April 2008 Archives

Following John McCain's calls for a summer-long gas-tax "holiday", Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of a moratorium on the federal gas tax. It's a lousy idea that would hinder the fight against climate change, and probably make little difference to the price paid at the pump. I've posted some more details over at Political Climate:

That means that of the presidential hopefuls, only Barack Obama wants the gas tax to remain in place. He’s learned the hard way that gas-tax cuts don’t work: In 2000, with gas prices weighing in at a whopping $2 a gallon, he supported the Illinois Senate’s move to slash the state’s 6.25 percent gas tax.

The state’s moratorium was politically popular, but achieved almost nothing. Gas prices fell by just 3 percent, meaning that a hefty chunk of the tax relief went straight to oil companies. Less than a third of Illinois motorists said the tax cut had made them better off. And over six months, the state lost $175 million in revenues, prompting then-Gov. George Ryan to beg lawmakers to reinstate the tax. (In the end, Obama was among those who voted to restore the tax.)

Clinton may not have Obama’s experience, but she can hardly claim ignorance of the problems gas taxes entail. Back in 2000, she made her opposition to gas-tax cuts a centerpiece of her Senate campaign, saying her rival’s plan for a 4.3-cent cut would be “a bad deal for New York and a potential bonanza for the oil companies,” and added that “the gas tax is one of the few exceptions where we actually get more money back than we send to Washington.”

More here.

Over at Political Climate, I've posted some notes on the Bush administration's attack on the public right to know. Read more here.

The LAPD is under pressure to overhaul its rules for dealing with immigrants, after an illegal alien allegedly killed a high-school football star last month. I've jotted some thoughts for Comment is free:

One Sunday afternoon last month, 17-year-old Los Angeles resident Jamiel Shaw was walking home from the mall when a white sedan pulled up next to him. Two Latino men leaned out and asked Jamiel - a clean-cut high school football star with hopes of winning a scholarship to Stanford - what gang he belonged to. When he couldn't give an answer, one of the two men shot him dead.

That terrible, senseless act of violence has catapulted LA's battle with street gangs back into the public gaze - and sparked fresh debate about the way the City of Angels deals with its huge immigrant population. That's because Jamiel's alleged killer, a 19-year-old named Pedro Espinoza, is believed to have been an illegal alien - and, to make matters worse, had reportedly been released from county jail just a day before the brutal attack.

Quite rightly, that's prompted soul-searching at the LA police department, most of it focused on the application of Special Order 40, a regulation prohibiting police officers from stopping people for the sole reason of learning their immigration status. A number of police officers - including one who moonlights as a National Review blogger - say the rule is confusing and leads officers to actively avoid discovering the immigration status of known criminals.

Read the rest here.

I've got a piece in the latest issue of Mother Jones pitting Jamie "Mythbusters" Hyneman against some of the wackier alternative energy sources currently in development - including grape juice, dirty diapers and even empty space. Read more here.

Renewables are running into trouble, thanks to a combination of NIMBYism and political apathy. I've posted some thoughts over at Political Climate:

Everyone agrees that renewable energy is the way forward; unfortunately, neither lawmakers nor ordinary folk seem willing to give renewables a chance to get off the ground. Wind power made up almost a third of the new energy production in the US last year, according to the American Wind Energy Association, creating 10,000 green-collar jobs - but even with these changes, it’s predicted that by 2025, less than 5 percent of US energy will come from renewable sources.

That’s partly the fault of the feds, who last year failed to push through national standards for renewables as part of the energy bill. Worse still, national lawmakers have been reluctant to extend tax breaks that make it profitable to build and install wind farms; the incentives are set to expire at the end of this year, and developers say wind-turbine production will suffer unless Congress passes an extension by Memorial Day.

Read the rest here.

Senator John McCain's latest bright idea is an environmental non-starter: the GOP presidential hopeful wants to give Americans a summer "tax holiday", waiving the federal gasoline tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day. I've responded for Political Climate:

It’s easy to be cynical about McCain’s motives: Taking the sting out of gas prices in the run-up to the November election would be sure to win the Arizona senator brownie points with cash-strapped voters. It might also allow him to steer the debate away from economic issues, while dampening down resentment over the domestic repercussions of the war in Iraq.

