Jeff Ruch is executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). I interviewed him in response to an October 30 email PEER sent out, "Why Whistleblowers Are Worse Off Since The Inauguration". Because I'm on PEER's media email list, I've aware of the general tenor of how little seems to have changed in their world below the radar of most political reporting. Public employees trying to fulfill their duty to protect the environment and public health, through their own actions, and through informing others--citizens and government officials alike--had a very hard time under the Bush Administration. With the Obama Adminstration, they were expecting, as promised "Change We Can Believe In". That change has yet to come.
This email spoke about the general pattern of inaction and frustration that has set in, and it seemed to be the perfect time to take a closer look, with a broader focus than just one case in isolation. As I suspected, the picture painted by Jeff Ruch in this interview is one that provides greater specificity for the more general sense of disconnect between Obama's campaign promises and how his Administration has governed so far. While the issues PEER deals with a vitally important in themselves, the insight into a more general pattern of how the Obama Administration operates makes this interview even more valuable. Because of the interview length (over 5,000 words), I've divided it into two parts. The first part introduces PEER, what it does, how it works, and the general problems that have emerged with the Obama Administration. Part two gets into greater detail, focusing on two high-profile whistleblowers PEER is defending, as well as discussing some of the problems involving EPA and the coal industry.
Birtherism wears its crazy on its sleeve. For one thing, the demand that Barack Obama produce his birth certificate did not reach anything close to its crescendo until months after Obama had already posted his birth certificate to the internet. And, of course, there's the crazy incarnate of Orly Taitz. So you can be forgiven for not knowing of the craziness embodied in the actual lawsuit that was thrown of of court in Orange County at the end of October. Fortunately, that craziness is captured in the 30-page decision (pdf) itself, perhaps the calmest document you might ever chance to read that is written in response to batshit insanity.
But you don't have to read the entire 30-page document. Just a few paragraphs from the very end should suffice quite nicely. The sad fact is (sad for comedians, at least), the judge threw the case out on procedural grounds, so there was no full bore circus with phony birth certificates and the like. And in the end the judge addresses the plaintiff's impatience with him for actually following the law and respecting constitutional separation of powers-as opposed tobuying into their free-flowing interpretation of the law as always serving their immediate needs.
But if you do skip to the end (as you can by jumping to the section "The Grand Finale"), then you'll miss half the fun (yeah, I'm a non-lawyer who thinks reading judicial decisions can be fun), such as when the Judge, David O. Carter, explains that the plaintiffs "seek a complete shutdown of the government by enjoining it from acting while holding a new presidential election," that "Plaintiffs have inappropriately requested that this Court interfere with internal military affairs," that they seek "to emasculate the military." Hmmm. Trying to make the country ungovernable and bring it to the point of total collapse, leaving it utterly defenseless. Sound like any political party you know?
Americans are an upbeat and optimistic people. We smile and greet each other on the street and perpetuate the image of a gregarious and positive nation to the world. We all want to embrace this positive spirit-cheerfulness and good humor-especially in times like these: with unemployment on the rise, and foreclosures forcing thousands of Americans out of their homes, the need and desire for good news is undeniable. But America has embarked on an unwholesome love affair with Positive Thinking-meaning the belief system that refuses to consider the problems at hand; a conviction that by merely thinking positively and having a positive attitude, you can get the things that you want; that by focusing on the good, the bad will cease to exist. Avoiding reality, as recent history has shown, can be disastrous.
In a brilliant and savagely funny attack on the perils of Positive Thinking, BRIGHT-SIDED: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America,... Ehrenreich reveals how this insidious school of thought has infiltrated every part of American culture and exposes the downside of always and only seeing the bright side....
