Other Stuff

So because I have some kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder and am posting less right now as I await the ramp-up to a dedicated site on FDL, here are some quick hits on stories I didn't get to on that site today:

• Congress will hold hearings on those forged letters from astroturf groups sent to swing-state Dems urging them to vote against the House climate bill. This needs to be more than investigated by Congress; the Justice Department should get involved.

• Another day, another GOP front group headed by neocons. This one's called "Keep America Safe." It's a Bill Kristol/Liz Cheney special. Nothing but good can come of that.

• NOAA steps up and warns against indefinite offshore drilling without limits. This is one of those small benefits of the Obama Administration, that relatively sane regulatory agencies are starting to assert themselves.

• A nice piece from Peter Orszag on the delivery system reforms in the bill.

• Jon Corzine has a couple new attack ads out, slamming Chris Christie for his ties to corporate interests and the Bush Administration. Corzine has been relentless.

• Publius calls it Rick Perry's Saturday Night Massacre, and I agree. He's now fired ANOTHER member of the commission looking into whether Texas killed an innocent man. This is a huge story going completely unnoticed by the national media.

• Charlie Rangel's getting a primary challenge. Charlie Rangel NEEDS a primary challenge. Corruption is not a partisan issue.

• North Korea may be launching missiles, but they're also agreeing to talks. Guess the missile launches aren't going well. Meanwhile, Russia is splitting from the US over the issue of sanctions for Iran, with the Foreign Minister calling them "counterproductive."

• Tim DeChristopher, the activist who bid up oil and gas leases without the ability to pay in an effort to deep-six the potential drilling, is charged with two felony counts for his activism. For bidding on something? Really?

Still Time To Strengthen Waxman-Markey

Henry Waxman will suffer the endless string of GOP amendments to his climate and energy bill only until today, before he puts the hammer down and moves the bill out of committee. He's even hired a speedreader in case the GOP wants to delay the bill some more by having the whole 900-page behemoth read in full. Waxman wants the bill out of committee rather than being held up by procedural silliness and self-serving amendments. You can watch this thing drag on over at C-SPAN 3.

But of course, once the bill leaves committee, that's not the end of the story. While the Chairman believes he has the votes, and the Energy and Commerce committee is generally more conservative than the House as a whole, the bill has plenty of other hurdles. Charlie Rangel and the Ways and Means Committee wants his hands on it, and he will prioritize health care well before this bill. Collin Peterson over at Agriculture wants a piece of it as well. And Waxman wouldn't commit yesterday to this bill even reaching the House floor before August.

My point in bringing this up is that there are months to go before the final bill takes shape. Various fiefdoms in the Congress want to put their fingerprints on it, and nothing will happen quickly. This is important, because there's substantial debate over whether this bill represents a true compromise that everyone can live with, or a flawed bill that would not have the kind of impact that makes it worth the many giveaways involved. Brad Plumer at TNR highlights the biggest, but by no means the only, compromise.

One of Waxman's biggest compromises, the one attracting the most attention, was that roughly 85 percent of the pollution permits under the bill's carbon cap-and-trade system will be given out to companies for free, rather than auctioned off by the government [...]

If Congress auctioned off all or most of the pollution permits under a cap-and-trade system, companies would have to pay more for the allowances, and the U.S. government would raise more revenue. That'd be money Congress could then rebate directly back to consumers to soften the blow of higher energy prices; or it could spend some of the money on clean-energy research or efficiency projects (many of which won't necessarily come about just because there's a price on carbon). Right now, there's less money in Waxman-Markey for both of those things.

Ultimately, Plumer believes that, while the bill is flawed, it would still represent a step forward and progressives ought to support it. The Economist appears to disagree, noting the looser cap on emissions (now 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 instead of 20%). Adam Siegel calls it a coal subsidy bill because it subsidizing the fossil fuel industry far more than renewables. The bill is so large and includes so many competing measures that it's impossible to really divine what it would do at this point. But there are many months left to make that determination and find the points where it can be improved.

Progressives will either have to eat these compromises or reject anything this mushy, depending on the political movement that grows up around the issue, and right now, that movement is relatively silent.

There are two ways to overcome the political hurdle. Either cut deals with the coal, oil, auto and utility industries that weaken (but hopefully don't completely undermine) the legislation. Or convince voters in those areas that their interests are not the same as those of fossil fuel CEOs, motivating them to take action and putting public pressure on key congresspeople to back stronger climate protection legislation.

Cutting deals can be handled behind closed doors in the halls Congress. Generating public pressure requires major grassroots mobilizing.

The political reality Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey had to face is there has been no major grassroots mobilizing in the broader progressive movement. While poll numbers show strong support for strong legislation, there has been no grassroots intensity to back that up, to convince skittish politicians that the public is demanding action immediately, and will hold politicians accountable if they don't follow through.

