Washington Post Opinion: A siege against the EPA and environmental progres

Thursday, March 24, 2011

By William D. Ruckelshaus and  Christine Todd Whitman

How soon we forget.

In 1970, speaking from badly polluted Los Angeles, Bob Hope cracked, “I don’t trust air I can’t see.”  Most Americans could see too much of their air.  So they demanded that Congress and the president do something about it.

Today the agency President Richard Nixon created in response to the public outcry over visible air pollution and flammable rivers is under siege.  The Senate is poised to vote on a bill that would, for the first time, “disapprove” of a scientifically based finding, in this case that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.  This finding was extensively reviewed by officials in the administrations of presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.  It was finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency in response to a 2007 Supreme Court decision that greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants.

As former administrators of the EPA, both under Republican presidents, we have observed firsthand rapid changes in scientific knowledge concerning the dangers posed by particular pollutants, including lead additives in gasoline, benzene, and the impact of contaminants on our drinking-water supply.  In each of these cases, the authority of our major environmental statutes was essential to protect public health and the most vulnerable members of our society, even in the face of remaining scientific debate.

Earlier this year, the House of Representatives approved a bill that would cut the EPA’s budget by nearly a third and in certain areas impede its ability to protect our air and water.

The EPA was created out of recognition that pollution — largely an unwanted side effect of an increasingly industrialized society — needed to be controlled or America’s public health and environment would deteriorate. The public called on our national government to step in and halt what the states could not or would not do.

As the EPA was being established, Congress passed the Clean Air Act in a burst of nonpartisan agreement: 73 to 0 in the Senate and 374 to 1 in the House.

During the 1970s, many other laws were passed to deal with air and water pollution, drinking-water contamination, radiation, solid waste, pesticides, and toxic substances. Sixteen major pieces of legislation were enacted to address aspects of industrial, municipal, or human activity that were threatening public health or the environment. Most were passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed into law by a Republican president, and the votes were seldom close.

The air across our country is appreciably cleaner and healthier as a result of EPA regulation of trucks, buses, automobiles and large industrial sources of air pollution. There are three times the number of cars on the roads today as in 1970, yet they put out a small fraction of the pollution.

Likewise, American waterways have shown marked improvement.  Lakes and rivers across the nation have shifted from being public health threats to being sources of drinking water as well as places for fishing and other forms of recreation.  Lake Erie was declared dead in 1970 but today supports a multimillion-dollar fishery.

Amid the virulent attacks on the EPA driven by concern about overregulation, it is easy to forget how far we have come in the past 40 years.  We should take heart from all this progress and not, as some in Congress have suggested, seek to tear down the agency that the president and Congress created to protect America’s health and environment.

It has taken four decades to put in place the infrastructure to ensure that pollution is controlled through limitations on corporate, municipal, and individual conduct.  Dismantle that infrastructure today, and a new one would have to be created tomorrow at great expense and at great sacrifice to America’s public health and environment.  The American public will not long stand for an end to regulations that have protected their health and quality of life.

Our country needs today what it needed in 1970: a strong, self-confident, scientifically driven, transparent, fair, and responsible EPA.  Congress should help America achieve that.  It should do so not with lowered sights but lowered voices that will result in an EPA fully capable of helping fashion a prosperous, healthy America whose environment continues to improve.

William D. Ruckelshaus was administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 1970 to 1973 and 1983 to 1985.  Christine Todd Whitman, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, was EPA administrator from 2001 to 2003.

The Forgotten Millions

March 17, 2011

By Paul Krugman

More than three years after we entered the worst economic slump since the 1930s, a strange and disturbing thing has happened to our political discourse: Washington has lost interest in the unemployed.

Jobs do get mentioned now and then — and a few political figures, notably Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House, are still trying to get some kind of action. But no jobs bills have been introduced in Congress, no job-creation plans have been advanced by the White House and all the policy focus seems to be on spending cuts.

So one-sixth of America’s workers — all those who can’t find any job or are stuck with part-time work when they want a full-time job — have, in effect, been abandoned.

It might not be so bad if the jobless could expect to find new employment fairly soon. But unemployment has become a trap, one that’s very difficult to escape. There are almost five times as many unemployed workers as there are job openings; the average unemployed worker has been jobless for 37 weeks, a post-World War II record.

