On this national day of giving thanks I have much to be thankful for.
I am thankful for my family and friends. Your love and support throughout this journey means more to me than you will ever know.
I am thankful for like minded people who share my world view. You have let me know that my words have meaning. Your support allows me the great comfort of knowing that I’m not crazy.
I am thankful for my detractors. You keep me grounded… forever reminding me that while I am always entitled to my own opinion I am never entitled to my own facts. You make me a better writer.
I am thankful for those of you who have made this space part of your daily routine. And I am thankful for those of you who only stop by for an occasional visit. You have given me the most priceless gift any one person can bestow upon another…your time. For that I am eternally grateful.
Last but not least I am thankful for John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker and all the politicians, world leaders, talking heads and media darlings that populate the political landscape. Your antics have provided a wealth of material that knows no bounds. Thanks to you “writers’ block” has never been an issue. I am particularly thankful for the politicians and political operatives who dwell in the far reaches of ideological reality. It is my fervent hope that you will continue to prosper in your alternate universe; crafting your world view in a windowless room…talking points scripted in a crack induced haze. For without you this space would not exit.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Ferguson, Missouri...A Glimpse Into The Future
Ferguson, Missouri – As fires burned and shots rang out the president called upon the nation to engage in calm, peaceful protest and substantive discourse. The split screen shot of these simultaneous events was as telling as it was chilling. The “haves, “cool, calm and collected, patiently seeking peaceful dialogue and reasonable solutions to the nation’s inequality. The “have nots,” tired of broken promises, angered by a future that offers nothing but more of the same. Everybody is talking. Nobody is listening.
This is what despair looks like. This is what happens when all sense of hope is swallowed up by hopelessness.
There is a deep, deep divide in this country; a divide that runs not only along racial barriers but socio-economic barriers as well. Those at the top of the pyramid reap more and more of society’s benefits while those at the bottom sink deeper and deeper into despair. Middle class parents once believed that their children would live a better life than they did. Now they pray that their kids can maintain the status quo.
Over the next several weeks and months the media will debate the circumstances surrounding the shooting of Michael Brown. They will dissect every comma, semi-colon and period of the testimony given to the grand jury. The “haves” will argue that justice has been served. The “have nots” will respond with charges of race. The debate is valid; but it misses the bigger point.
Ferguson is not just about race. It is about the ever widening gap of inequality between the “haves” and “have nots.” It is about what happens when the equality gap is so wide that those at the bottom lose all hope of ever reaching the top.
A democracy cannot survive if those at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid have zero prospects for a better future. Violence and anarchy will eventually bring it to its knees. Inequality in this country is growing at an alarming rate. If we fail to find ways to narrow that gap, events such as those occurring today in Ferguson will no longer be a media sensation.
They will become the norm.
This is what despair looks like. This is what happens when all sense of hope is swallowed up by hopelessness.
There is a deep, deep divide in this country; a divide that runs not only along racial barriers but socio-economic barriers as well. Those at the top of the pyramid reap more and more of society’s benefits while those at the bottom sink deeper and deeper into despair. Middle class parents once believed that their children would live a better life than they did. Now they pray that their kids can maintain the status quo.
Over the next several weeks and months the media will debate the circumstances surrounding the shooting of Michael Brown. They will dissect every comma, semi-colon and period of the testimony given to the grand jury. The “haves” will argue that justice has been served. The “have nots” will respond with charges of race. The debate is valid; but it misses the bigger point.
Ferguson is not just about race. It is about the ever widening gap of inequality between the “haves” and “have nots.” It is about what happens when the equality gap is so wide that those at the bottom lose all hope of ever reaching the top.
A democracy cannot survive if those at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid have zero prospects for a better future. Violence and anarchy will eventually bring it to its knees. Inequality in this country is growing at an alarming rate. If we fail to find ways to narrow that gap, events such as those occurring today in Ferguson will no longer be a media sensation.
They will become the norm.
Monday, November 24, 2014
"...they went home!"
