Senators Move to Block EPA From Regulating GHGs

Led by the efforts of Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), 35 Republicans and three Democrats have co-sponsored a "resolution of disapproval" of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) finding that greenhouse gases endanger the public health and welfare. This endangerment finding, which authorizes the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007 (Massachusetts v. EPA).

While the Bush Administration never had any intention to seriously address climate change, the current administration has tried to use EPA's imminent regulating power as leverage to impel Congress to pass an economy-wide climate bill. Indeed, President Obama's staff have expressly stated that they didn't want to see the EPA have to use its regulatory authority; they wanted to see comprehensive legislation to address the matter in a more democratic (and likely less onerous) way. The House passed its climate bill in June; the Senate has gotten almost nowhere, as seems to be the standard nowadays.

Because the threat of EPA regulation is still at hand, and because they have no intention of compromising with Democrats (who, for whatever reason, acknowledge much more readily that climate change is a grave threat to national security, human health, economic prosperity, and environmental protection), Republicans are now leading the charge to strip EPA of its power, effectively eliminating any federal response to the global crisis. They've had over a year to come up with a legislative compromise, and several bills are on the table, but, as Murkowski said just last week:

Congress must be given time to develop an appropriate and more responsible solution.

Translation: "I don't like the Democrats' climate bill, since Alaska has a lot of fossil fuels and consumes by far the most energy per capita in the country, and even though the effects of climate change can be seen in my state better than anywhere else in the country, I'd rather put off any sort of bill to 'address' the issue until we have more Republicans in the Senate and can get more fossil fuel production provisions in a bill. Which, by the way, won't address climate change at all, and will only serve to neutralize mitigation measures."

Most Republicans, by the way, would never even consider voting for a bill with a cap-and-trade mechanism. Murkowski is (or was) one of the few, but wants lots of climate-harming measures in there as well, in a sort of 'war is peace'/'we can only go forward by moving backward' mentality.

Meanwhile, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has joined with Murkowski in call for the disapproval. This is especially disappointing, as he has allegedly been working with Sens. Kerry and Lieberman to craft a bipartisan cap-and-trade bill over the past several months. He admitted recently that nothing is on paper yet. And now his best solution is to eliminate any potential greenhouse gas regulation (which would, as I've said, be superseded by the bill he is allegedly working on)? Even 'enlightened' Republicans seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths.

The good news: Even though the disapproval would only need 51 votes to pass, President Obama will almost assuredly veto it. The bad news: Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts has probably erased the possibility of a worthwhile Senate climate bill, both because he will vote against it (even though he voted for Massachusetts to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) and because Democrats are getting the wrong message from his election ('uh-oh, people are angry at us, let's stop trying to solve serious problems').

What we know is that Obama doesn't want the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. But he doesn't want to lose that bargaining chip either. So the question is, if (hopefully when) this disapproval resolution fails, will Republicans work with Democrats to pass a climate bill? Or will they wait it out until they have more seats in Congress, vote down the EPA's authority, and leave climate yet untouched for a few more years or decades (maybe until serious flooding starts occurring on our coasts, or our ag lobby decides that maybe climate change isn't great for their output)? I'm going to dejectedly predict the latter.

Images: Supreme Court on greenhouse gases (Slate), Sen. Murkowski (The Guardian), EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson (heatingoil.com)

Disaster in Massachusetts and a Supreme Court Decision that Disgraces Democracy

Two pieces of calamitous news in two days. Both pretty much impossible to swallow, but both realities moving forward.

The Massachusetts Senate Election

On Tuesday, Massachusetts voters elected the little-known Scott Brown to assume the late Ted Kennedy's seat. Kennedy spent decades fighting tooth and nail for health care reform, and now reform is severely threatened by Brown's impending inauguration. He has already vowed to obstruct the Democrats from passing a bill (nothing new for a Republican), and now Democrats are starting to back off any ambition they once had for making the bill strong and thorough. Massachusetts voters, who had been enamored of Ted Kennedy for decades, voted to betray his dying wish. I am not saying that the successor to his seat should have espoused his every view; I am saying that whatever values Ted Kennedy held that Massachusetts citizens ostensibly held in such high esteem for so long, they instantaneously turned their backs on.