In short, we’re well on the way to creating a permanent underclass of the jobless. Why doesn’t Washington care?

Part of the answer may be that while those who are unemployed tend to stay unemployed, those who still have jobs are feeling more secure than they did a couple of years ago. Layoffs and discharges spiked during the crisis of 2008-2009 but have fallen sharply since then, perhaps reducing the sense of urgency. Put it this way: At this point, the U.S. economy is suffering from low hiring, not high firing, so things don’t look so bad — as long as you’re willing to write off the unemployed.

Yet polls indicate that voters still care much more about jobs than they do about the budget deficit. So it’s quite remarkable that inside the Beltway, it’s just the opposite.

What makes this even more remarkable is the fact that the economic arguments used to justify the D.C. deficit obsession have been repeatedly refuted by experience.

On one side, we’ve been warned, over and over again, that “bond vigilantes” will turn on the U.S. government unless we slash spending immediately. Yet interest rates remain low by historical standards; indeed, they’re lower now than they were in the spring of 2009, when those dire warnings began.

On the other side, we’ve been assured that spending cuts would do wonders for business confidence. But that hasn’t happened in any of the countries currently pursuing harsh austerity programs. Notably, when the Cameron government in Britain announced austerity measures last May, it received fawning praise from U.S. deficit hawks. But British business confidence plunged, and it has not recovered.

Yet the obsession with spending cuts flourishes all the same — unchallenged, it must be said, by the White House.

I still don’t know why the Obama administration was so quick to accept defeat in the war of ideas, but the fact is that it surrendered very early in the game. In early 2009, John Boehner, now the speaker of the House, was widely and rightly mocked for declaring that since families were suffering, the government should tighten its own belt. That’s Herbert Hoover economics, and it’s as wrong now as it was in the 1930s. But, in the 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama adopted exactly the same metaphor and began using it incessantly.

And earlier this week, the White House budget director declared: “There is an agreement that we should be reducing spending,” suggesting that his only quarrel with Republicans is over whether we should be cutting taxes, too. No wonder, then, that according to a new Pew Research Center poll, a majority of Americans see “not much difference” between Mr. Obama’s approach to the deficit and that of Republicans.

So who pays the price for this unfortunate bipartisanship? The increasingly hopeless unemployed, of course. And the worst hit will be young workers — a point made in 2009 by Peter Orszag, then the White House budget director. As he noted, young Americans who graduated during the severe recession of the early 1980s suffered permanent damage to their earnings. And if the average duration of unemployment is any indication, it’s even harder for new graduates to find decent jobs now than it was in 1982 or 1983.

So the next time you hear some Republican declaring that he’s concerned about deficits because he cares about his children — or, for that matter, the next time you hear Mr. Obama talk about winning the future — you should remember that the clear and present danger to the prospects of young Americans isn’t the deficit. It’s the absence of jobs.

But, as I said, these days Washington doesn’t seem to care about any of that. And you have to wonder what it will take to get politicians caring again about America’s forgotten millions.

Crushing the Democrats' Base

Republicans aren't just attacking Democrats' policies – they're attacking the fundamentals of what it means to be a Democrat.

PAUL WALDMAN

Both Democrats and Republicans tend to believe that their opponents are more efficient, organized, and ruthless than their own side is.  This may partly be a result of each side's belief that, in a fair fight, they wouldn't lose -- the American people must surely vote for their opponents only when manipulated into doing so.  But the fact that the left and the right are each envious of the other side's skills doesn't mean that both sides are, in fact, equally skilled.  The unending battle between the two parties isn't only a matter of who can devise a clever argument or air the most memorable ads.  It's also about conflicts that take years or even decades to play out, ones more lasting and fundamental than the outcome of today's legislative debate.  And on that score, it's clear that even as they fight over the budget and health care, Republicans are taking a longer view.

The presidential race of three years ago was the first in many years in which Democrats showed themselves superior at all the disciplines that make up modern campaigning, from fundraising to messaging.  But that extraordinary campaign (seems a long time ago, doesn't it?) didn't change at least one fundamental fact: Conservatives know how to go on offense.  And when, after victories at the state and local level in 2010, they got their chance to strike back, they took it.  With a vengeance.