If you follow the news you know that the congressional response to the president’s executive action on immigration reform contained a level of hyperbolic vitriol that can only be classified as incendiary. Congress was so incensed by the president’s actions it seemed that calls for his impeachment might actually find purchase. Pundits sat on pins and needles eagerly awaiting a congressional body blow response to the president’s offensive tactics.
Congress did respond…but not exactly in the way pundits expected.
Friday night marks the end of the weekly news cycle. The week is over…the Saturday news cycle is slow…no one is really paying close attention to the inner workings of Washington. Friday night is the time when political operatives like to release bad news. It’s the time when they release information that is damaging in some fashion to their cause with the hope that no one will notice. The Friday night information dump is commonly referred to in Washington parlance as: “Put it out with the trash.” It seldom works but they do it anyway.
Last Friday night congress responded to the “constitutional crisis” caused by the president’s actions in a curious way.
First off, buried amidst all the inane press releases and minutia in last Friday night’s news dump was the Republican led Judiciary Committee on Oversight’s final report on the “Benghazi Crisis.” After two years of multiple congressional hearings, hate speech, conspiracy theories, accusations of treason and tens of millions of tax payer dollars, the committee found…
...nothing!
No evidence of a White House cover-up. No evidence of wrong doing on the part of the State Department. No evidence of failure on the part of the military to respond; just the fact that a series of horrific and tragic circumstances resulted in the deaths of four Americans.
The lame duck congress also announced that it would only be in session for eight days over the rest of the year.
That’s it! That was the legislature's follow up to their hair on fire reaction to the president’s executive action on immigration reform. Raise hell and then do...
...nothing!
And then they went home!
Yes, they went home early for the holiday.
If congress was serious about the legalities and seriousness of the president’s executive actions they could have crafted a substantive response.
Instead they went home.
Eighteen months ago the senate passed a bipartisan bill on immigration reform. Passage in the House is all but assured. All Speaker Boehner needs to do is allow a vote in the House to pass the measure and the president’s executive actions would be rendered null and void.
Instead they went home.
The country is at war with ISIS. Congress needs to take up a vote to ratify the president’s actions or demand he bring the troops home.
Instead they went home.
“60 Minutes” just aired a report that 70,000 of our bridges are in such a bad state of repair that they are considered “structurally deficient.” Our airports and shipping ports are in equally bad shape. Everyone on both sides of the aisle agrees that we need to repair and upgrade our infrastructure. They question is where do we get the money. Given that the government will run out of money on December 11 congress could have entered into debate over ways to include an infrastructure bill into the continuing resolution.
Instead they went home.
A continuing resolution to keep the government running must be passed by December 11. Rather than engage in last minute political brinksmanship and threats of government shutdowns that only serve to heap worry on the millions who rely on the government; congress could have voted on the continuing resolution and put the matter to rest.
Instead they went home.
Our education system is failing our children. Our children continue to rank in the middling middle of all other industrialized countries in the areas of reading and math. Congress could have stuck around to discuss ways that we might improve our education system so that our children might better compete on the world stage.
Instead they went home.
Even though our economy is steadily improving the positive result have yet to find their way to the middle class or working poor. Congress could have hung around and had a serious discussion about raising the minimum wage or equal pay for equal work.
Instead they went home.
Our country faces a long list of problems. If congress would put as much effort and energy into governing as they do in crafting hate speech and conspiracy theories we would all be better off.
Congress did respond…but not exactly in the way pundits expected.
Friday night marks the end of the weekly news cycle. The week is over…the Saturday news cycle is slow…no one is really paying close attention to the inner workings of Washington. Friday night is the time when political operatives like to release bad news. It’s the time when they release information that is damaging in some fashion to their cause with the hope that no one will notice. The Friday night information dump is commonly referred to in Washington parlance as: “Put it out with the trash.” It seldom works but they do it anyway.
Last Friday night congress responded to the “constitutional crisis” caused by the president’s actions in a curious way.
First off, buried amidst all the inane press releases and minutia in last Friday night’s news dump was the Republican led Judiciary Committee on Oversight’s final report on the “Benghazi Crisis.” After two years of multiple congressional hearings, hate speech, conspiracy theories, accusations of treason and tens of millions of tax payer dollars, the committee found…
...nothing!
