Paul Krugman Lets Democrats Off Too Easily on Food Stamp Cuts

In his op-ed this morning in the Times, Paul Krugman condemned Congressional Republicans for cutting food stamps amidst a still depressed economy. He highlighted how the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has helped many families--and especially children--stay afloat during the recession.  Extolling their utility in hard times, he affirmed, "Food stamps have played an especially useful — indeed, almost heroic — role in recent years."

And food stamps don't just help struggling families: they also help the economy as a whole:

Indeed, estimates from the consulting firm Moody’s Analytics suggest that each dollar spent on food stamps in a depressed economy raises G.D.P. by about $1.70 — which means, by the way, that much of the money laid out to help families in need actually comes right back to the government in the form of higher revenue.

By alleviating the crisis of child poverty, they also mark an important investment in the future:

Wait, we’re not done yet. Food stamps greatly reduce food insecurity among low-income children, which, in turn, greatly enhances their chances of doing well in school and growing up to be successful, productive adults. So food stamps are in a very real sense an investment in the nation’s future — an investment that in the long run almost surely reduces the budget deficit, because tomorrow’s adults will also be tomorrow’s taxpayers.

As always, Krugman makes excellent points.  However, in the rest of his article, he lays the blame solely on Republicans, particularly House Republicans. If only. 

The House version of the farm bill, which cuts a disquieting $20.5 billion over ten years from SNAP, passed out of Committee by a vote of 36-10.  There are 25 Republicans and 21 Democrats on the farm bill.  That means that fewer than half of the Democratic members on the Committee voted against the bill.  It would have passed without any Democratic support, but 11 Democrats couldn't even bring themselves to engage in symbolic opposition to the destructive bill.

Moreover, Krugman focused on the House while ignoring the Senate, which is still in Democratic control. The Senate version of the farm bill doesn't cut SNAP as much as the House bill does, but it still cuts from the program at a time of great need. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) is currently the head of the Ag Committee in the Senate, and she was in charge of drafting the bill, which currently cuts $4.1 billion from food stamps over ten years.  The Democrats, obviously, are the majority in the Ag Committee and could have held their ground much more firmly.  Rather, as Democrats so often do, Stabenow has expressed a willingness to accept even steeper cuts to the program.

Senate Democrats had a chance to restore the funding to SNAP.  Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) put forth an amendment that would have restored SNAP funding by reducing crop insurance reimbursement (i.e. farm subsidies), protecting social welfare by reducing corporate welfare.  It failed 70-26, not even achieving a majority of the Democratic caucus.  Don't worry, though, we'll still keep subsidizing tobacco and artificially inflating the price of sugar so that food manufacturers turn to HFCS instead.

I admit that Senate Republicans are much worse.  Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) put forth an amendment that would have slashed SNAP funding further and turned it into a block grant program.  Thankfully, that failed 36-60.  Republicans, unlike Democrats, also have a fierce ideological opposition to the very existence of SNAP; you won't hear Democrats going on diatribes about "takers" (even though they deliver their paeans to the free market, too).  However, that still doesn't vindicate the Democrats.  It's one thing to have bad principles; it's another to have no principles at all.

Who Supports Universal Health Care?--Parsing the Demographics of the CNN Health Care Poll

Yesterday, I posted a diary on the recent CNN/ORC International poll on the health care bill, highlighting the unfortunate ubiquity of misleading reporting on the results.  News sites--and not just Politico which I highlighted--lumped together those who oppose the Affordable Care Act from the left and those who oppose it from the right when a more accurate presentation of results would identify what I call the universal health caucus--the support/strengthen constituency. I would assume (I hope correctly) many of the bill's supporters would likewise support a stronger bill and may believe the bill is more far-reaching and inclusive than it, in fact, is.

I wanted to dig deeper into the demographic breakdown yesterday, but I could not get the link to the poll results to work at the time.  Thankfully, the link now works.  Going into it, I was particularly curious about the demographics of the respondents who thought the bill was "not liberal enough"; however, I will go through all of the contingents here.