Put simply, Republicans are conducting a radical attack on the Democratic Party, aimed at the roots of Democratic power and sustenance.  The battle is occurring in Washington and around the country, and even if the right doesn't succeed completely, the fight will almost certainly leave Democrats weakened and defensive.

Look at the targets conservatives have taken aim at in the last couple of years: access to the ballot box, unions, organizations representing the poor, organizations protecting reproductive rights, and more.  The assault is not just on ideas or policies (though there's plenty of that, too) but on the institutions that undergird the Democratic Party and the progressive movement.

It hasn't always been a tightly coordinated effort overseen by an authoritative hierarchy, but conservatives quickly moved into action at the right opportunities.  Let's take the case of ACORN.  When James O'Keefe, the now-famous video provocateur, released videos that appeared to show the nonprofit's employees giving support to someone claiming to be pimping out underage girls, Republicans in Congress introduced legislation to ensure ACORN could receive no federal funds.  The conservative media went into overdrive portraying the group as a terrifying threat to American democracy.  It turns out that O'Keefe's video was essentially one big lie -- contrary to what you might have heard, O'Keefe actually went into the ACORN office dressed in a shirt and tie.  The pimp outfit was filmed elsewhere, and that footage was spliced in to make it appear as though he had worn it to the ACORN offices.  But it didn't matter: The all-hands-on-deck approach, which mobilized conservative media, activists, and legislators, had its effect, and within months, the organization had essentially disintegrated.

And what was it that ACORN did that aroused conservatives' ire?  The organization advocated on behalf of poor people in numerous ways, but the most important was that they registered them to vote in large numbers.  Don't think for a moment, however, that with ACORN out of the way, Republicans are done worrying about who has access to the ballot box.  According to the Brennan Center for Justice, as many as 32 states are now considering voter-ID laws proposed by Republican legislators that require voters to present a driver's license in order to cast a ballot.  And who are those least likely to have a driver's license?  The poor, black, young, urban, or some combination thereof -- in other words, people more likely to vote Democratic.  In many states, conservatives are also attempting to make it difficult or impossible for college students to vote where they go to school, thereby increasing the possibility that they won't vote at all.  The Republican speaker of the House in New Hampshire didn't bother to couch the effort as something other than partisan.  The problem Republicans are trying to solve, he said, is "kids voting liberal, voting their feelings, with no life experience."

Conservatives have also gone on the offensive against Planned Parenthood as part of a larger war on reproductive rights that has seen some absolutely horrifying initiatives.  A state representative in Georgia introduced a bill making women who have miscarriages prove to the state that they didn't induce them or be charged with a felony; bills were introduced in South Dakota and Nebraska that would make it "justifiable homicide" to kill abortion providers in some circumstances (South Dakota's has been withdrawn, but something tells me it will be back). National Republicans are doing their part by trying to take away the substantial federal funding Planned Parenthood receives to support women's health initiatives (abortion is actually a tiny portion of what the organization does).

This is all familiar to those who remember the Reagan-era effort to "defund the left" by cutting off the money available to progressive organizations.  But all of this pales next to the assault on labor.

While the controversy in Wisconsin over Gov. Scott Walker's attempt to strip public employees of collective-bargaining rights got the most attention, there are similar efforts ongoing from Republican governors and state legislators in Ohio, Indiana, and other states.  It shouldn't have come as a surprise (I wrote about it back in November).  Government is the last heavily unionized sector in America, and despite their decline, unions still provide Democrats with essential money and organizing power.  Destroy public-employee unions, and you deal a crippling blow to the labor movement and do terrible damage to the Democratic Party.  As the Republican Senate majority leader in Wisconsin said about the controversy there, "If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions, certainly what you're going to find is President Obama is going to have a much more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin.”  What, you thought it was about balancing the state budget?

When Democrats dreamed of retaking power back in the Bush years, they thought of the big policy goals they had long held -- health-care reform, action on climate change, and many other things, some of which have been accomplished.  In the brief interregnum between 2008 and 2010, Republicans thought of their policy goals, too.  But their big thinking was about how they could crush Democratic institutions and make future Democratic victories more difficult.