No evidence of a White House cover-up. No evidence of wrong doing on the part of the State Department. No evidence of failure on the part of the military to respond; just the fact that a series of horrific and tragic circumstances resulted in the deaths of four Americans.
The lame duck congress also announced that it would only be in session for eight days over the rest of the year.
That’s it! That was the legislature's follow up to their hair on fire reaction to the president’s executive action on immigration reform. Raise hell and then do...
...nothing!
And then they went home!
Yes, they went home early for the holiday.
If congress was serious about the legalities and seriousness of the president’s executive actions they could have crafted a substantive response.
Instead they went home.
Eighteen months ago the senate passed a bipartisan bill on immigration reform. Passage in the House is all but assured. All Speaker Boehner needs to do is allow a vote in the House to pass the measure and the president’s executive actions would be rendered null and void.
Instead they went home.
The country is at war with ISIS. Congress needs to take up a vote to ratify the president’s actions or demand he bring the troops home.
Instead they went home.
“60 Minutes” just aired a report that 70,000 of our bridges are in such a bad state of repair that they are considered “structurally deficient.” Our airports and shipping ports are in equally bad shape. Everyone on both sides of the aisle agrees that we need to repair and upgrade our infrastructure. They question is where do we get the money. Given that the government will run out of money on December 11 congress could have entered into debate over ways to include an infrastructure bill into the continuing resolution.
Instead they went home.
A continuing resolution to keep the government running must be passed by December 11. Rather than engage in last minute political brinksmanship and threats of government shutdowns that only serve to heap worry on the millions who rely on the government; congress could have voted on the continuing resolution and put the matter to rest.
Instead they went home.
Our education system is failing our children. Our children continue to rank in the middling middle of all other industrialized countries in the areas of reading and math. Congress could have stuck around to discuss ways that we might improve our education system so that our children might better compete on the world stage.
Instead they went home.
Even though our economy is steadily improving the positive result have yet to find their way to the middle class or working poor. Congress could have hung around and had a serious discussion about raising the minimum wage or equal pay for equal work.
Instead they went home.
Our country faces a long list of problems. If congress would put as much effort and energy into governing as they do in crafting hate speech and conspiracy theories we would all be better off.
Friday, November 21, 2014
What Really Happened Last Night?
Last night the president finally made good on his six year promise to reform the country’s broken immigration system. Using his executive powers, the president announced a plan that will protect 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation; allowing them to legally live and work in this country for a period of three years.
The president, seeking a middle of the road compromise between those who would grant amnesty to all 11.7 undocumented immigrants living in this country and those who would round all of them up for deportation, made it clear that his authority was limited: “This is not granting amnesty or a pathway to citizenship. Only congress can do that.”
The Republican response was of a nature that can only describe as “apoplectic.” So palpable was their rage that many were literally frothing at the mouth. Even some of the most moderate and reasonable conservative political analysts were worked up in lather over the “imperialist” president’s “power grab.” Steve Schmidt, former manager of the Mc Cain Campaign and by all accounts a reasonable voice in all things politic, was furious, stating pointedly that by taking this executive action the president had squandered ANY possibility of ANY legislation getting passed by the incoming congress.
As expected, calls for impeachment, law suits and defunding were plentiful.
There are two old adages in politics: one is that when you are complaining about the process you are losing on the policy. The other is that you can always tell how thoroughly you have defeated your political opponent by the magnitude of their frustration and outrage. The president has backed Republicans into a corner on this issue and the only thing they can do about it is rant.
Somewhere in the recesses of all the cheers and jeers is the truth about what happened last night. Did the president act within his authority or did he violate the constitution in what amounts to an illegal abuse of power? And depending upon the answer to that question; what can the president’s political opponents do in response. Here are the facts.
The president’s actions are not in violation of his powers under the constitution. There is a provision within the immigration law called “deferred action.” This provision grants the executive branch the almost unlimited power to “defer” administrative actions within the law. The president cannot eliminate provisions within the law but he can temporarily defer them if he deems it necessary. The president did not grant amnesty or a pathway to citizenship. He did not violate or rewrite the law. The president has elected to “defer” deportation of certain classes of undocumented immigrants for a period of three years. Every president since Eisenhower has used their executive powers to make changes within the scope of the immigration law. In recent years Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43 all sited deferred action with impunity.