There are innumerable factors that likely lifted Brown to victory, most of which have been discussed at length. Coakley ran an awful campaign. Voters were still disillusioned by the nation's employment and housing crises. The election was taken for granted by Democrats for too long. But whatever the reason for the shocking defeat, there are now 41 Republicans in the Senate, opening the possibility of interminable filibusters and continued obstruction until November, when Republicans will point out to Americans that Democrats have accomplished next to nothing, despite holding the Presidency and both Houses of Congress by sizable majorities.

The House climate bill can be completely scrapped. (Why do we even have a House, by the way? Sure, they're much more representative of our country than the Senate, but who needs representatives, when they don't seem to have a say in anything?) The relatively progressive House health care bill will likely give way entirely to the Senate health care bill so that at least something is passed (if there's no health care bill passed at all this year, Democrats can probably say goodbye to legislative chamber majorities come November). Who knows if there will be a jobs bill (even though that's what people are most concerned about right now). Financial regulations will pass, but likely in a weak bill that will maintain much of the status quo for the very sharks who helped push the world economy into a deep recession.

What exactly were Massachusetts voters voting for, then? Were they trying to send a message that they're mad? Because like it or not, Scott Brown will not get back at Wall Street. Scott Brown will not help create short-term jobs (his solution is to cut taxes). And by the way, when you're out of a job, Scott Brown certainly won't help you get health insurance. Oh, unless you're from Massachusetts, where progressive Democrats already passed legislation to ensure that for you. Ted Kennedy's dream, and life's work, which was so close to fruition, has been betrayed by his own loving constituents, solely because of his death. The irony is excruciating.

The U.S. Supreme Court Decision

In other horrible elections news, today the Supreme Court ruled that the government can't ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. I've talked at length about this issue before. While I have problems with the inherent idea of democracy (see: Massachusetts voters voting against their own interests and the interests of their country), I still acknowledge that it is the only form of government that reflects the ideals of human freedom, justice, and equality. It has its flaws, of course, and must be periodically improved so that these core tenets are not betrayed. Today, they were betrayed.

The four conservative ideologues on the Supreme Court and one alleged (but woefully misguided) moderate have further opened the election process to unprecedented levels of cash injections from big businesses, arguing that they are defending the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

Let me first say that money is not speech, and conflating those two concepts is nefariously deceptive. But we have to remember here that the Constitution has been bent, twisted, and adulterated incessantly over the past 200+ years, to behoove whomever was "interpreting" its words. In this case, conservative judges who maintain Republican allegiances and were all appointed by Republican presidents, ruled against a bipartisan law that was designed to make elections fair and unbiased, untainted by the influx of money from self-interested groups corporations.

What is democracy now? Does the prefix demo- not mean "people"? What the majority of the Court failed to acknowledge was the underlying foundation of our democratic republic: the right of the people to choose their leaders, and the right for any person to have a chance to become one of those leaders, assuming they can compel the electorate to afford them enough votes. Now corporations will hold undue influence in all federal elections, the wealthiest of them having the biggest say in which politicians will be elected (think: Walmarts who exploit employees, Exxon Mobils and Southern Companies who unabashedly contribute to climate change, Pfizers and Aetnas who exploit the sick for massive profits, and Citigroups who get away with inciting economic turmoil and run away with unfathomable bonuses).

Whatever politicians who are still around that you thought were truly serving the interests of their constituents--that average "Joe the Plummer" that Republicans just love evoking--will soon be a vestige of a previous era of American politics. Don't get me wrong: Democrats are often just as guilty as Republicans when it comes to being beholden to special interests. And elected progressive Democrats who want to reform our election system to make it fair and democratic will soon be few and far between. Unbridled capitalism has commandeered our democracy. Our election system, the basis of American idealism, is truly tarnished in an irrevocable way (unless today's atrocious ruling is one day revoked).

It's been a really bad week for America.