Here are some of the myths Ehrenreich exposes and truths she reveals:
* the pseudoscientific link between positive attitude and healing
* how the relentless push for patients to maintain a positive attitude is often psychologically devastating
* the shocking links between prosperity preachers like Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, and Creflo Dollar and the mortgage crisis
* the refusal of the business community to consider negative outcomes-like mortgage defaults-and the groundless optimism of CEOs have replaced risk analysis as the basis for company decisions
On the flip: Blues Power (the power of negative thinking), The Many Sons of NY-23, Big Pharma's Flu Flim-Flam & the October Surprise Bipartisan Coverup remembered.
(This post is part of Friend's of the Earth sponsoring Open Left. Please check out the Friend's of the Earth website here--promoted by Chris Bowers - promoted by Chris Bowers)
Hi – I’m writing from Barcelona, where the final round of negotiations prior to the UN climate summit in Copenhagen came to a close on Friday. It’s been a tense five days here, with time running out for world leaders to get their act together. I want to share some of my reactions to what’s going on here—and in Congress back in the U.S.
This week, two very different types of stand-offs marked political negotiations over solutions to global warming, one cowardly and one courageous.
U.S. Senators Back Away from Real Action
In the U.S. Senate, Republican members of the Environment and Public Works Committee boycotted the scheduled mark-up of the climate and energy bill, complaining that Chairwoman Boxer (D-CA) was not giving them enough time to assess the economic impacts of the legislation. This came after Sen. Boxer had already given tardy Republican committee members an extension to offer amendments to the bill. The Republican ploy was childish, and almost certainly was an attempt to further weaken a bill that, as passed out of the committee Thursday, is already too weak to protect our climate.
African Delegates Stand Up for Real Action
Across the Atlantic in Barcelona, negotiators from African countries initiated a different sort of boycott — one with a much more constructive aim and a very urgent plea.
Monday, the first of five days of talks in Barcelona, African negotiators announced that they would not continue with formal discussions on other topics until rich countries made some real progress with their own emissions reduction targets. (These targets refer to the reductions in greenhouse gas pollution that rich (Annex I) countries commit to make by 2020.) Millions of people in developing countries are already being affected by climate change impacts such as floods and droughts. Developing countries and communities have historically had practically no fault in the creation of climate change, yet they already face devastating impacts.
The African delegation’s action was a strategic and brave move, designed to pressure rich countries to finally step up and commit to new, deep emissions reductions targets under an internationally binding agreement. With so few formal negotiating days left before Copenhagen, time is running out for rich countries to start cooperating. Rich countries’ continued shirking of their legal and moral responsibility to set new, strong and binding targets drove developing countries to this dramatic action.
More on how it all played out in Barcelona in the extended version.
This is a second piece of analysis on what happened in Maine, organizing by the campaign and progressive allies, and where the LGBT movement goes from here. For Part 1, click here.
There is a great deal of soul-searching and strategy questions that have come out in the wake of the loss in Maine on Tuesday. I have some thoughts on them all:
1. The LGBT movement is powerless and handcuffed on marriage referenda. A number of very smart people have argued to me the following: that in California, we had a terrible No On 8 campaign and lost by four points, and in Maine, we had a near-flawless campaign and lost by six. The problem, the argument goes, isn't the execution of campaigns but that we are powerless to win these votes until the elderly, who tend to be far more against marriage equality, die off, and the young open-minded supporters of marriage equality take over.
Not only do I think that's wrong, I think it's a very dangerous assumption. In the first place, I, and many close observers, do believe a better No On 8 campaign could have won the vote. We led by as many as 14 points and 17 points in two different reliable polls as late as September. I don't believe those leads are entirely because of some kind of LGBT-specific version of the Bradley Effect. In the second place, these campaigns aren't hopeless. Although the result was reversed in 2008, don't forget we won a statewide marrage vote in Arizona in 2006- not exactly a bastion of liberal college towns and LGBT people- in fact, considering the retirement population, far from it. A switch of 31,909 votes would have won in Maine. Fixing some of the problems I outlined in my earlier post, many of which are execution issues rather than long-term obstacles, would bring us closer by itself. I look at it the same way I do Obama's campaign- lots of people said an African-American could never win until the demographics change or race relations are improved over a long period of time. In the end, he got far more votes from places many never thought he would. We don't need to wait years to switch 31,909 votes. In the third place, the attitude that the LGBT movement is handcuffed by demographics demobilizes supporters who, now more than ever, need to be mobilized and active.