Republicans have a number of options to consider.
They can sue the president. Over the past six years they have threatened to sue the president over a whole host of issues. None of these threats have found their way into the courts. Recently Speaker Boehner threatened to sue the president for delaying the corporate mandate under the ACA. That suit has yet to be filed. The reason that these idle threats have no substance is because Republicans have no standing in these matters. In order to proffer such a complaint they have to prove standing…that they have been in some way injured by the president’s actions. As elected officials they have no standing to make that claim. In order to sue they would have to find someone who was injured by the president’s executive action.
They can refuse to approve the funding mechanisms that allow the president to move forward. The problem here is that most of the funding for immigration policies under Homeland Security comes through fees and fines that do not fall within congressional prevue. The small amount of funding congress CAN withhold will have little if any affect on the president’s plans moving forward.
In a fit of anger they can shut down the government. The last time Republicans tried that approach their approval rating dropped into single digits. Not the way you want to start your term majority party in both houses of congress.
Republicans can refuse to pass any legislation that would further the president’s agenda. Over the past six years they have proven quite adept at this course of action. However the voters have made it clear that they want to see their elected officials get things done. This past November they made their frustrations clear by voting out the party in power. There is every reason to believe that voters will do the same in 2016 if progress is not evident.
They can impeach the president for abuse of power. Here they would have to prove that the president violated the constitution. As stated previously the president is on solid legal ground. He has not violated the current law nor has he created a new law. He has simply deferred a portion of the immigration law for a temporary period.
There is one other option. The president’s executive orders will not go into effect until January 1, 2015. It will be 180 days until the first application under the new orders can be filed. There is ample time for Republicans to act.
During his remarks the president made it quite clear that he is willing to work with congress to provide a permanent solution to our immigration problems. He offered the incoming congress a clear path to accomplishing that goal; an unfettered path that the newly elected Republican majority can follow without delay to overturn his executive orders.
They can pass a bill.
The president, seeking a middle of the road compromise between those who would grant amnesty to all 11.7 undocumented immigrants living in this country and those who would round all of them up for deportation, made it clear that his authority was limited: “This is not granting amnesty or a pathway to citizenship. Only congress can do that.”
The Republican response was of a nature that can only describe as “apoplectic.” So palpable was their rage that many were literally frothing at the mouth. Even some of the most moderate and reasonable conservative political analysts were worked up in lather over the “imperialist” president’s “power grab.” Steve Schmidt, former manager of the Mc Cain Campaign and by all accounts a reasonable voice in all things politic, was furious, stating pointedly that by taking this executive action the president had squandered ANY possibility of ANY legislation getting passed by the incoming congress.
As expected, calls for impeachment, law suits and defunding were plentiful.
There are two old adages in politics: one is that when you are complaining about the process you are losing on the policy. The other is that you can always tell how thoroughly you have defeated your political opponent by the magnitude of their frustration and outrage. The president has backed Republicans into a corner on this issue and the only thing they can do about it is rant.
Somewhere in the recesses of all the cheers and jeers is the truth about what happened last night. Did the president act within his authority or did he violate the constitution in what amounts to an illegal abuse of power? And depending upon the answer to that question; what can the president’s political opponents do in response. Here are the facts.
The president’s actions are not in violation of his powers under the constitution. There is a provision within the immigration law called “deferred action.” This provision grants the executive branch the almost unlimited power to “defer” administrative actions within the law. The president cannot eliminate provisions within the law but he can temporarily defer them if he deems it necessary. The president did not grant amnesty or a pathway to citizenship. He did not violate or rewrite the law. The president has elected to “defer” deportation of certain classes of undocumented immigrants for a period of three years. Every president since Eisenhower has used their executive powers to make changes within the scope of the immigration law. In recent years Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43 all sited deferred action with impunity.
Republicans have a number of options to consider.