Images: Scott Brown (New York Times), spineless Democrats (photobucket.com), Supreme Court Justices (Zimbio.com), Guy with sign (scu.edu)

How to Lose an Election: Martha Coakely Edition

In a state where the majority of voters seem to bleed Democratic blue, Martha Coakley has lost the special senate race to replace the late Ted Kennedy's seat representing Massachusetts. Where just weeks ago Coakely's opponent Scott Brown was just some dude who posed naked in Cosmo a while back and had a laughable chance at winning Kennedy's seat, Brown is now Senator dude who posed naked in Cosmo. How did this happen?

First we have to look at Coakely's campaign, whose strategy appeared to be to let her opponent surge back in the polls and then make a last-ditch effort to win the seat. Coakley kept a very low profile since winning sure-handedly in the Democratic primary, preferring press releases and aides' statements to Brown's numerous press conferences and campaign events. That is not how you win an election. No matter how much you think you lead by, you get out and talk to the voters who decide your fate. While Brown is out there getting media coverage and talking about issues, Coakley stood by and put out press releases. Doesn't she know that no one reads newspapers anymore? Plus, that whole child rapist thing didn't help, either.

To be fair, this outcome is not only the result of Coakley dropping the ball. Brown ran an excellent campaign. To begin with, he knew he was running in a very left-leaning state and consciously did not outright claim to represent the Republican party in speeches and appearances, instead choosing to say that he would represent "Massachusetts interests" and refusing to identify as a moderate or conservative. He also has struck a chord as a man of the people, driving his GMC pickup truck across the state and featuring it in advertisements as bringing him "closer to the people of this state." Brown just played the game when Coakley thought she was above it and then played it well when Coakley decided to finally get down to brass tacks.

When it comes to the issues, Coakley should be streamrolling over Brown and his bailout-rescued pickup. She's pro-choice, pro-equality for gays, anti-gun, anti-Patriot Act, anti-Wall Street. It's like someone said create me someone with the best stances for Massachusetts and was shipped Martha Coakley. Brown is anti-gay marriage, anti-financial regulation, pro-death penalty, anti-public option, and pro-"enhanced interrogation techniques" (read: torture). That's not very appealing to someone looking only at the issues.

If you think this campaign is being sold on the issues, you're mistaken. Brown ran a much better campaign and drives a pickup whereas Coakley remained silent when she should have been out rubbing elbows with those deciding her fate and appears to be out of touch with the voters. If you read this site at all you know who I would have voted for based on the issues, and tonight she is shaking her head wondering where she went wrong. The hard part for Coakley will not be finding out where she went wrong, but where to begin the analysis. Mike Capuano must be pissed.

Photo - Coakley, back when she was Middlesex DA and not botching "gimme" elections (Boston.com)

What's At Stake

A lot of people don't realize how critical the special election for Senate in Massachusetts today is. Massachusetts Democrats have enjoyed two Democratic Senators representing their state since 1972, with a Kennedy in one of the seats since 1953. When Ted Kennedy passed away last summer, the state legislature, in a reversal from a recent law under Romney's governorship, gave Governor Patrick the ability to appoint a replacement for Kennedy, but only until the election today.

Now, more is at stake than anyone ever thought possible. The Democrats' agenda in Congress is threatened more by this election than by any single other event until the November elections this year (barring another tragedy or resignation). The President's mission of at least having health care passed in his first two years of office is on the line. Any other much needed reform will be destroyed or severely watered down from now until next January if the Republican, Scott Brown, wins. There will be no robust climate bill. There will be no meaningful financial regulations. There will likely be no substantial jobs bill. Senate Republicans, who in the past few years have become synonymous with obstruction, will be able to obstruct at their leisure, with no Democratic override.

Scott Brown is not a terribly adept politician, not a stellar candidate, and not a well-known figure in Massachusetts. But the combination of Democratic complacency, frustration with national politics, and an oddly timed election has pushed him into the front ahead of Attorney General Martha Coakley, who in some polls is now trailing by 10 percent. People from Massachusetts are misguidedly angry about the health care bill. They're angry at Coakley for reasons that they either don't understand or are just too inane to dignify (calling Curt Schilling a Yankee fan? This is the real world, not a game).