But regardless of McCain’s private reasons for wanting to give the American people a tax holiday, his plans are bad policy. The money raised from gas taxes is needed for essential road and bridge repairs – hardly an area in which we can afford to skimp. With the federal highway account already set to finish next year $3.2 billion in the red, even truckers agree that we need higher, not lower, gas taxes in order to keep America moving.

Read more here.

The Washington Times got a bit of a scoop today - it turns out that President Bush is planning to ask Congress to pass major new legislation to tackle climate change. Trouble is, his proposals look set to be a bit of a damp squib; I've posted some thoughts over at Political Climate:

... even if Bush’s change of heart is genuine, it’s unlikely that he’ll be able to make much headway in the few months he has left. Today’s Times story was probably a trial balloon, floated by the White House in order to see whether pundits and lawmakers would fall in line; and so far, things don’t look promising. Republican lawmakers have already reportedly rebuffed the President’s proposals, arguing that pushing for new legislation would play into the hands of Democrats and give them the green light to push for sweeping environmental reforms. Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, have little desire to help Bush reinvent himself as an environmental crusader - and are rightly skeptical about his willingness to put green issues before business interests. More importantly, they’re convinced that come November they’ll have a far greener president in the White House, and probably an expanded majority in Congress. In that context, it makes sense for Dems to rebuff Bush’s overtures, wait for him to leave office, and then work with his successor to pass meaningful and far-reaching environmental reforms.

Read the rest here.

I wrote the Today's Papers column for Slate today - a heady brew of secret arms deals, violence in Afghanistan and earth-shaking scientific breakthroughs. Get your fix here.

Congressional Republicans are looking to revitalize their flagging brand by embracing environmentalism. At least, that's the theory - I've written a piece for Political Climate explaining why the GOP may find it tough to go green:

Unfortunately, it’s far from clear that the Republican rank and file will be willing to join in the greening of their party. GOP lawmakers held a closed-door meeting this week in a bid to reach agreement about the way forward - but utterly failed to reach anything like a consensus. Instead, the meeting underscored the rift between the party’s McCain-Warner wing, which takes climate change reasonably seriously, and the Bush-Inhofe flank, which tends toward apathy and outright climate-change denial.

Even if the GOP does manage to find a single voice it won’t make much difference. Republicans can’t out-green the Democrats without scaring off their own conservative base - so their rebranding is aimed not at saving the planet but at becoming just green enough to blunt the Democrats’ environmental advantage with independent voters. That means we can expect to see the GOP paying more lip-service to environmental issues - but stopping well short of supporting the kind of substantive changes we so badly need.

Read more here.

Haiti has got plenty of problems: violent crime and kidnappings are on the increase, the economy's gone to hell in a handbasket, and food prices are going through the roof. I've written a piece for the Guardian's Comment is free site asking why the US isn't doing more to help:

If the Bush administration isn't prepared to help Haiti on humanitarian grounds, it ought to consider the practical advantages of doing so. Calling a moratorium on deportations would spare the overstretched Haitian government the burden of dealing with returned deportees. More importantly, it would provide the country with a stable source of income from remittances. At present, cash sent home by immigrants makes up more than a fifth of Haiti's GDP. Making it easier for Haitians to work in the US without fear of deportation would be a cheap, easy way to further shore up the country's economy.

That would be good news for Haitians, who need all the help they can get. It would also be good for America. After all, Haiti is a poor, populous nation just a boat ride from Florida. The US has a vested interest in staving off its southern neighbour's collapse, if only to keep the current influx of refugees from turning into a full-fledged exodus. Offering protected status to those Haitians already in the US would, at least, be a step in the right direction.

Read the rest here.

New York's long-awaited congestion charge - a centerpiece of Mayor Mike's plan for sustainable urban growth - got scuttled yesterday by Albany's Democratic leaders. I've posted a response over at Political Climate:

For the past year, the mayor and his opponents have been slowly - excruciatingly slowly - negotiating compromises. The revised congestion plan would have seen the charge applied to a smaller area of Manhattan than originally proposed, and tax credits would have been included to soften the blow for poor New Yorkers. But despite giving ground, Bloomberg struggled to navigate New York’s labyrinthine political arena; ultimately, he resorted to heavy-handed tactics that left him with few friends in Albany.