They can sue the president. Over the past six years they have threatened to sue the president over a whole host of issues. None of these threats have found their way into the courts. Recently Speaker Boehner threatened to sue the president for delaying the corporate mandate under the ACA. That suit has yet to be filed. The reason that these idle threats have no substance is because Republicans have no standing in these matters. In order to proffer such a complaint they have to prove standing…that they have been in some way injured by the president’s actions. As elected officials they have no standing to make that claim. In order to sue they would have to find someone who was injured by the president’s executive action.
They can refuse to approve the funding mechanisms that allow the president to move forward. The problem here is that most of the funding for immigration policies under Homeland Security comes through fees and fines that do not fall within congressional prevue. The small amount of funding congress CAN withhold will have little if any affect on the president’s plans moving forward.
In a fit of anger they can shut down the government. The last time Republicans tried that approach their approval rating dropped into single digits. Not the way you want to start your term majority party in both houses of congress.
Republicans can refuse to pass any legislation that would further the president’s agenda. Over the past six years they have proven quite adept at this course of action. However the voters have made it clear that they want to see their elected officials get things done. This past November they made their frustrations clear by voting out the party in power. There is every reason to believe that voters will do the same in 2016 if progress is not evident.
They can impeach the president for abuse of power. Here they would have to prove that the president violated the constitution. As stated previously the president is on solid legal ground. He has not violated the current law nor has he created a new law. He has simply deferred a portion of the immigration law for a temporary period.
There is one other option. The president’s executive orders will not go into effect until January 1, 2015. It will be 180 days until the first application under the new orders can be filed. There is ample time for Republicans to act.
During his remarks the president made it quite clear that he is willing to work with congress to provide a permanent solution to our immigration problems. He offered the incoming congress a clear path to accomplishing that goal; an unfettered path that the newly elected Republican majority can follow without delay to overturn his executive orders.
They can pass a bill.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Political Calculus
The president will address the nation tonight where he is expected to announce his plan to implement immigration reform by means of the executive powers granted him under the constitution. The president has on numerous occasions promised to take this action if congress failed to act. Clearly frustrated by the lack of any movement on the Hill toward reform; the president has finally chosen to act alone.
As expected, news of the president’s intentions brought a hair on fire response from the right. Mitch McConnell said that the president’s actions would “poison the well” for any hope of future compromise. Speaker Boehner warned that if the president “continued to play with fire he might find himself getting burned.” Governor Rick Perry, himself a defendant in a suit alleging his abuse of power, announced that the state of Texas would sue the president in like kind. Various members of the conservative caucus responded with threats of impeachment, defunding the president’s agenda and a government shutdown.
Certainly the president and his staff have made the political calculus that in spite of these threats it was in the country’s best interest to move forward at this time. Those who follow politics are probably asking: “Why now?” Perhaps these are some of the considerations bandied about the West Wing.
- Recent polls show that 52% of the people oppose the use of executive action to implement immigration reform. True but 57% of those polled believe that immigration reform is the right thing to do. The president campaigned on this issue and won…twice. After promising for the better part of six years to enact reform, the White House has apparently decided that it could not back down again.
- Republicans say that the president is ignoring the will of the people. Fresh off a resounding victory in the mid-terms they are quick to point out that “elections matter.” The White House no doubt agrees. But while the Republicans were winning local elections in gerrymandered districts the president was winning two general elections for the presidency. The same Republicans who are now proclaiming their recent victory as a mandate are the same ones who scoffed at such talk on the part of Democrats after the president thumped both McCain and Romney in the generals.
- After losing control of both the House and Senate the people expect the president to be more conciliatory and accepting of the Republican agenda. To enact reform would be taking a more combative stance that might appear off putting to voters. For six years the president has been hammered by his base for not being tough enough in fighting for his agenda. This stems from the president’s deep seeded dislike for back room politics. But this president is very competitive. He hates losing. Tired of dealing with the obstructionist tactics of the right the president finally decided to fight for what he believes in.
- Republicans are threatening impeachment, defund the president’s agenda and shut down the government. The White House no doubt welcomes these threats. In fact it would not be beyond the pale to think that the White House is baiting Republicans to act on their rhetoric. Let Republicans follow through on these threats and see how that plays in the eyes of the voters; particularly blacks, Latino and Asian voters in 2016.