2. Complaints about tyranny of the majority. Others have rightfully complained that the rights of the minority should never be put to the vote of the majority. I fully agree with this. When I testified last week at the DC Council hearing on our own marriage legislation, I thought one of the best points made was by Councilmember Catania, who pointed out to Bishop Harry Jackson, the local majordomo homophobe, and a black man, that the last time civil rights of a minority was put to a vote in DC was Dec. 21, 1856- the right to vote of African-Americans. He's absolutely right that it shouldn't happen.
My problem with this complaint is that it distracts from the issue, and leads to the same lamenting in the LGBT community that these things are hopeless in the short term because so long as these ballot votes exist, the game is fixed. It discourages participation. Look, that is the world as it should be, and not the world as it is. As Adam Bonin at DailyKos commented to me, the nature of democratic self-governance is such that citizens will always be able to amend their constitutions and laws, for better or for worse. The rules of the game are set and we must play within them.
3. Approaches to showcasing gay couples. There is one very notable difference between the No On 8 campaign and No On 1 that advances our cause. A colleague and friend who was on the ground in Maine and ran a 1995 ballot campaign there, which pertained to restricting the state's ability to enact pro-LGBT measures, said something very interesting to me. In 1995, she said, their campaign- like No On 8's refusal to include gay people in their TV ads- made every effort to hide gay people in their campaign, and that was a big reason why they won. They won, she told me, but they didn't advance the overall opinions and attitudes. Contrast that and the similar approach of the No On 8 campaign with the No On 1 campaign, which had married couples, some with kids, out in front at every turn- in TV ads, on their direct mail, on the website, you name it.
There were two completely different approaches from California and Maine, and both got at least 47% of the vote. But for our movement to advance, it is far better to have No On 1's approach. They proved you don't have to hide gay people like it's 1995. A win in Maine would have been the best thing, but it is a strong second choice to move the ball forward in terms of attitudes.
4. Moving the ball forward in steps. I think there is another victory we are overlooking here. People don't always jump from one end of the spectrum to the other in terms of not being in favor of any "special" rights at all to being supportive of marriage equality. Many people are moved from the anti-equality end to grudgingly (or willingly) being supportive of civil unions, for example. They are the folks you hear saying "just don't call it marriage". It's not a perfect situation, but it's a step forward. I've experienced the same thing on a personal level in terms of family and friends being completely opposed to my sexual orientation, who moved to being "okay, just don't tell your grandparents" to inviting my boyfriend to their home to asking if they can help plan a wedding. This is a process, and not only did we get 260,000 people to vote in favor of full marriage equality, but the conversations we started moved people more than if we didn't. Not only is this important to remember, but it is another point against the "we are handcuffed by old homophobes and the rules of the game, so we're not going to win for a long time" argument.
--
We didn't win in Maine, but our chances are not handcuffed. Let's remember what could have been done better, remember the take-away lessons from these recent campaigns, and rededicate ourselves immediately.
A report from the TARP's official watchdog estimated that there is $317 billion left in the program, a sum that includes funds paid back to the government by some banks.
Couldn't the Obama administration just keep using TARP money for stimulus related programs, such as the ones described above, and effectively make it a second stimulus package that does not require Congressional approval?
On April 8, 1935, the United States Congress passed the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act. The Emergency Relief Appropriation Act was part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. Roosevelt hoped that his New Deal would allow Americans to cope with the Great Depression, would help end the current economic downturn, and would help prevent another depression from occurring in the future.
We know at this point that the stimulus needed another $600 billion in spending to combat the effects of the recession. Smart pundits like Paul Krugman, Matthew Yglesias and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities keep talking about the need for a new WPA, a new Civilian Conservation Corps, and more grants to state and local governments to plug their budget gaps. Can't the Obama administration just use the remaining TARP money to just start programs like these, immediately?
