issue: Politics

After Comcast, What’s Next for Net Neutrality?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Congress is gearing up to reopen the Communications Act of 1934 in order to come up with what it hopes will be a better way to make sure as much information flows through the Internet as possible and in a manner fair to consumers, service providers and other stakeholders. During a panel discussion co-sponsored by the Free State Foundation and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, it was clear that the coming debate on the future of America’s Internet policy in general and its net neutrality policy in particular will continue to be a lively one.

Congress has effectively advised the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) not to reclassify Internet edge networks –- cable, DSL, FTTx and wireless –- under Title II of the Communications Act. A majority of House members signed letters last week to that effect, and while these letters don’t have the force of law, they’re certainly significant statements of congressional sentiment. The FCC is, after all, a creature of Congress that isn’t entitled to operate outside the scope of its statutory authority, regardless of how noble its motives may be or how urgent the problems it seeks to address are.

The paramount questions for the immediate future concern the shape of Internet policy, and most of the answers must come from Congress. Jim Cicconi of AT&T and moderator Rob Atkinson of ITIF pointed out that the net neutrality debate has sucked the oxygen out of the room on Internet policy for the past five years. Instead of developing plans for national purposes of the Internet and ensuring that it reaches all Americans at reasonable speeds and prices, the policy community has struggled with questions about packet discrimination and “reasonable network management.” While we’ve been obsessing over how to differentiate good network operator behavior from bad, other nations have leapt ahead of us in broadband speed, adoption, or both. Even after the unveiling of a National Broadband Plan, the public debate continues to focus too much on hypothetical anti-consumer behavior by network operators and service providers.

Five years ago, panelist Randy May of the Free State Foundation developed a model law for the Internet called the “Digital Age Communications Act” (DACA) that sought to update the 1934 Communications Act that governs the FCC. Under the DACA framework, regulators can only take action on incidents in which a broadband provider was enforcing policies harmful to consumers in non-competitive markets. The virtue of DACA is its simplicity – it forswears technical prejudgment of particular management practices – but it has attracted criticism from those who find it too strict as well as from those who find it too permissive; it’s not clear why a market power test is relevant once a given practice has been found to harm consumers, for example. Questions of this sort must ultimately be addressed by Congress, as they pertain to the policy space and aren’t simply matters of regulation.

Professor James Speta of Northwestern warned that the “Title II with forbearance” approach to Internet regulation proposed by FCC chairman Julius Genachowski is inherently unstable. (Under this idea, Title II would apply to the Internet, except for the parts of Title II that don’t.) Obviously, the reclassification itself raises troubling legal issues, and is certain to cause litigation. As the outcome of the litigation is uncertain, it would likely take years to resolve its status. The forbearance process is a second source of instability, because regulations can be imposed and withdrawn so easily as matters of forbearance. While the FCC’s proposed “Third Way” built on reclassification and forbearance appears to offer a short cut to an Internet regulation framework, its expeditious character is probably more an illusion than a reality.

A number of panelists addressed the question of what to do while we’re waiting for Congress to draft an Internet policy. Eric Klinker, CEO of BitTorrent, Inc., pointed out that industry deals with questions of Internet management through self-regulatory and other cooperative efforts. BitTorrent, Inc. was not a party to the complaint against Comcast dealt with by the previous FCC – its competitor Vuze, Inc. filed the petition. BitTorrent took a very different approach, meeting with the Comcast network operations team to determine the nature of the problem that motivated them to actively manage parts of the network as they did and to map out a better solution. Rather than seeking regulatory relief, BitTorrent developed a better protocol, uTP, which yields to interactive applications but saturates network links when no other applications are active. BitTorrent improved the Internet in a way that no regulatory action can.

The self-regulatory systems that have emerged from the broadband and Internet markets organically have been largely effective, but they may need to be supplemented with more active government involvement in the future. Whether this happens, and if so, how it happens, are likely to be the subject of debate in the near future — but that debate should take place in the Congress, not at the FCC.

Avoiding a Rush to Judgment on the Israeli Flotilla Attack

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Much of the world has reacted harshly against Israel in the wake of the tragic loss of life in this weekend’s flotilla incident. While the optics certainly look terrible for Tel Aviv, it’s critical that we avoid a rush to judgment. Two things need to take place first: one, an inquiry insuring that we have all the information we need about the incident; and two, a full consideration of the geopolitical issues in play.

Open questions remain about what led up to the horrific results, questions that need to be answered before any fair evaluation can be made. A partial list includes: Did the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) follow standard procedures to attempt to divert the flotilla as it had others? Was the flotilla given proper warning of the impending boarding? Were other non-lethal diversionary methods (such as water cannons, sound blasts, attempts to escort the ship out of the immediate area) deployed? Once the decision was made to board the ship, did IDF members on board first use non-lethal methods? Were there specific acts that caused the IDF to switch to live ammunition?

A thorough investigation may well prove that the IDF’s use of deadly force was indeed disproportionate. But learning the answers to these questions is critical before establishing that judgment.

A discussion should also take place on the legal and moral justifications for Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip. The blockade has been going on for approximately two years, and Israel has justified it on grounds that Hamas could get the weapons via international shipping.

Israel’s right to defend itself is not in question. And though Gaza is not a sovereign state, Israel claims that the blockade is justified because it is at war with Hamas, the group that controls Gaza.