...broad, deep, relentless and coordinated grassroots mobilization is the only thing that can put a wedge between special interest lobbying and Congress. If we aren't present in the halls and offices of Congress, you better believe every day corporate lobbyists are.

Bill Scher is absolutely right. But there's a larger question about political capacity here. All these problems hitting at once really dilutes the energy that can be put to any one topic. We have a couple wars, a financial meltdown, major health care legislation and about 100 other things going on. The President prioritized health care and that's what has gotten much of the activism. The enviro groups haven't done their job of building a movement outside of throwing a couple ads on the air. But I wonder what they really could have done. And I also wonder if there won't be possibilities for movement pressure down the road. We're at the beginning, not the end, of this fight.

...Just to be clear, I think the bill should be improved. Giving away pollution credits will put the burden of transforming the energy sector on the poor and not save anyone on their electric bills. The renewable energy standard ought to be strengthened up to at least 25%. My point is we have a lot of time to do this, but the enviro groups have to take the lead.

Dumping Charlie Rangel

Progressives do not need to carry water for corrupt officials just because they have a D in front of their name. William Jefferson has been disowned for a while now, even though he keeps running for Congress and winning (he has another runoff race today; he's expected to win easily). Now it's time to toss Charlie Rangel overboard. He preserved a tax loophole through his Chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee for a corporation whose CEO gave $1 million to a favored charity. This comes after earlier problems with not reporting taxes on real estate income abroad. And now he's paying off his own son with campaign money:

Between 2004 and 2007, Rep. Charles Rangel steered nearly $80,000 in campaign cash to an Internet company run by his son — paying lavishly for a pair of political websites so poorly designed an expert estimated one should have cost no more than $100 to create.

The payments are apparently legal under federal law, but their disclosure raises new questions about the Ways and Means Committee chairman as he faces House ethics committee probes into his failure to pay taxes on rental income and his alleged use of House stationery to solicit contributions for a public policy center that bears his name [...]

“This is probably legal but is definitely wrong,” said Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit organization that monitors compliance with electoral law.

“You're in a situation where you were given money for a campaign and it's being used to enrich family members,” she added. “The return argument is they're performing legitimate services. The question that needs to be asked in this case is: Was this a legitimate payment or was this a payoff?”

Rangel is an engaging personality, but I've had it with his obvious corruption. There's too much smoke here. Rangel responded to the New York Times and the Times dispatched with his pathetic alibi within minutes. I can't defend him any longer; actually I never did.

Yes, Having A Democrat Running A Democratic Committee Would Be A Catastrophe

Howie Klein notes that the next in line for the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, should Charlie Rangel succumb to his ethical struggles, is progressive Pete Stark. This has many on Capitol Hill in a tizzy: including those who should have the loudest voice in determining Democratic chairmanships, anonymous operatives and industry lobbyists.

Next in seniority to Rangel is Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Chairman Fortney (Pete) Stark, D-Calif., who is given virtually no chance. "The conventional wisdom is he would have a tough time getting elected chairman," said a Democrat close to leadership. From suggesting Republicans were sending troops to Iraq to die "for the president's amusement" to referring to a former GOP lawmaker as a "little fruitcake," Stark is prone to gaffes, sources said. "The guy behind [Rangel] is just not tenable. Republicans would have a field day," an industry lobbyist said, while noting the business community would "go nuclear. It would just be open warfare." A more viable pick might be Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Chairman Sander Levin, D-Mich., who is next in seniority, although sources cautioned the cerebral Levin may be too deliberate for the high-profile job. Levin also appears to relish his duties at the helm of the trade panel. He is also seen as very much in tune with the labor movement, although industry sources said Levin was someone they could work with, as opposed to Stark. Also, the Democratic Caucus still largely respects the seniority system, the Democratic strategist said. "If you make the decision that Stark is too out there, then I don't see how you go over Sandy," he said. "He's been a loyal member, and nobody would doubt he's got the intellectual and legislative expertise for the job."

As Matt Stoller notes, there are NINE anonymous sources in this article. You'd think the people who presume to control Congress and who gets selected for particular committees wouldn't be so cowardly, would you? But of course, they just want to be behind the curtain, impervious to political pressure.

As a contrast, Pete Stark is open and honest about his views. He has paid his dues and he's next in line for the job. His "radical" policy ideas include making health care accessible and affordable for every American and opposing a giveaway to the financial services industry.

Howie explains the double standard at work here:

Do you recall any of the Inside the Beltway types viewing a Republican appointee to any job thru the lenses of how that person might be accepted by working families or by organized labor? Or did I miss the issue where CongressDaily suggested that Elaine Chao might be the world's absolute worst Labor Secretary because she loathes working people and doesn't recognize their aspirations as legitimate or worthy of her attention?