Over the next few years, the TARP fund should grow by at least another $200 billion, as banks, automakers, homeowners and small businesses continue to pay back their loans. So, not only do we have short-term funding to start up a new WPA and / or a new CCC, there is long-term funding to keep them operational, too.
This would not only help alleviate the increasingly dire unemployment situation, but diverting Wall Street bailout money directly into jobs for main street would be a huge, huge political winner. Not to mention that a program for young people, like a new CCC, might be exactly what is needed not only to help the demographic hardest hit by the recession, but also to get Democratic-leaning young voters back to the polls in 2010.
Are there any legal restrictions preventing this? Is the Obama administration just sitting on funds that could be used for a second, more effective stimulus package? There might be internal opposition within the administration, but right now I am just looking for legal problems. If anyone can think of any legal barriers to using TARP funds to create new jobs programs that harken back to the days of FDR, please say so in the comments. Otherwise, this is a campaign we need to start ASAP.
Update: To clarify, what we need to do is figure out the legal limits of what this money can be spent on. Any advice on that front is greatly appreciated.
Just sent out the following email to 955 Larry Kissell donors. In 2006, these donors gave a total of $24,689.51 to Larry Kissell's campaign:
Does Larry Kissell Owe You Money?
Dear Chris Bowers,
This weekend, the House of Representatives is pushing for a vote on a health care bill that will cover 36 million currently uninsured Americans while reducing the deficit. Right now, Democrats do not have the votes to pass this bill, and Congressman Larry Kissell has merged as a potential vote against reform.
In 2006, and possibly again in 2008, you contributed money to help elect Congressman Kissell. With the vote expected this weekend, today is ideal for campaign contributors, like you, to contact Congresman Kissell's re-election campaign office. Tell the campaign that, if Congressman Kissell votes against health care reform this weekend, you will be calling again on Monday to ask for your money back.
The number for the campaign office is 1-877-428-4048
The email is info@larrykissell.com
A handful of progressive members of Congress are opposing the bill because they want a stronger version, but Congressman Kissell is not one of them.
Campaigns are obligated to return donations from unhappy donors. Contact Congressman Kissell's campaign office now, and say that you want your money back if Congressman Kissell votes against health care reform this weekend:
The number for the campaign office is 1-877-428-4048
The email is info@larrykissell.com
You received this email because you contributed to Larry Kissell on the Netroots Candidates Act Blue page back in 2006. If you are not already signed up for Open Left Action, this is a one-time only email sent to you on an urgent piece of legislation in the House. You will not receive any further emails from Open Left Action unless you choose to sign up to our email list. You can sign up here:
Blue Dogs like to say that they are fiscal conservatives. In fact, "fiscally conservative" is the first way that Blue Dogs describe themselves on their website. That description is right next to a deficit clock, because I guess reducing the deficit is their number one priority.
Fortunately for the Blue Dogs, there is a health care bill in the House right now that the CBO projects to reduce the deficit in both the near term and long term. From the CBO:
CBO and the staff of JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting H.R. 3962, incorporating the manager's amendment, would yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $129 billion over the 2010-2019 period. (CBO has not completed a comprehensive estimate of the legislation's potential impact on spending that is subject to future appropriation action.) In the decade after 2019, the bill would probably result in slight reductions in federal budget deficits.
Great! Reducing the deficit is what Blue Dogs are all about, right? This should be a slam dunk for them!
The number of Blue Dogs leaning toward or committed to "no" votes could be in the 30s, according to members, although Blue Dog leaders stress that they've done no whip count.
"I've been spending a lot of time with my members who are kind of going from pillar to post saying, 'Look, we don't need this; we can't afford this,' " Taylor explained.
Truly, only fiscal conservatives like the Blue Dogs would argue that we can't afford to reduce the deficit.
Jeff Ruch is executive director of 
Barbara Ehrenreich has a new book out, 