But the effect of the blockade on civilians in Gaza has been severe. UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has condemned the blockade not on security grounds but humanitarian ones, saying it has caused “unacceptable suffering.” And the Gladstone Report, the UN’s analysis that followed the late-2008 Israeli invasion of Gaza, found that Israel’s blockade exacerbated humanitarian needs, particularly food, economic recovery and public heath.

Israel claims that it was prepared to take the flotilla’s humanitarian goods, inspect them and send them on to Gaza. But regardless of the shipment’s fate, Gaza’s citizens desperately need more, and Israel should reorient the blockade to focus on weapons while proactively facilitating humanitarian assistance. Besides, the incident has already prompted Egypt to open its border with Gaza, demonstrating that there is a limit to Israel’s ability to rope the region off.

It’s important to understand why the flotilla was out there in the first place: not to deliver aid to Gaza, but to make a political point about the blockade’s existence. It’s equally important to note that the flotilla had to provoke Israel in order to make the political point resonate with a wider audience. Israel has to learn not to play into its opponents’ hands.

Any loss of life is tragic, and whatever the investigation turns up will not change the fact that nine individuals have been needlessly killed. But we must understand the specific circumstances that led up to the incident, as well as its wider geopolitical context, before levying judgment.

Photo credit: freegazaorg’s Photostream

Time for a One-Two Punch for Campaign Reform

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In its recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions are entitled to the same First Amendment freedoms as flesh-and-blood human beings, thereby overturning decades of settled law limiting corporate influence in elections. With political analysts predicting a torrent of new spending by special interest groups in the fall elections, congressional leaders are advancing new legislation aimed at blunting the worst effects of the Supreme Court ruling.

Introduced by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Mike Castle (R-DE), the DISCLOSE Act would place commonsense limits on corporate independent expenditures and require CEOs and major funders to take credit for the political ads they make. The legislation rightly restricts electioneering expenditures by corporations with a significant foreign ownership stake, as well as those that benefit from large-scale government contracts or bailouts. In addition, the legislation would greatly increase transparency and disclosure requirements on corporations, unions, trade associations and other incorporated entities, bipartisan measures that are in accordance with our long tradition of constitutionally protected disclosure.

While the design of specific provisions, including the appropriate threshold for government contractor restrictions, is open to debate, the DISCLOSE Act represents a necessary first step to stem the anticipated flood of special interest money post-Citizens United. Democratic leaders have promised swift action and a House vote on the legislation after the Memorial Day recess.

But Congress cannot content itself with incremental fixes to a system of special interest funding that’s rotten at the core. Fundamental reform of the nation’s pay-to-play system will not come by imposing new limits on private campaign spending, but by changing the very source of money that funds campaigns. Bipartisan legislation to establish a new system of citizen-funded elections has already gained the support of 175 members of Congress and dozens of grassroots organizations representing millions of concerned citizens from across the political spectrum.

Under the proposed Fair Elections Now Act, congressional candidates who attract a broad base of public support would be eligible to receive matching federal dollars if they agree to forego special interest money and raise only small donations from their constituents. A four-to-one match on in-state donations of $100 or less would ensure that serious, hardworking candidates have the funds they need to mount a competitive campaign, even when opposed by wealthy individuals or groups.

Indeed, academic analysis of the relationship between congressional campaign spending and election outcomes has consistently found a competitive spending threshold below which candidates are unable to effectively compete and above which additional spending produces negligible returns. Candidates running for the U.S. House between 1992 and 2006 required between $1 million and $1.5 million (in 2006 dollars) to mount competitive campaigns, while spending beyond that threshold did not measurably increase the likelihood of success.

By giving small donors an incentive to invest in political campaigns and rewarding candidates who demonstrate broad public support — regardless of wealth — such a reform has the potential to rein in undue influence by special interest groups and restore the public’s trust. And far from imposing new limits on political speech, the Fair Elections Now Act would expand free speech by enabling new voices to enter the political debate regardless of wealth.

Congress is presented with an historic opportunity to right the wrongs of an activist Supreme Court with a one-two punch for reform: by passing an evenhanded DISCLOSE Act to increase transparency and accountability on the part of corporate funders of political speech, and by passing the Fair Elections Now Act to ensure that elections for public office are owned by the American people, not wealthy special interests. Let’s hope they’re up for the fight.

Photo credit: Dbking’s Photostream

Top 10 Pragmatic Progressive Ideas from the National Security Strategy

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Since copies of the Obama administration’s new National Security Strategy began to circulate, there’s been a lot of cheering about how different from Bush’s it is. And true, it is. That’s made clear in the letter from the president on the document’s first page. And my hunch is that people stop there — you get your headline, and you run with it, not bothering to read the rest of the document.

Well, guess what? I just cozied up with a chicken sandwich, a Diet Coke and a bag of chips and read the whole enchilada.

It’s long and at times unwieldy. I understand, for example, that “spending taxpayer’s dollars wisely” is important, but not sure the White House should be compelled to include it in the strategy text. But that’s indicative of Obama’s style — when you seek input from everyone, you’ll tend to end up with a longer list.

But after digging through the document, it’s worth pointing out the specifics of how the strategy has a distinctly pragmatic progressive outlook. With that, here are the top 10 examples:

1. It reaffirms that America’s values are the source of its power, and that American exceptionalism endures:

[T]he work to build a stronger foundation for our leadership within our borders recognizes that the most effective way for the United States of America to promote our values is to live them. America’s commitment to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law are essential sources of our strength and influence in the world.  America has always been a beacon to the peoples of the world when we ensure that the light of America’s example burns bright.