- Republicans say that the president should defer this executive action for six months to allow the newly elected Republican congress time to act. One a year ago Speaker Boehner asked the president to give him six months to get his caucus to pass a reform bill. It has been a year and Boehner has yet to deliver. Why should the White House believe that anything will change when the new Republican caucus takes office?
-McConnell says that the president’s executive actions will poison the well for any hope of future compromise. The White House no doubt believes that McConnell’s words are just empty rhetoric. Republicans campaigned on tearing down the president’s agenda not finding a collaborative way to move it forward.
- Republicans vow that if the president follows through with his plans they will sue and take the matter all the way to the Supreme Court. The White House calculates that this is probably true. But in all likelihood the president will be back home in Chicago by the time the Roberts Court rules. And even if the Court rules against him he will have fulfilled his promise to pass reform. Let the Court and the Republicans who brought the suit explain to millions of immigrants how they are being stripped of their freedom and sent home.
The president has made the political calculus that the time to move forward on immigration reform is now. The next few months will tell us if his calculations were correct.
As expected, news of the president’s intentions brought a hair on fire response from the right. Mitch McConnell said that the president’s actions would “poison the well” for any hope of future compromise. Speaker Boehner warned that if the president “continued to play with fire he might find himself getting burned.” Governor Rick Perry, himself a defendant in a suit alleging his abuse of power, announced that the state of Texas would sue the president in like kind. Various members of the conservative caucus responded with threats of impeachment, defunding the president’s agenda and a government shutdown.
Certainly the president and his staff have made the political calculus that in spite of these threats it was in the country’s best interest to move forward at this time. Those who follow politics are probably asking: “Why now?” Perhaps these are some of the considerations bandied about the West Wing.
- Recent polls show that 52% of the people oppose the use of executive action to implement immigration reform. True but 57% of those polled believe that immigration reform is the right thing to do. The president campaigned on this issue and won…twice. After promising for the better part of six years to enact reform, the White House has apparently decided that it could not back down again.
- Republicans say that the president is ignoring the will of the people. Fresh off a resounding victory in the mid-terms they are quick to point out that “elections matter.” The White House no doubt agrees. But while the Republicans were winning local elections in gerrymandered districts the president was winning two general elections for the presidency. The same Republicans who are now proclaiming their recent victory as a mandate are the same ones who scoffed at such talk on the part of Democrats after the president thumped both McCain and Romney in the generals.
- After losing control of both the House and Senate the people expect the president to be more conciliatory and accepting of the Republican agenda. To enact reform would be taking a more combative stance that might appear off putting to voters. For six years the president has been hammered by his base for not being tough enough in fighting for his agenda. This stems from the president’s deep seeded dislike for back room politics. But this president is very competitive. He hates losing. Tired of dealing with the obstructionist tactics of the right the president finally decided to fight for what he believes in.
- Republicans are threatening impeachment, defund the president’s agenda and shut down the government. The White House no doubt welcomes these threats. In fact it would not be beyond the pale to think that the White House is baiting Republicans to act on their rhetoric. Let Republicans follow through on these threats and see how that plays in the eyes of the voters; particularly blacks, Latino and Asian voters in 2016.
- Republicans say that the president should defer this executive action for six months to allow the newly elected Republican congress time to act. One a year ago Speaker Boehner asked the president to give him six months to get his caucus to pass a reform bill. It has been a year and Boehner has yet to deliver. Why should the White House believe that anything will change when the new Republican caucus takes office?
-McConnell says that the president’s executive actions will poison the well for any hope of future compromise. The White House no doubt believes that McConnell’s words are just empty rhetoric. Republicans campaigned on tearing down the president’s agenda not finding a collaborative way to move it forward.
- Republicans vow that if the president follows through with his plans they will sue and take the matter all the way to the Supreme Court. The White House calculates that this is probably true. But in all likelihood the president will be back home in Chicago by the time the Roberts Court rules. And even if the Court rules against him he will have fulfilled his promise to pass reform. Let the Court and the Republicans who brought the suit explain to millions of immigrants how they are being stripped of their freedom and sent home.