The state that elected Obama by a 26-point margin is now turning its back on him, perhaps because of their economic situation. Yet many independents, Republicans, and others voted for Obama over McCain because they didn't want the same failed economic policies to continue to prevail. Just because the economy isn't back and better than ever after one year of Obama's tenure, it's time to go the other way? Again? It's heartbreaking to see this kind of mentality--which we see across the country in nearly every election cycle--in the state of Massachusetts, where voters seem to be a bit more enlightened, patient, and thoughtful than in other states.

A Scott Brown victory will put a halt on all the policy reforms that this country has waited so desperately for for so long--and that Edward Kennedy fought so tirelessly for nearly 50 years--all because of the Liberal Lion's painfully untimely death.

Coakley may not have run a good campaign, but she's shown in her service to Massachusetts over the past decades that she will be a strong and principled Senator. And the state, the country, and yes, even the world, need her to pull off a win today.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mass Backwards
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Images: Coakley and Brown (Talking Points Memo)

The Senate Needs to Pass a Climate Bill This Year

As the health care bill in the Senate nears final reconciliation, more focus can be put on the energy and climate agenda that has been stalled there for months. After the House passed sweeping climate legislation in June, the momentum was lost in the sluggish upper chamber, where a supermajority must nominally be in agreement in order to prevent a filibuster and pass any legislation. This is the fact that served to drastically water down the Senate version of the health care bill and will likely do that same, or worse, to the Senate climate bill.

Currently, there are several iterations of climate/energy legislation in the Senate. The energy bill that has passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (ACELA), has been stalled there, pending possible incorporation of climate mitigation provisions (or, more likely, absorption of certain ACELA provisions into a climate bill). ACELA has at least some bipartisan support, having been approved by Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Bob Corker (R-TN), and Jeff Sessions (R-AL), along with the 11 Democrats on the committee.

Then there are the two-and-a-half climate bills on the table in the Senate. The first is the one co-sponsored by Kerry and Boxer, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (CEJAPA). This was the bill that much of the hype was centered on following the passage of the House bill (ACES), but which seems to have gone nowhere fast. Another is the Cantwell-Collins bill, the Carbon Limits and Energy for American Renewal (CLEAR) Act. CEJAPA is modeled much more closely after the successful House bill, but seems to be going nowhere fast, while CLEAR not only has bipartisan co-sponsorship, but has been praised by many groups for its simplicity and seeming fairness.

The “half” bill is the Graham-Kerry-Lieberman so-called “tripartisan” compromise, which has not actually manifested in the three months of hype surrounding it. While it will certainly receive the support of Senator Graham, however, it will be very difficult to muster the support of other Republicans, who seem to have taken a party-line stance firmly opposing carbon-reducing public policy. Senator Graham has taken some very brave actions in standing up to South Carolina tea-bagger conservatives, while other moderate Republicans—and unfortunately, a sizeable number of Democrats—have been giving less-than-impressive indications of their position on climate legislation.

Many Republicans have cited the health care bill process as grounds for opposing any climate legislation, taking a sort of kindergarten/playground “that’s what you get!” approach to lawmaking. Meanwhile, Senator Murksowski is trying to pass an amendment to strip the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases without a Congressional bill, which would eliminate the pressure on Republicans and moderates to pass a bill at all.

While most Senate Democrats are still on board with the notion of a climate bill passing this year, many have begun to backtrack in the wake of health care legislation. And while Joe Romm writes off extensive reporting on their misgivings as being spurious, it should still be alarming to see statements from so many Democrats expressing doubt about a bill’s passage when 60 votes are needed. Even Democratic Senators who intimately understand the nation’s climate and energy issues have suggested that there will be no bill this year. With so many Republicans dead set against any sort of climate bill (of 178 House Republicans, 8 voted for the bill there), broad Democratic support is crucial. Moreover, this year is likely a peak in Democratic strength in the House and Senate, as Republicans are projected to make gains in the November elections in both houses.