2. It prioritizes terrorism, Iraq, and Afghanistan while weighing them in the context of the 21st century’s other threats:

[T]hese wars—and our global efforts to successfully counter violent extremism—are only one element of our strategic environment and cannot define America’s engagement with the world. Terrorism is one of many threats that are more consequential in a global age. The gravest danger to the American people and global security continues to come from weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons. The space and cyberspace capabilities that power our daily lives and military operations are vulnerable to disruption and attack. Dependence upon fossil fuels constrains our options and pollutes our environment. Climate change and pandemic disease threaten the security of regions and the health and safety of the American people.

3. America will only be secure if all government agencies coordinate effectively:

To succeed, we must update, balance, and integrate all of the tools of American power and work with our allies and partners to do the same. … We are improving the integration of skills and capabilities within our military and civilian institutions, so they complement each other and operate seamlessly. We are also improving coordinated planning and policymaking and must build our capacity in key areas where we fall short.

4. It is comfortable with, but prudent about, the use of force:

While the use of force is sometimes necessary, we will exhaust other options before war whenever we can, and carefully weigh the costs and risks of action against the costs and risks of inaction. When force is necessary, we will continue to do so in a way that reflects our values and strengthens our legitimacy, and we will seek broad international support, working with such institutions as NATO and the U.N. Security Council.

5. It’s tough as nails on al Qaeda:

[W]e reject the notion that al-Qa’ida represents any religious authority. They are not religious leaders, they are killers; and neither Islam nor any other religion condones the slaughter of innocents.

6. It advocates the responsible, measured pursuit of a world without nuclear weapons:

As long as any nuclear weapons exist, the United States will sustain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal, both to deter potential adversaries and to assure U.S. allies and other security partners that they can count on America’s security commitments.

7. The Obama administration trusts the UN:

We are enhancing our coordination with the U.N. and its agencies. We need a U.N. capable of fulfilling its founding purpose — maintaining international peace and security, promoting global cooperation, and advancing human rights. To this end, we are paying our bills. We are intensifying efforts with partners on and outside the U.N. Security Council to ensure timely, robust, and credible Council action to address threats to peace and security.

8. “Democracy promotion” — a term that became identified with the Bush administration — isn’t a dirty phrase:

The United States supports the expansion of democracy and human rights abroad because governments that respect these values are more just, peaceful, and legitimate. We also do so because their success abroad fosters an environment that supports America’s national interests.

9. The United States’ security is closely linked to clean energy:

As long as we are dependent on fossil fuels, we need to ensure the security and free flow of global energy resources. But without significant and timely adjustments, our energy dependence will continue to undermine our security and prosperity. This will leave us vulnerable to energy supply disruptions and manipulation and to changes in the environment on an unprecedented scale.  The United States has a window of opportunity to lead in the development of clean energy technology.

10. It calls on politicians to stop being ridiculous and put country above politics:

Throughout the Cold War, even as there were intense disagreements about certain courses of action, there remained a belief that America’s political leaders shared common goals, even if they differed about how to reach them. In today’s political environment, due to the actions of both parties that sense of common purpose is at times lacking in our national security dialogue. This division places the United States at a strategic disadvantage.

The Palin Steamroller Hits Speed Bump in Idaho

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Sarah Palin, political kingmaker (or queenmaker, as the case may be), has been on quite a roll lately. She was one of the very first national Republicans to endorse Rand Paul before he went on to trounce Trey Grayson and become the new face of the Tea Party Triumphant. And more recently, candidates for highly competitive June 8 primaries in California (Carly Fiorina) and South Carolina (Nikki Haley) have surged in the polls shortly after a Palin endorsement.

But Palin’s rep as someone with the political Midas Touch took a hit yesterday in, of all places, her native state of Idaho. In the Republican primary to face vulnerable Democratic congressman Walt Minnick, the candidate that Palin (like other national Republicans) endorsed and personally campaigned for, Vaughan Ward, lost yesterday to state Rep. Raul Labrador.

Vaughan had a very large financial advantage in the race, but succumbed in no small part because of high-profile stumbles, including a speech in which he (or his speechwriter) lifted whole lines from Barack Obama’s famous 2004 convention keynote address (!), and a debate where he insisted that Puerto Rico is a foreign country (which didn’t get past Labrador, who was born there).

You can rightly say none of that was Palin’s fault, but she did do her personal appearance with Ward after, not before, his most famous gaffes. Labrador had some Tea Party backing (though Minnick, who has voted against most of the top Obama administration initiatives, has actually been endorsed by Tea Party Express, which apparently wanted to boost its nonpartisan bona fides), and was also supported by the local conservative hero, former congressman Bill Sali. In any event, St. Joan of the Tundra couldn’t pull her guy across the finish line.

In other news of Palin-backed candidates, the bizarre saga in South Carolina involving allegations by a political blogger (and longtime conservative activist) that he had an “inappropriate physical relationship” with Nikki Haley continues to hang fire. The site which originally published the allegations is now trickling out purported text message records involving conversations between the blogger and Haley’s campaign manager that indicate the two were collaborating very recently on efforts to supress rumors of an affair, but don’t really corroborate the affair itself. And the Palmetto State zeitgeist seems to be turning in Haley’s favor, in the absence, so far at least, of real evidence to back the allegations.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/savannahgrandfather/ / CC BY 2.0

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell On Its Way Out

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

You’ve probably heard the news by now, but word is that President Obama and Congress have reached an essential compromise on the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), a law that keeps homosexuals in the military so long as they’re quiet about it, and kicks them out if they’re not. The new compromise allows homosexuals to serve openly:

The compromise was finalized in meetings Monday at the White House and on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers will now, within days, vote on amendments that would repeal the Clinton-era policy, with a provision ensuring that any change would not take effect until after the Pentagon completes a study about its impact on troops. That study is due to Congress by Dec. 1.