Did anyone ever question whether one of Congress' biggest corporate shills on environmental issues, Dirty Dick Pombo, would be unqualified to be Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee because he was unanimously loathed by every single environmental group in the country? And what about that issue of CongressDaily-- or any other daily-- that pointed out that maybe Joe Barton (R-TX) shouldn't be chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce because the $1,315,660 in legalized reported bribes he's taken from Big Oil over the years is far more than any other member of the House, more even than notorious Big Oil puppets like Don Young (R-AK- $964,763), Steve Pearce (R-NM- $804,815), Tom Delay (R-TX- $688,840), and Pete Sessions (R-TX- $582,264), and that all the green energy groups feel that Barton is an integral part of the energy problem in our country and decidedly not part of the solution? No, I must have missed it too.

Indeed. This might be a good time to contact the Speaker and tell her that Democrats up for Democratic committee chairs shouldn't be subject to a veto by industry.

Someone Explain This To Me

We have a series of failed wars that are going to cost $2.4 trillion dollars in the future. We have a growing health care crisis with no end in sight unless the government gets involved in at least a partial way to effect a solution. We have a continuation of natural disasters that could be managed if heartless governments would managed to spend one nickel on fire prevention. Not to mention that we have an ongoing catastrophe in the nation's housing markets that are going to shrink revenue practically everywhere.

In this environment, Charlie Rangel and the Democrats have proposed a revenue-neutral tax plan?

I appreciate some of the elements to it, like eliminating the AMT (which was close to hitting the middle class) and reducing the corporate tax rate in exchange for closing up some loopholes, but let's face facts. We're in need of some major revenue, and notably, polling has shown that people are willing to pay higher taxes in exchange for increased services.

This plan is going nowhere as long as George Bush is President, but it provides a blueprint for future efforts under a potential Democratic Administration. People have to wake up and understand that taxes are the price you pay for a free society, and that in a time of looming recession, America is worth paying for. That's fiscally responsible. Spending can be cut back in some places, but ultimately, to get the change we really need, it's going to take more revenue. Democrats have to be able to make the sale so we can get back to some sanity in government.

"Wasting My Time"

Charlie Rangel is shocked that there's so much misunderstanding about the secret trade deal, the contents of which have still not been released publicly or even to members of the Democratic caucus:

"I think there's a lot of misunderstanding with the agreement," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, told PBS' Nightly Business Report. "I cannot see how anybody would be upset in the Democratic Party, except for one thing: they were not included when we had the press conference."

That's actually why YOU would be upset, Charlie, because you've never met a microphone you didn't like. Why the party rank-and-file is upset is because you've kept the deal under lock and key, and what is leaking out suggests that the White House is rewriting the deal as we speak and any labor provisions will not be binding.

This is NAFTA II, the re-NAFTA-ing, (how many times can I go back to the well of that joke?), and despite qualified support from labort organizations, the process of this deal should give anyone who expects fairness in trade policy pause.

Rangel is a creature of the past when it comes to trade policy. The majority of the House Democratic caucus wants to see American worker competitiveness protected and not sold out so multinationals can roam the world looking for the cheapest wage. Ignoring that majority opinion is not advisable, but it's precisely what Rangel wants to do.

Rangel has stressed his desire to restore bipartisan support for trade through an "American" trade policy, rather than a Republican or Democratic one.

In the interview, Rangel offered no apology for the deal that was struck and said the only thing he would do differently was to reach it "much faster. I'd ignore a lot of people that really was just wasting my time, and didn't intend to support it all."

Carl Pope of the Sierra Club offers the best explanation I've seen of why these trade deals still benefit lobbyist-driven interests instead of the public interest:

What do I mean by saying these agreements are unbalanced? Well, if a signatory to a typical trade agreement violates the patent protection rights of a US drug manufacturer to provide cheaper life saving medicines for its population, the drug company can bring a legal action against it. But if the same country brings down drug prices for import into the US by using forced labor, a union can't do anything about it. If Peru revokes a logging concession granted to US timber companies, regardless of the fairness of the original agreement, the timber company can sue for damages. But if the same US timber company illegally logs Peruvian mahogany and imports it into the US, a sustainable US hardwood competitor can't file for damages -- even under the proposed, "environmentally more friendly" terms being talked about.

Certain laws -- those which protect businesses -- are given a special priority, and companies can use trade agreements to sue governments for cash compensation if a pesky environmental or public health measure stand in the way of their profits. Neither unions nor environmental groups have the rights given to businesses to make sure that worker’s rights and the environment are protected; for this they would have to depend on the US government which, under its present leadership, is hardly a reliable cop on the beat.

It's actually worse than that, if the labor and environmental deals in the bill are stripped out by the President or put into unenforceable "side deals." What little media exposure there has been on this issue has taken the side of the "bipartisan compromise" that is neither bipartisan or a compromise. And every day that they remain secret, and especially every day that Charlie Rangel insults the majority of the Democratic caucus, I will be incredibly skeptical.