A report released by the National Wildlife Federation in late December shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans support climate legislation. And what’s more important than what the majority of Americans think (sorry, ideal democracy), the United States needs to prove to the rest of the world that it really will take a leadership role on curbing greenhouse gas emissions, or the other main perpetrators will never follow suit. The US Senate is so enmeshed in childish politics that it doesn’t seem to pay any heed to science or reality. But the reality is, climate change is already taking its toll. And a final bill needs to be passed this year, bar none.

Images: Senators Bingaman and Murkowski (DailyLife.com), Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman (mnn.com), Senator Mary Landrieu (Politico)

More Details Emerge on TSA Gaffe: It's More Embarrassing

A day after President Obama spoke out yet again on the failure of American intelligence-gathering communities to communicate and work together on key issues regarding the failed Christmas Day groin grenadier, more details have emerged on what occurred in Newark's Terminal C Sunday evening. The new details paint a clearer picture of what happened, though they do not make the TSA look any better.

To begin with, it came to light that the TSA waited over an hour to even contact the Port Authority Police Department, the law enforcement arm of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the operator of the airport. Computer logs uncovered by MyFox New York show that the breach occurred at 5:20 PM and that PAPD was not called until 6:40 PM; an interval of 80 minutes. For contrast, the man who entered Terminal C's sterile area without first being screened was in and out of the terminal in 20 minutes.

While the TSA said that the intervening 80 minutes between breach and calling authorities who might be able to do something about their screw-up was "the right thing," because it involved verifying the bystander's claims of what happened and going up the chain of command, the true cause may be due to the faulty security cameras operated and maintained by the troubled agency. The PAPD said that a security camera that caught what happened was only streaming live video and not recording footage, which forced the TSA to turn to Continental Airlines and ask to use the cameras operated by the airline to verify what happened. How long has that camera been broken? The TSA has no idea. I have a feeling that the 80 minute delay was caused by the TSA's inability to verify the bystander's claims rather than the whole "chain of command" excuse.

But the real question here is why was no one at the spot to make sure this exact type of thing did not happen? Sources tell the Daily News (now, remember, it's the Daily News) that the reason that the now-suspended officer was not at his post was because Mr. Hollywood was on his cell phone. Now, if true, this speaks volumes on the TSA's ineptness. Think about it, for this guy to leave his post to take a phone call, wouldn't other TSOs in the area notice it? Shouldn't the complete vulnerability of the exit lane in a secure area concern some of the nearby TSOs? Look at the picture of the security area of Terminal C; it does not look like the exit lane is so isolated that nearby TSOs would not be able to see (through the clear glass wall) that the post was abandoned.

As far as our elected officials feel about the ineptness of the TSA, don't bother trying to call their offices to find out. Three calls to Senator Jim DeMint's office in the past three days have garnered an aide's promised response from the senator's press person regarding Senator DeMint's reasons for blocking the nomination of Erroll Southers, the former FBI agent nominated to head the TSA. Does DeMint's only concern about Southers regard his possible willingness to allow TSA workers to organize (and now jumping on the bandwagon of Southers accessing files 20 years ago), or does it have to do with his ability to competently run the security agency? Does Senator DeMint have any other candidates that he would suggest that the White House nominate?

Additionally, Representative Peter King's office has been less than forthcoming with King's stance regarding the TSA's certification of the Lagos airport that the Christmas Day cajones cremator originated out of, given his statements that "Nigeria [has] inadequate security to begin with." Was King aware of the TSA certification? If so, did he do anything to try to have it reevaluated? If not, will he ask for a reevaluation of other TSA certifications in light of what happened and his opinion of the TSA-certified airport in Lagos? Two calls and voicemails in two days to King's press guru have yielded nothing.

So fallout from the Terminal C debacle continues for the TSA. Next we'll find out that the TSO being disciplined for screwing up has a past disciplinary record or arrest record that shows that he should not be trusted with national security. A leadership-less agency with bare minimum requirements for officers tasked with the massive undertaking of airport security that has a sketchy track record to begin with; it seems we may be getting what we are paying for. The TSA needs to be fixed. The question is, who is going to step up?