The Washington Post goes on to note that conservative Democrats claim that they would oppose DADT’s repeal unless military leaders support the new law. Guess what? They already have. Here’s Chairman of the Joints Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen in Senate testimony in February:

[I]t is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.

Republicans have tried to distort the issue, claiming that the integration of homosexuals into the military amounts to a “liberal policy agenda,” which of course contradicts the chairman. Not to mention the fact that it makes America’s military, and the country, stronger. Here’s what Kyle Bailey said on P-Fix in March:

Under DADT, almost 800 “mission-critical” troops have been discharged in the last five years, including at least 59 Arabic and nine Farsi linguists. These unnecessary discharges create additional challenges and risks for our brave young men and women on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. …

DADT unnecessarily limits the pool of potential recruits, including some of the best and brightest young minds we need to win the war on terror and run our military in the decades to come. According to recent estimates, some 4,000 service members each year choose not to re-enlist because of the policy, and 41,000 gay and bisexual men might choose to enlist or re-enlist if the policy were repealed.

Kyle’s right. This isn’t just about social policy — it’s about national security.

Photo Credit: Chairman of the Join Chiefs of Staff’s Photostream

You Don’t Have to Be Racist To Hate the 20th Century

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Before we move on from the controversy over Rand Paul’s comments on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it’s important to understand that controversy over his political philosophy is likely to persist. And ironically, that’s especially true if the accusations of active or latent racism on Paul’s part are completely unfair.

If Paul’s original observations on the Civil Rights Act were motivated by indifference to discrimination against minorities, or the conviction some conservatives share that any government action to protect minorities is itself racism, then the controversy is limited to this one topic. In that case, the damage is limited to those voters who care about civil rights, many of whom will not be voting for Rand Paul in Kentucky or Republicans anywhere else.

But if, as his defenders insist (and as the record seems to support), Paul is simply expressing the consistent view that the operations of free markets, not government, are the best guarantor of individual rights in general and the interests of the poor and minorities in particular, and that the U.S. Constitution, rightly interpreted, reflects this conviction, then other, equally controversial issues may come into play, and not just those that involve other types of discrimination.

Most immediately, it’s worth remembering that principled, non-racist opponents of civil rights laws have to accept responsibility for their tacit alliances with racists. Best I can tell, Barry Goldwater did not have a prejudiced bone in his body. But there can be zero doubt that thanks to his “principled” opposition to the Civil Rights Act, his 1964 presidential campaign was totally dominated by segregationists in five of the six states he carried in the General Election, and served as the “bridge” whereby segregationists eventually migrated from the Democratic to the Republican party. At some point, the subjective motivation of civil rights opponents, past, present or future, becomes rather irrelevant.

But more importantly, Rand Paul’s concerns with the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act suggest a radical outlook with political implications that go far beyond civil rights. After all, the provisions of the Civil Rights Act that limit the right to discriminate by private property owners depend on the same chain of “activist” Supreme Court decisions that made possible the major New Deal and Great Society initiatives, involving interpretations of the General Welfare, Commerce and Spending clauses that today’s (like yesterday’s) “constitutional conservatives” routinely deplore. Rand Paul’s campaign platform reflects the common Tea Party demand that the federal government be restricted to the specific enumerated powers spelled out in the Constitution. This constitutional fundamentalism, which appears to object to every expansion of federal power enacted since 1937, is made more explicit by Rand and Ron Paul’s friends in the Constitution Party, which forthrightly calls Social Security unconstitutional and demands that it be phased out immediately.

So: instead of challenging Rand Paul’s latest backtracking on the Civil Rights Act, or calling him racist, progressives would be better advised to corner him on his attitude towards the constitutionality of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which, like the Civil Rights Act, reflect functions of the federal government that are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

Add in the fact that Rand Paul has been calling for an immediate balancing of the federal budget without tax cuts, which would require some drastic action on federal spending, and it becomes plain that his honest and principled (at least up until his flip-flop on the Civil Rights Act) efforts to apply “constitutional conservative” doctrines to current affairs imply policies that when spelled out would repel many, many voters — just like Goldwater’s platform in 1964.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, Resigns

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It would be easy to draw a straight line between the alleged “intelligence failures” of the last six months and Dennis Blair’s resignation. Let in the Underwear Bomber and the Times Square bomber, and heads should roll, right?

Well, not so fast my friend.

Any alleged failing on Blair’s part is a minor reason for his departure. If Faisal Shahzad was the reason, we’d have expected Mark Leiter — head of the National Counter Terrorism Center, NCTC, which falls under the DNI’s purview — to go first.

Blair left because of power, authority and personality conflicts with the White House. More specifically, the DNI position has little power or authority, and Blair got outmaneuvered personally by savvy bureaucratic operators like CIA Director Leon Panetta and White House counter terrorism advisor John Brennan.

Politico reported on Blair’s struggles back in January:

“One reality is Blair is really not political; he is really not good on the Hill,” said one former counterterrorism official. “He doesn’t know how to build coalitions on the Hill. He is really just out there swimming on his own, and he is not doing a very good job for the people who might have pushed expanding the DNI’s power to get behind him on this.”