Worst of all, Bloomberg failed to win the support of the Assembly’s speaker, Sheldon Silver. In the end, Silver was content to put his longstanding disdain for the mayor before the well being of the people of New York City; he dragged his feet in the run-up to yesterday’s deadline, then blithely blocked a vote on the congestion plan, saying there likely wasn’t enough support for the Mayor’s proposals to pass.

That may have been the case, but without a floor vote in the Assembly we’ve no way of knowing how much support the congestion charge really had - or who to blame for its failure. “It takes a special type of cowardice for elected officials to refuse to stand up and vote their conscience,” spat Bloomberg yesterday. He’s right, of course; but sadly for New Yorkers, his vitriol won’t be enough to bring the congestion charge back to life.

Read the rest here.

Al Gore's just launched a $300 million ad campaign to boost awareness about climate change. Could it be the first step towards a political comeback? I've posted some thoughts over at Plenty's Political Climate blog:

Still, while a return to Washington would certainly be tempting, Gore had barely announced his new ad campaign before the backlash began. First came the cranks: Consider Weather Channel founder John Coleman, who called for climate skeptics to sue Gore and “finally put some light on the fraud of global warming." Then, less predictably, came the greens: It’s all well and good blowing $300 million on advertising, said some, but wouldn’t the money have been better spent bolstering the grassroots movement? ...

All this, though, is just a fraction of what would await Gore if he chose to dive back into the political mainstream. Earnest evangelism is fine if you’re sitting on the sidelines, but once in power Gore would quickly find himself faced with Republicans determined to smear his reputation and undermine his arguments - and with Democrats eager to appropriate his climate credentials, but less keen to back politically risky environmental reforms.

More here.

Barack Obama is under fire from the Clinton camp after running ads claiming his money doesn't take money from oil companies. That's not true, says Clinton's chief spin doctor: "Senator Obama says he doesn’t take campaign contributions from oil companies, but the reality is that Exxon Mobil, Shell, and others are among his donors." I've posted some thoughts at Political Climate:

In fact, the Clinton camp is talking baloney. Neither candidate has taken cash directly from oil companies, since it’s illegal for corporations to contribute to federal political campaigns; and unlike Clinton, Obama has made a point of refusing money from industry lobbyists and company-backed political committees. On the other hand, both candidates have taken cash from individuals employed by oil companies: Obama has netted about $160,000, while Clinton has raked in about $290,000. That’s an important distinction; with most of Obama’s donations weighing in at $250 or less, the money is as likely to have come from blue-collar workers as from oil executives hoping to buy influence.

But while the oil-ad controversy may be manufactured, it’s a reminder of an important point: Campaign financing is a filthy business, and neither candidate has kept their hands entirely clean. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination - and whoever ultimately wins the White House - will have done so by begging favors from a swathe of special interest groups, many of them directly opposed to the candidate’s positions on a wide range of hot-button environmental issues.

Read the rest here.

With the Pennsylvania primary just a month away, Hillary Clinton has an imposing lead in the polls. Still, the game isn't over yet - I've written a piece for Comment is free asking whether Barack Obama still has time to turn things around:

Clinton's focus on running up a big popular-vote win in Pennsylvania has so far led both candidates to invest most of their energy in voter registration, scrambling to sign up likely supporters ahead of this week's deadline. Now, though, the gears are grinding as both campaigns switch tack to begin what will essentially be a month-long get-out-the-vote drive. From here on, both candidates are likely to focus on energising their base, looking to boost turnout in densely populated areas - even those where the math makes it unlikely that extra votes will translate into extra delegates ...

With the voter-registration dash out of the way, Obama can now switch to what he does best: introducing himself to the electorate. He's already rolled out a number of new TV spots in the Philadelphia media market, which covers both his core urban supporters and the crucial suburban swing vote, and has embarked on an Iowa-style bus tour of the ground between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. He's still heading for almost certain defeat in the Keystone State - but if he can woo enough well-heeled suburbanites along the way, he should be able to keep Clinton's margin of victory down to a manageable level.

More here.