Photo - Terminal C at Newark (notice the two guards) (Daily News)

TSA Embarrasses Self Yet Again with Newark Security Breach

For all of the shortcomings of the terrorist watch lists and the inability to communicate interdepartmentally that led, via a confluence of incompetency, to the failed Christmas Day bombing by newly nut-less Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab there was one thing that you could say about it: he was not screened by the TSA. Given that his flight originated in Nigeria and transferred in Amsterdam before heading to Detroit, the TSA's fingerprints were not directly on this mishap (a little more on that later). It seemed that the TSA would avoid the majority of the scrutiny. Until yesterday.

Last night around 5:20 p.m. some mysterious character somehow managed to enter the "sterile" side of Terminal C from the public side by going through an exit lane at the security area. Details are sketchy, as no one seems to know who this mystery man is. Even more embarrassing, the TSA did not notice the breach, but had to be alerted by a bystander that someone had improperly entered the terminal. Screening was temporarily halted, then the terminal was cleared out and passengers on planes at the gate were forced to deplane and be re-screened. Naturally, disorganization ensued.

Flights were grounded for six hours after the incident, and Newark is just about done shaking off delays and cancellations due to the incident (flights in and out of Newark as of noon today were not experiencing delays according to the FAA). However, given the interconnectedness of the airline system both nationally and internationally, the incident caused some major problems for Continental, who is Newark Airport's largest tenant and uses the majority of Terminal C's gates.

Meanwhile, the TSA has identified the screener whose responsibility was manning the exit lane to make sure no one did exactly what this mystery individual did. The TSA declined to publicly name the screener or what disciplinary action would be taken. Anything less than termination, however, would be insulting.

Needless to say, this incident just throws an ever-increasing spotlight on the dysfunction of the TSA as a whole. Between embarrassing test failures, an insecure website which leaves passenger's personal information available to those who know how to get it, and publishing TSA screening guidelines online, the TSA has not really proven itself to be a competent agency worthy of the public's trust. Now this, a little over a week after an attempted bombing of an airliner in Detroit put the agency on high alert.

So where's the problem with the agency? To begin with, they lack leadership. The nominee to head the troubled agency, Erroll Southers, is stuck because Senator Jim DeMint (R- SC) is worried that Southers might allow the TSA members to unionize. I'm still waiting to hear from Senator DeMint's office for clarification of his stance on Southers' appointment.

Another issue with the TSA comes from the lackluster requirements to become a TSO (Transport Security Officer). All you need is the following: a GED or one year of work as either an X-ray tech, security work, or aviation screening. In other words, if you have dropped out of high school but have found work as a security guard or an X-ray tech, you are qualified to screen passengers, in the hopes of weeding out terrorists, boarding commercial airliners in the United States. These "requirements" set the bar lower than numerous municipal police departments, yet TSA officers are supposed to be able to detect tools of terrorism and prevent attacks onboard airliners?

On top of all of this, Chuck Schumer (of "the public option getting voted down is a victory for it" fame) stated only hours before the security breach at Newark that security at some airports abroad is "appallingly lax," while calling for a boycott by commercial airlines of those foreign airports not up to snuff. But Schumer's not the only clueless entity in this story. Less than a month before Abdulmutallab got explosives through Murtala Muhammed International Airport in Lagos, Nigeria and tried to blow up a Delta airplane in Detroit, the TSA confirmed that the airport was in compliance with all 25 ICAO security procedures that were examined (though Representative Peter King (R-NY) stated that "Nigeria [has] inadequate security to begin with." An e-mail to his office asking if Rep. King had done anything about the TSA certification of Lagos' airport prior to the Christmas Day incident or plans to do anything about the TSA certification process has not yet been answered.). So it looks like our leaders are either misinformed/ignorant or, if they think they know something, don't do anything about it except to grandstand after the fact.

In summation, the TSA is a highly disorganized and woefully underqualified authority to be running something as important as airport and port security. They've proven it time and again and, if nothing is done to rectify the shortcomings of the organization, they'll prove it in the future. While our elected officials want to whine about overseas airport security, we really need to be looking at our own nation's security framework to see where we can improve. I said last post that a problem has been identified, now it's time to fix it. So will we just get lip service or will things actually be fixed?

Photos - TSA logo (TSA), Passengers stranded in Newark on Sunday night (ABC News)