On the one issue where Blair really chose to take a stand — appointing Chiefs of Station at CIA offices abroad — the White House sided with Panetta. And then there’s the big elephant in the room — budget authority.

Despite being the nominal Director of all 16 US intelligence agencies, the DNI doesn’t control their individual budgets or personnel, except for those under NCTC. That’s a big problem, causing the “boss” to be subject to the machinations of his de facto subordinates. Sure, the DNI has the authority to facilitate collaboration between those individual agencies, but if those agencies’ heads retain enough authority to run their own little fiefdoms, that creates uncomfortable tensions. And Blair didn’t seem politically savvy enough to navigate that mine field.

So, on the personality front, Blair, though a highly respected professional, seems to have been a bit of a fish out of water in this job. Then again, is the DNI job too small a fish in a big ocean?

Defining the DNI’s role from a budgetary point of view should be the next intelligence community reform.

Photo credit: Robert Huffstutter / CC BY-NC 2.0

Rand Paul and the Constitution Party

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

I don’t know how long it’s going to take before the past views and associations of new Republican superstar Rand Paul all come to light, but he’s currently on track to serve as the living link between all sorts of older forms of radical conservatism and the contemporary Tea Party movement. Indeed, it appears that his Lester Maddox-ish instincts about the supremacy of private property rights could be the least of his problems. Now it transpires that just last year he was guest speaker at an event held by the Constitution Party.

Now this is hardly a surprise, since his old man has long been friends with CP founder Howard Phillips, and endorsed that party’s presidential candidate in 2008. But most people don’t know much about the CP, which combines limited-government conservatism with the peculiar doctrines of Christian Reconstructionists, for which a simpler term is Theocrats. And no, I’m not using “Theocrats” as an insult, but as a technical description of what they support.

Here, right off the Constitution Party’s web page, are the opening words of its party platform:

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

What the Constitution Party means by “Constitutional boundaries” is made clearer in the later sections of its platform, particularly this section:

Social Security is a form of individual welfare not authorized in the Constitution.The Constitution grants no authority to the federal government to administrate a Social Security system. The Constitution Party advocates phasing out the entire Social Security program, while continuing to meet the obligations already incurred under the system.

Do you suppose Rand Paul would like to go on Rachel Maddow’s show and discuss the constitutionality of Social Security or the Dominion of Jesus Christ and His Believers over the United States? Probably not. Theocracy and abolishing Social Security don’t poll well. And maybe he doesn’t actually believe this stuff, but simply enjoys the company of extremists.

But Paul does not have some sort of inherent right to pose as a victim when he own words and his own associations come back to haunt him. And I suspect we are just at the tip of that particular iceberg.

This item is cross-posted from The Democratic Strategist.

Whitman Fade Is For Real

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Last week I did a post asking if it was actually possible that California Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, who’s on course to break every national record for spending in a state political race, could actually lose her primary. Now one of the more respected California polling outfits has weighed in, and yes, Whitman’s in some trouble, though still ahead.

According to the Public Policy Institute of California, Whitman’s 61-11 lead over Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner in March has dropped to 38-29, with the undecided vote actually going up to 31%. With less than three weeks left to go until the June 8 primary, Whitman’s spending total for the cycle is now up to $68 million (!), and Poizner’s dropped $24 million himself in a much shorter period of time. It is very, very difficult to watch television in California right now without heavy exposure to constant back-and-forth attack ads from these two candidates.

I’ve written the contest up over at FiveThirtyEight for anyone who’s interested. The bottom line is that the Whitman-Poizner battle is good news for Democratic candidate Jerry Brown, and if Poizner’s immigrant-bashing message prevails or forces Whitman to emulate it, it could have long-term repercussions for party politics in the Golden State.

This item is cross-posted from The Democratic Strategist.

How Does Kerry-Lieberman Stack Up Under the Cheat Sheet

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Factory Pollution Over the past few weeks, we’ve written a series of posts here detailing the issues that make up climate policy. The result is a climate policy cheat sheet of sorts: a list of these issues, divided into categories based on our view of their importance. Now that the Kerry-Lieberman draft bill has been released, we can use the list of issues to analyze it. Other summaries of the bill are out there, but we hope this one is simple and accessible enough to be useful to non-experts (this is the same goal we had for the cheat sheet itself). While we clearly have a policy preference—the greatest emissions reduction at the lowest cost—we don’t want to analyze or criticize the bill here; we just want to describe it. Other than the preferences and opinions implicit in our issue categories, we’re just giving you the facts here. We hope that sparks debate (even if it’s unlikely to convince you to tackle reading the 1000-page bill itself).

The Kerry-Lieberman Cheat Sheet

Category I Issues: What’s Essential for a Good Climate Bill

1. Does it create a price on carbon?
In short, yes. Kerry-Lieberman creates a cap-and-trade system that effectively sets a price on carbon emissions — but not all emissions are subject to the price, and those that are may not be included immediately.

2. How much of US emissions are covered by that price?

Initially, in 2013, the bill includes only the electricity and refining sectors within the cap-and-trade system. Transportation is included under the cap as well, but allowances must be bought by producers and importers — they aren’t auctioned. Large industrial facilities are included after 2016. Agricultural emissions aren’t included, but some reductions there can qualify as offsets.

In total, around 80 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are capped, but different sectors are treated differently. Not all sectors are part of the same market.

3. What is the path of emissions reduction set by the cap?

The emissions cap in the bill would decline over time, and would result in emissions reductions of 4.75 percent by 2013, 17 percent by 2020, 42 percent by 2030, and 83 percent by 2050.