First of all, I would like to point out what I call "the case of the missing 3 percent."  CNN's poll has two questions, one that covers overall support/opposition and the more thorough one I addressed above.

The general question reads as follows:

As you may know, a bill that makes major changes to the country's health care system became law in 2010. Based on what you have read or heard about that legislation, do you generally favor or generally oppose it?

43% said they support it, 54% said they oppose it, and 3% have no opinion. 

To get a more accurate reading on public opinion, CNN asked this follow-up:

Do you oppose that legislation because you think its approach toward health care is too liberal, or because you think it is not liberal enough?

Along with the 43% supporters, 35% said that the bill is "too liberal," and 16% said it is "not liberal enough."  7% had no opinion. 

If you add up the opposition 35 + 16, you only get 51%; however, the top line for opposition was 54%.  Apparently, 3% of these folks moved from opposition to no opinion; I would consider the rest of the difference to be a product of rounding. What gives?  "I don't like it, but I have no reasons for not liking it"?

I find it somewhat problematic that the question was divided into two distinct parts.  For instance, I would have wanted a much stronger bill that actually achieved the goal of universal insurance (such as a single payer system); however, if I were asked the general favor/oppose question, I would probably hesitate unless I knew I had the opportunity to qualify my opposition.

Also, as we know, polls should often be taken with somewhat of a grain of salt; the margin of error is +/- 8 percent.  However, the endurance of the trends gives the poll more credibility.

GENDER

A majority of both men and women fall in the support/strengthen caucus as I defined it above, and, as should come as little surprise, women are more likely than men to favor the bill as is and to oppose it for not being liberal enough.

44% of women favor the bill, and 18% oppose it for not being liberal enough. 30% oppose it for being too liberal.  Universal health care caucus: 62-30

41% of men favor the bill, and 13% oppose it for not being liberal enough. 40% oppose it for being too liberal.  Universal health care caucus: 54-40

RACE/ETHNICITY

There is--unfortunately if not unsurprisingly--a large gap between whites and non-whites in support for the bill and for universal health care overall.

35% of whites favor the bill, and 15% oppose it for not being liberal enough. 43% oppose it for being too liberal.  Universal health care caucus: 50-43

60% of non-whites favor the bill, and 17% oppose it for not being liberal enough. 17% oppose it for being too liberal.  Universal health care caucus: 77-17

AGE

Among the various age groups, young people (18-34) are the strongest supporters of the bill, and seniors (65+) are the most likely to oppose it from both directions.  The support/strength caucus declines and the conservative opposition grows with age.

Among the 18-34 crowd, 52% favor the bill, and 13% oppose it for not being liberal enough. 28% oppose it for being too liberal. Universal health care caucus: 65-28

Among the 35-49 crowd, 43% favor the bill, and 15% oppose it for not being liberal enough. 37% oppose it for being too liberal.  Universal health care caucus: 58-37

Among the 50-64 crowd, 40% favor the bill, and 15% oppose it for not being liberal enough.  38% oppose it for being too liberal.  Universal health care caucus: 55-38

Among seniors, only 31% favor the bill, and 22% oppose it for not being liberal enough.  39% oppose it for being too liberal.  Universal health care caucus: 54-39

INCOME

The poll divided respondents into two income categories: below $50K and above $50K--although it is unclear whether this refers to individual or household income.  Regardless, those in the lower income group were more likely both to favor the bill and to oppose it from the left.

48% of those with incomes under $50K favor the bill, and 21% oppose it for not being liberal enough.  23% oppose it for being too liberal.  Universal health care caucus: 69-23

41% of those with incomes above $50K favor the bill, and 10% oppose it for not being liberal enough. 45% oppose it for being too liberal.  Universal health care caucus: 51-45

I would infer that the income gap here has a strong correlation with people's current insurance status--with those currently comfortably insured less likely to value universal health insurance as a goal.

EDUCATION

The pattern we saw in income occurs in the education category as well.  CNN divides the respondents into two groups: No College and Attended College. (No distinctions are made among "some college," "undergraduate degree," and "postgraduate degree.")