Politics ain't beanbag, as the saying goes.  And while many things are out of the parties' control, such as broad economic changes or demographic shifts, more often than not, victory over the long run goes to those who plan ahead and know how to get to the root of things.

This Is What Class War Looks Like

Wed Mar 09, 2011 At 10:51am EST
By greywolfe359 on DailyKos

This chart puts the class war in simple, visual terms.  On the left you have the "shared sacrifices" and "painful cuts" that the Republicans claim we must make to get our fiscal house in order.  On the right, you can plainly see why these cuts are "necessary" – because we already gave away all that money to America's wealthiest individuals and corporations.

This just mirrors what we're seeing in Wisconsin, where Governor Walker (R-Koch) claims that ordinary public sector workers need to fork over at least $137 million to save the budget.  Problem is, he just gave away $117 million in tax breaks for his corporate pals.  This is out and out class warfare.  The big corporations in America have decided that they can get even richer by raiding the public treasury.  It's time for the middle class to defend itself!

Original link to the image, provided by The Christian Left, was to here.  United we bargain, divided we beg.  There is power in unified action by the people. 

Make Corporate Tax Avoiders Pay

Enjoying record profits and taxpayer-funded bailouts as the economy slowly recovers from a financial crisis, nearly two-thirds of US corporations don't pay any income taxes, instead opting to abuse tax loopholes and offshore tax havens. 

According to this study from the non-partisan Government Accountability Office, 83 of the top 100 publicly traded corporations that operate in the US exploit corporate tax havens.  Since 2009, America’s most profitable companies such as ExxonMobil, General Electric, Bank of America and Citigroup all paid a grand total of $0 in federal income taxes to Uncle Sam. Tax havens alone account for up to $1 trillion in tax revenue lost every decade, money that could be invested in K-12 education, colleges, public health, job creation, and hundreds of other worthy public programs.  


We could even give the Republicans their stupid $61 billion in program cuts, backfill all of the programs slated to be cut, and have still have $878 billion left over!

Fact Sheet

·    Bank of America is the largest bank and 5th largest corporation in America

·    Bank of America holds over $2.2 trillion in assets

·    In 2009, Bank of America earned a pretax income of $4.4 Billion

·    Bank of America received $45 billion in tax payer bailout funds in 2008 and 2009

·    Bank of America paid $0.00 (ZERO) federal income tax in 2009

·    Bank of America received at least a $1.9 billion tax benefit from the government in 2009

·    Bank of America took deductions of at least $2.1 Billion in 2009

·    Bank of America funneled its income through 115 foreign tax-haven subsidiaries.

Corporate Tax Avoidance

·    Two-thirds of all U.S. corporations do not pay federal income tax

·    25% of the largest U.S. corporations do not pay federal income tax

·    U.S. corporations avoid between $37 billion and $100 billion a year in U.S. taxes

·    President Obama has called for ending corporate tax loopholes during his campaign, in the 2010 State of the Union address, and the 2011 State of the Union address

·    Congress has not acted upon the “Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act.”

Local Impact

·    Corporate tax avoidance costs the District of Columbia up to $700 million per year

·    Congress has proposed cuts to D.C. services, including $150 million to public transportation, $25.2 million to courts, $15.4 million to education, and $10 million to water and sewer maintenance

·    District officials have frozen hiring, promotions and pay raises for all District employees in an attempt to save $100 million from this year’s budget

·    If corporations paid their fair share of taxes, none of these cuts and pay freezes would be necessary, and there would be up to $400 million left over.

Education Related Cuts

·    Congress has proposed a $5.7 billion cut to the Pell Grant program that will directly target lower income students who want a higher education

·    Congress has proposed a $1 billion cut to the Head Start program that will directly target lower income and poverty stricken children

·    Congress has proposed a $700 million cut to Title I grants that will directly target children in lower income school districts

·    College tuition has risen nearly 20% for students in just two years, making higher education unaffordable and saddling students with crippling debt.

If we pay our taxes, why don’t they?  If corporations profit here, shouldn't they pay here?  It’s time for ordinary Americans to fight back and demand an end to the corporate tax avoidance.  Let's make corporate tax avoiders pay.  Check out U.S. Uncut.