Category II Issues:  What’s Important for a Good Climate Bill

1. How are emissions allowances allocated?

Allowances are allocated by a mixture of gratis allocation and auctions. In the first years of the program, the majority of allocations are given away to industries and various research efforts, while some allowances are auctioned and the revenue generated is used to compensate consumers. By 2030, auctions are used to distribute 75 percent of allowances. A full breakdown of the allowance allocations is available here.

2. How are the public revenues from climate policy spent?

Revenues from auctions will be spent to benefit the public in a number of ways. Kerry-Lieberman directs the majority of auction revenues towards assisting low-income consumers, supporting the Highway Trust Fund, and rebating all consumers, though those provisions do not kick in until later years of the program. In the short term, allowances are given away to local electric and gas utilities with the requirement that the revenues generated be used to reduce the impact of the carbon price on consumers.

3. Are banking and borrowing allowed?

The bill allows for both banking and borrowing. Firms can bank an unlimited amount of allowances. There is also no limit when borrowing allowances from the next calendar year’s allocations. If firms want to borrow from future years, they may do so up to five years ahead, but they can only borrow up to 15 percent of their total allocation for the year in which they are borrowing. Additionally, any borrowed allowances accrue 8 percent interest.

Category III Issues: What’s Negotiable for a Good Climate Bill

1. Is there a price collar?

Yes. The price floor is set at $12 and increases annually at 3 percent above inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index. The price ceiling is initially set at $25 and increases annually at 5 percent above inflation.

2. Are offsets allowed?

Offset are allowed. Similar to Waxman-Markey, regulated parties may use up to 2 billion offset credits to be in compliance. At the outset of the program, 75 percent of offset credits must come from domestic sources and up to 25 percent can come from international sources. If regulators determine the supply of domestic offsets is not enough to meet initial proportions, then international offsets may increase up to 50 percent of the total supply. After 2018, 1.25 actual international offset credits are equal to 1 emission allowance. The US Department of Agriculture has primary oversight of domestic offsets.

3. What are the effects on international negotiations and trade-vulnerable industries?

The bill maintains the United States’ previously stated commitment to reduce its emissions by 17 percent of 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. It includes some funding provisions in the form of allowance allocations for international adaptation efforts. Trade-vulnerable industries’ entry under the cap is delayed until 2016 and they are given rebates in the form of 15 percent of all allowances from 2016 to 2025. The bill also expands current clean energy manufacturing tax credit programs by $5 billion and it establishes a WTO-compatible border adjustment to be instituted sometime after 2020, dependent on presidential and congressional findings.

Category IV Issues: What’s Not Important for a Good Climate Bill

1. Is a renewable portfolio standard set?

No. There is no federal standard, though states are permitted to keep or implement them.

2. Is existing EPA authority to regulate GHGs preempted?

Generally, yes. The Clean Air Act authority that the EPA currently has to regulate stationary sources is preempted. The EPA would keep its authority to regulate vehicles, the only part of its authority it has used to date for greenhouse gases. The EPA could still set performance standards for industrial sources not included under the cap, but to date the EPA has shown no interest in regulating these smaller sources.

3. Are state GHG regulations preempted?

State cap-and-trade programs would be preempted by the bill, though states with such programs and emitters subject to them would receive credit. Other state-level regulations are not preempted. In principle, states could implement renewable portfolio standards, performance standards, or even a carbon tax.

4. Are allowance markets closed to Wall Street?

The allowance trading market would be regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the regulatory restrictions in the bill are extensive. Markets are, however, open in principle to parties other than emitters themselves if they are “necessary for a liquid and well-functioning market”. Carbon derivatives are allowed but tightly regulated. Short-selling of allowances is prohibited.

5. Does the bill promote energy security?

The bill would increase investment in new nuclear power plants with loan guarantees and an expedited regulatory review process.

The bill would also create incentives to expand offshore oil and gas drilling, with 37.5 percent of royalty revenues directed to states that permit drilling. States would, however, retain veto rights over drilling within 75 miles of their coast and in other circumstances where they can show they would be significantly affected.

Photo credit: Uwe Hermann / CC BY-NC 2.0

A Few Post-Primary Thoughts

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

I don’t have too much to add to J.P. Green‘s analysis of the May 18 primaries. But here are a few thoughts:

  1. Blanche Lincoln failed to win without a runoff because she didn’t do nearly well enough in her old House district (the 1st, which is NE Arkansas) to offset a virtual drubbing in the 4th CD (southern Arkansas). She actually won Pulaski County (Little Rock), Bill Halter’s home town, very comfortably, and won throughout NW Arkansas. Since my own pre-primary analysis suggested that a large undecided African-American vote might be the key, it’s worth noting that the 4th and 1st districts have, respectively, the highest, 24 percent, and next highest, 19 percent, African-American population percentages. Without exit polls or precinct level data, it’s hard to say this is why Lincoln failed to win, but it looks like that might be the case, particularly since the black vote was tilting towards Halter in pre-primary polls. If so, this could be a danger sign for Halter in the runoff, since African-Americans traditionally don’t participate in southern runoff elections in anything like a proportionate manner. Otherwise, the runoff dynamics definitely favor the challenger, particularly if labor’s financial involvement on Halter’s behalf continues.
  2. The CW is that in Jack Conway KY Democrats nominated the stronger candidate against Rand Paul. That could well be true, though Dan Mongiardo’s regional strength in Eastern Kentucky, a traditionally Republican area where hard-core conservatives often struggle, might have posed some special problems for Paul.
  3. In retrospect, Arlen Specter’s long Senate career has been a continuing minor miracle. This is a guy who has managed over the course of decades to deeply alienate both liberals and conservatives, and he’s also known as one of the least attractive personalities in Washington, which is saying a lot. To survive after a party-switch would have been truly incredible.