The president has made the political calculus that the time to move forward on immigration reform is now. The next few months will tell us if his calculations were correct.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Keystone Debate...Making Decisions In A Vacuum
The Keystone Pipeline is dead…at least for this year.
The Senate failed to pass a bill authorizing construction of the much debated pipeline by a 59-41 vote. All 45 Republicans voted for the measure. But only 14 Democrats were willing to cross party lines in support; leaving the bill one vote short of the 60 needed for passage.
Presumptive Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed to bring the measure up for vote again in January when the newly elected Republican majority will assume control of the chamber.
Word from the White House is that the president would veto the bill if it reached his desk.
Over the past several years we have listened to a heated debate over positive and negative aspects of allowing Canada to transport its tar sands crude oil across our country via this pipeline. The most common arguments have centered on growing jobs and the economy versus concerns of environmental and ecological damage. This debate misses a larger point.
Recent geological findings of oil reserves within our borders have determined that the United States has the capability of becoming the world’s largest oil producer by 2025. At the same time we have agreement on both sides of the political aisle that we need to become less dependent on fossil fuels and increase our investment in the development of clean renewable energy sources. Thus far we have done nothing but throw a lot of partisan hot air at this important issue. Our elected officials are voting on energy policy in a politically charged vacuum that could produce costly long term consequences.
We need to develop a long term energy plan. Do we invest heavily in the development of the massive oil and natural gas reserves that that lay beneath our feet? Can we follow this path in way that is safe for the environment? Do we turn away from fossil fuels and invest in the development of renewable sources of energy like wind, solar and nuclear? Or do we co-ordinate our investments between the safe extraction/use of fossil fuels and the development of alternate and perhaps more efficient energy sources?
Today’s vote should have been over whether or not the Keystone Pipeline is a viable component of a long term energy strategy…not a strategy in and of itself.
The Senate failed to pass a bill authorizing construction of the much debated pipeline by a 59-41 vote. All 45 Republicans voted for the measure. But only 14 Democrats were willing to cross party lines in support; leaving the bill one vote short of the 60 needed for passage.
Presumptive Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed to bring the measure up for vote again in January when the newly elected Republican majority will assume control of the chamber.
Word from the White House is that the president would veto the bill if it reached his desk.
Over the past several years we have listened to a heated debate over positive and negative aspects of allowing Canada to transport its tar sands crude oil across our country via this pipeline. The most common arguments have centered on growing jobs and the economy versus concerns of environmental and ecological damage. This debate misses a larger point.
Recent geological findings of oil reserves within our borders have determined that the United States has the capability of becoming the world’s largest oil producer by 2025. At the same time we have agreement on both sides of the political aisle that we need to become less dependent on fossil fuels and increase our investment in the development of clean renewable energy sources. Thus far we have done nothing but throw a lot of partisan hot air at this important issue. Our elected officials are voting on energy policy in a politically charged vacuum that could produce costly long term consequences.
We need to develop a long term energy plan. Do we invest heavily in the development of the massive oil and natural gas reserves that that lay beneath our feet? Can we follow this path in way that is safe for the environment? Do we turn away from fossil fuels and invest in the development of renewable sources of energy like wind, solar and nuclear? Or do we co-ordinate our investments between the safe extraction/use of fossil fuels and the development of alternate and perhaps more efficient energy sources?
Today’s vote should have been over whether or not the Keystone Pipeline is a viable component of a long term energy strategy…not a strategy in and of itself.
Monday, November 17, 2014
Keystone +Landrieu = Bad Politics
Last Friday the House passed a bill authorizing the Keystone Pipeline. The Senate is expected to pass its version of the bill on Tuesday. The timing of this sudden push for authorization is representative of all that is wrong with our politics.
For the past six years we have debated the plusses and minuses of allowing Canada to ship its oil across our borders. Proponents of the pipeline argue that the project will create 50,000 jobs and provide an economic boost to the economy. Opponents of the project counter that the pipeline simply allows Canada to ship its oil across our borders, produces only 10,000 temporary jobs, poses an ecological threat to our environment and affords little if any boost to the economy.
