored into that 2.8 percent, the non-postal average is lower than that. And they can't complain the check is in, or was lost in, the mail. (rimshot)
The list also more than 27,000 active duty military members, and even 50 people who work for the Executive Office of the President who collectively owe nearly a million bucks. (The EOP includes White House staffers--although it's not clear from reports if they are Bush Administration or Obama Administration employees.) The worst offender, though a small agency with just 48 employees and five scofflaws (10.4 percent) is the National Capital Planning Commission, whoever the hell they are.
I'm glad to hear the IRS is going after these people. Maybe Congress needs to pass a law making continuation of employment partially conditional on tax payments. It would be harsh to just fire somebody for a mistaken or late return; and certainly those appealing a tax ruling should have time and opportunity to defend themselves.
But if there are people with serial, perennial tax avoidance problems, I'm hard-pressed to find a justification for allowing any of them--other than perhaps the possible exception of military members in combat or harm's-way situations--to work for the government if they are in fact cheating the government. A computer manufacturer who discovered employees stealing computers from the inventory would fire those employees, so why shouldn't the government fire federal tax cheats?
War Room is written and edited by Alex Koppelman, with contributions from Salon reporters around the country.
After 40 years, the Washington Blade closes down
Destroying the So-Called "Unit Cohesion" Argument
On Finding the Source Code of Republican Talking Points