This item is cross-posted from The Democratic Strategist.

Boehner Still Struggling with National Security

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

John Boehner at Press ConferenceHow’s this for nerve? At a press conference on May 6, Republican Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner of Ohio accused the Obama administration of relying on “luck” to keep America safe. But Boehner’s own recipe for national security is based on even less. Rather than engage the White House in a constructive dialogue on how best to protect the nation, Boehner chose to throw political rotten tomatoes. His gamesmanship is a disturbing reminder that the House minority leader cares more about winning elections than keeping the country safe.

Amazingly, Boehner chose to lob his rhetorical garbage in the wake of the successful manhunt for would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad. Ignoring the incredibly efficient work of America’s defense, security, and law enforcement agencies, Boehner charged the administration with operating “without a real, comprehensive plan to confront and defeat the terrorist threat.”

But clearly Boehner doesn’t have a clue of just how hard the administration has been working. Earlier this year, the Department of Defense issued its Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). And in a few weeks, the White House will release its National Security Strategy. This may come as a shock to Boehner, but the QDR — led by Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, a Republican himself — and the National Security Strategy actually are the administration’s “comprehensive plans”.

Maybe Boehner missed it because he was too busy coming up with his own “plan.” Boehner actually did convene something called the National Security Solutions Group, a caucus of 18 Republicans that was supposed “to develop solutions to the current and future threats.” But to date, Boehner’s clique looks more like political theater than substantive intellect — it hasn’t issued a single new idea. And the QDR makes Boehner’s group look out-of-date, insufficient, and redundant anyway.

Perhaps Boehner failed to offer security ideas at his press conference because he lacked the confidence that any of his own might actually work. With a national security track record like Boehner’s, he probably calculated that it would be best to insult and run, rather that defend the policies he has supported in the past.

Exhibit A of Boehner’s policy stinkers? Invading Iraq.

Since that one didn’t turn out to be the cakewalk that Boehner, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush originally planned, it’s understandable why he might be gun shy about forwarding new ideas. Indeed, Boehner remains so obsessed by Iraq that his website — as of this writing — continues to insist that Iraq, not Osama Bin Laden’s home in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, is “the central front of a global war [on terror].” Never mind that al Qaeda only came to Iraq after America did.

Then there’s Boehner’s odd belief that the administration’s decision to reorient missile defense — a policy supported by Secretary Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — comes at the expense of America’s allies. So how do those allies actually feel? Just fine, it turns out. Take it from Radoslaw Sikorski, Poland’s Foreign Minister, who said in the first week of May that “Polish-American relations are solid” and that Poland “rather like[s] the new version better than the previous one” of missile defense.

Boehner also sided with Dick Cheney in endorsing torture. General David Petraeus had a different view, saying torture was “neither useful nor necessary” and calling on America to “occupy the moral high ground.”

The fact is that John Boehner has been consistently wrong about which policies keep America safe. He’s reckless and out-of-touch with the national security landscape of the 21st century and more concerned with winning elections than stopping terrorism. His catcalls at the Obama administration only distract attention from the serious national security challenges America continues to face.

John Boehner is right that we need more than luck to defeat terrorism. We need national leaders to rise above empty rhetoric to protect the country in a bi-partisan manner. Unfortunately, Boehner is not acting like one of those leaders.

Photo credit: republicanconference / CC BY-NC 2.0

In Oregon, Signs of the Clean Energy Future

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

A fascinating experiment is unfolding in the nation’s Northwest, where a candidate for governor of Oregon is campaigning against politics itself. In a recent visit to Washington, D.C., John Kitzhaber, a medical doctor by training who served two terms as governor of Oregon from 1995 to 2003, discussed his approach to his third campaign. Wearing a blazer, his trademark sunrise tie and boots, Kitzhaber described his desire to run a wonky campaign that would be mostly about policy — especially clean energy, the subject of PPI’s E3 Initiative.

“I’m in a position in my life where I don’t need to do this,” the 63-year old Kitzhaber said. “I’m not running a typical slash-and-burn campaign.” Kitzhaber has followed through so far, in a few short months churning out some thoughtful policy papers on job creation, energy and health care.

Of particular interest is his focus on energy. In Oregon — a state that already places a great emphasis on clean energy — Kitzhaber said he sees an opportunity to “recreate the political center.” Oregon has been leading on mining “negawatts” for over three decades. As Kitzhaber’s energy plan notes, “The economic and environmental returns on these investments have been even greater: ‘new’ energy supplies from efficiency savings cost one-half to one-third that of new power plants, emit no carbon or other pollution, and don’t jeopardize fish runs. Energy efficiency has been the single largest new resource for the region since 1980.”

Oregon’s existing targets are already ambitious: 25 percent renewables by 2025, and reducing greenhouse gases to 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 75 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. However, Oregon currently lacks a comprehensive strategic plan for all these goals.

At the D.C. meeting, Kitzhaber observed that Oregon spends $12 billion a year on energy, but 85 percent leaves the state. As governor, he promised to begin with large-scale energy retrofits, including public buildings, where he thought 25 percent of energy could be quickly reduced, freeing up capital and creating good jobs in the process. “We need to view a KWh saved just the same we view one created,” he said.