For his part, the president has spent the better part of his presidency stalling…awaiting one more economic or environmental study that would bring clarity to the debate. Now, two weeks after the mid-terms it appears that congress is fast tracking the issue to gain passage before the end of the year. Like it or not, the president will be forced to act.
So why the sudden rush to get something done on the Keystone Pipeline?
Mary Landrieu.
Mary Landrieu is the embattled Democratic senator from Louisiana who is in serious danger of losing her seat. She faces a runoff election in January against Republican Congressman Bill Cassidy. Recent polls have Landrieu trailing Cassidy by 16 points.
Earlier this year Landrieu co-sponsored a bill authoring the pipeline. You see the pipeline will bring Canadian crude oil to refineries located on the Gulf coast of Landrieu’s home state; providing local jobs and growing the local economy. Minority Leader Reid, ever the president’s gatekeeper, accommodated the president’s base by refusing to allow Landrieu’s bill to come to a vote.
We now turn the page to post mid-term politics. Democrats will lose control of the senate at year’s end. Landrieu, with her senate seat in serious jeopardy, is desperate to demonstrate to her constituents that she still has the power to make things happen. Reid wants to prevent Republicans from picking up an important 54th senate seat. Suddenly the very same Landrieu bill that Reid rejected earlier in the year will stand for a vote on the senate floor.
This vote has nothing to do with the merits of the pipeline. If not for Democrats cowering to the special interests of rich environmentalists, a debate on the merits could have been held months or even years ago. This vote is about politics. It’s about propping up a vulnerable senator before handing control of the senate over to the Republicans. It’s about a putting job security ahead of the country’s best interests. It’s about all that is wrong with our political system.
If the Keystone Pipeline bill passes it will find its way to the president’s desk for signature.
The president should sign or veto the bill based solely on its merits. Period!
For the past six years we have debated the plusses and minuses of allowing Canada to ship its oil across our borders. Proponents of the pipeline argue that the project will create 50,000 jobs and provide an economic boost to the economy. Opponents of the project counter that the pipeline simply allows Canada to ship its oil across our borders, produces only 10,000 temporary jobs, poses an ecological threat to our environment and affords little if any boost to the economy.
For his part, the president has spent the better part of his presidency stalling…awaiting one more economic or environmental study that would bring clarity to the debate. Now, two weeks after the mid-terms it appears that congress is fast tracking the issue to gain passage before the end of the year. Like it or not, the president will be forced to act.
So why the sudden rush to get something done on the Keystone Pipeline?
Mary Landrieu.
Mary Landrieu is the embattled Democratic senator from Louisiana who is in serious danger of losing her seat. She faces a runoff election in January against Republican Congressman Bill Cassidy. Recent polls have Landrieu trailing Cassidy by 16 points.
Earlier this year Landrieu co-sponsored a bill authoring the pipeline. You see the pipeline will bring Canadian crude oil to refineries located on the Gulf coast of Landrieu’s home state; providing local jobs and growing the local economy. Minority Leader Reid, ever the president’s gatekeeper, accommodated the president’s base by refusing to allow Landrieu’s bill to come to a vote.
We now turn the page to post mid-term politics. Democrats will lose control of the senate at year’s end. Landrieu, with her senate seat in serious jeopardy, is desperate to demonstrate to her constituents that she still has the power to make things happen. Reid wants to prevent Republicans from picking up an important 54th senate seat. Suddenly the very same Landrieu bill that Reid rejected earlier in the year will stand for a vote on the senate floor.
This vote has nothing to do with the merits of the pipeline. If not for Democrats cowering to the special interests of rich environmentalists, a debate on the merits could have been held months or even years ago. This vote is about politics. It’s about propping up a vulnerable senator before handing control of the senate over to the Republicans. It’s about a putting job security ahead of the country’s best interests. It’s about all that is wrong with our political system.
If the Keystone Pipeline bill passes it will find its way to the president’s desk for signature.
The president should sign or veto the bill based solely on its merits. Period!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)