This approach would put Kitzhaber squarely in line with the Obama administration, which in a series of largely unheralded victories, has used stimulus funds to turn the ocean liner of America’s domestic energy practices toward a sunnier horizon.

Whether or not Kitzhaber wins, it seems clear that there’s a trend here among certain states to push the green envelope. In Massachusetts, Governor Deval Patrick and Secretary of Energy and Environment Ian Bowles have paved the way in pushing an integrated, regional approach to clean energy and demonstrating clear results, as PPI recently highlighted with an event in Boston with local economic leaders.

In these partisan times, and with the recently released Kerry-Lieberman bill, these are all promising signs that clean energy really can be about policy, not politics.

Mollohan Defeated

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

So, just three days after Utah’s long-time Republican Sen. Bob Bennett was denied re-nomination, long-time Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia suffered the same fate, though in his case it was in a primary where he received only 44 percent of the vote against 56 percent for state senator Mike Oliverio. Mollohan had been in office for 28 years after succeeding his father, who held the seat for 14 years before that. Now that’s some serious incumbency!

While it’s natural to link the Bennett and Mollohan defeats to a similar anti-incumbency trend, that’s a bit misleading. Bennett’s problems were clearly ideological in nature. Mollohan’s biggest problem was ethics; he’s been the subject of multiple investigations of conflict-of-interest allegations in his role as an Appropriations subcommittee chairman, and Oliverio’s campaign called him “one of the most corrupt members of Congress.”

With Republicans considering Mollohan an especially ripe target, it’s possible that Oliverio’s win will make the seat an slightly easier hold for Democrats.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Could Meg Whitman Lose Her Primary?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

After spending upwards of $60 million, much of it lately on attack ads against her Republican primary rival, Steve Poizner, California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman appears to have lost most of a large lead over Poizner and is heading towards the June 8 balloting in an astonishingly vulnerable position.

A new Survey USA poll out this week shows eMeg leading Poizner 39 percent/37 percent, a 20-point net swing in Poizner’s favor since the previous SUSA survey in April. Even if you are skeptical about the accuracy of SUSA’s robo-polls, California political cognoscenti all seem to agree that Poizner is closing fast.

This is significant beyond the borders of California for at least four reasons. The first and most obvious is that Whitman’s epic spending on early television ads doesn’t seem to be doing her a lot of good. If she winds up becoming the new Al Checchi — the 1998 Democratic gubernatorial candidate who broke all previous spending records on heavily negative ads and then got drubbed in his primary — it will be an object lesson to self-funders everywhere.

The second reason a Whitman defeat or near-defeat would resonate broadly is that it would confirm the rightward mood of Republicans even in a state where they are reputedly more moderate. At this point, both Poizner and Whitman are constantly calling each other “liberals,” with Poizner, who’s running ads featuring conservative GOP avatar Tom McClintock, getting the better of that particular argument. Whitman would have undoubtedly preferred to have kept closer to the political center in preparation for a tough general election campaign against Jerry Brown. But Poizner is forcing her to compete for the True Conservative mantle in a very conspicuous way.

Third, there are signs that Poizner is also forcing Whitman — and by implication, the entire California Republican Party — to risk a repetition of the 1990s-era GOP alienation of Latino voters by endorsing harsh immigration measures. This has been a signature issue for Poizner from the beginning; he supports bringing back Proposition 187 — the 1994 ballot measure pushed by then-Gov. Pete Wilson that is widely interpreted as having destroyed California’s Republican majority by making the state’s huge Latino population a reliable and overwhelming Democratic constituency. Poizner has also lavishly praised the new Arizona immigration law. Having tried to ignore the issue initially, Whitman is now running radio ads in which Pete Wilson (her campaign chairman) touts her determination to fight illegal immigration. If those ads migrate to broadcast TV, it’s a sure bet that Whitman is panicking, and that monolithic Latino support for Brown in the general election is a real possibility. And if that can happen in California, where immigrant-bashing is so obviously perilous, it can certainly happen in other parts of the country.

Finally, it’s worth noting that aside from immigration, the issue on which Poizner seems to be gaining traction is the attention he’s devoted to Whitman’s involvement with Goldman Sachs. She was on the firm’s board for a number of years, and earned a very large amount of money from an insider practice — then legal, now illegal — called “spinning,” which she nows says she “regrets.” Poizner’s having a lot of fun with this issue, and the California Democratic Party is chipping in with an ad ostensibly promoting financial reform in Washington that is mainly aimed at Whitman. Lesson to would-be-business-executive-candidates: some kinds of private-sector experience are not helpful to your candidacy in the current climate.

It’s worth noting that there’s another major statewide GOP primary going on in California, involving another female former-business-executive who gained national attention through involvement in the McCain presidential campaign. That would be Carly Fiorina, who is running for the Senate nomination to oppose Barbara Boxer, but is struggling to catch up with an opponent, Tom Campbell, who really does have a moderate repuation, at least on abortion and same-sex marriage. And one of Fiorina’s main problems is a third candidate, Chuck DeVore, who’s running hard as the True Conservative in the race. Fiorina has recently wheeled out endorsements from Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum. All three major GOP Senate candidates have endorsed the Arizona immigration law. The outcome of this race, and where the competition positions the winner, could also have a fateful impact on the general election and on the future of California politics.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/farber/ / CC BY-NC 2.0