42% of those with no college background favor the bill, and 26% oppose it for not being liberal enough.  25% oppose it for being too liberal.  Universal health care caucus: 68-25

43% of those who attended college favor the bill, and 8% oppose it for not being liberal enough. 43% oppose it for being too liberal.  Universal health care caucus: 51-43

POLITICAL AFFILIATION

As we would expect, almost all Democrats are in our universal health care caucus--joined by a majority of independents. Democrats, strangely enough, are not the most likely to oppose the bill from the left.

72% of Democrats favor the bill, and 14% oppose it for not being liberal enough.  10% oppose it for being too liberal.  Universal health care caucus: 86-10

36% of Independents favor the bill, and 17% oppose it for not being liberal enough.  36% oppose it for being too liberal.  Universal health care caucus: 53-36

16% of Republicans favor the bill, and 14% oppose it for not being liberal enough. [These Republicans fascinate me.] 67% oppose it for being too liberal.  Universal health care caucus loses 30-67

The patterns are similar across the categories of political identity (rather than affiliation); however, the "moderate" category will trend more toward the left because of the number of self-described moderate Democrats.  Interestingly, moderates, not liberals, are the most likely to oppose the bill from the left in this poll.

68% of liberals favor the bill, and 12% oppose it for not being liberal enough. 8% oppose it for being too liberal. [Who are these people, and why do they call themselves liberals?]  Universal health care caucus: 80-8

47% of moderates favor the bill, and 21% oppose it for not being liberal enough.  27% oppose it for being too liberal.  Universal health care caucus: 68-27

25% of conservatives favor the bill, and 10% oppose it for not being liberal enough.  [Who are these conservatives who think it's not liberal enough?  They fascinate me.  I have, however, come across conservative defenses of single payer which stress its fiscal responsibility.] 59% oppose it for being too liberal.  Universal health care caucus loses: 35-59

REGION

As one would expect, the support for the bill is strongest in the Northeast.  It is weakest in the West--probably because the poll takes a very expansive definition of West (everything west of the Mississippi, I'd guess).

53% of Northeasterners favor the bill, and 13% oppose it for not being liberal enough. 25% oppose the bill for being too liberal.  Universal health care caucus: 66-25

48% of Midwesterners favor the bill, and 17% oppose it for not being liberal enough. 24% oppose the bill for being too liberal.  Universal health care caucus: 65-24

38% of Southerners favor the bill, and 17% oppose it for not being liberal enough. 40% oppose the bill for being too liberal.  Universal health care caucus: 55-40

33% of Westerners favor the bill, and 15% oppose it for not being liberal enough. 48% oppose the bill for being too liberal.  Universal health care caucus: 48-48

LOCATION

Unsurprisingly, support for the bill is strongest in urban areas, and conservative opposition is strongest in the suburbs.  Left opposition is strongest in rural areas, meaning that we still have a thriving prairie populist culture.

52% of urbanites favor the bill, and 9% oppose it for not being liberal enough. 33% oppose it for being too liberal.  Universal health care caucus: 61-33

40% of suburbanites favor the bill, and 12% oppose it for not being liberal enough. 42% oppose it for being too liberal.  Universal health care caucus: 52-42

34% of rural Americans favor the bill, and 29% oppose it for not being liberal enough. 32% oppose it for being too liberal.  Universal health care caucus: 63-32

Sorry, Politico, your headline misleads. 59% of the public support ACA or want a stronger bill.

I have griped in the past about how pollsters manipulated the phrasing of questions or the range of choices to get the answers that they seek.  However, I'd like to address a different concern: how media outlets report on the results of such polls.

This morning, Politico featured an article entitled "Poll: 54 percent against Obamacare."

Upon seeing that, you probably immediately thought about how many conservatives oppose the law despite their support of individual provisions and got yourself ready for a refreshing political rant. But, wait, the results leave a different impression than the headline creates.

The CNN/ORC International poll cited presented respondents with three options: (a) they support the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), (b) they oppose it because it is "too liberal" (I would call them the "repeal" crowd), or (c) they oppose it because it "isn't liberal enough" (I would call them the "strengthen" crowd).

A 43% plurality expressed support for the health care bill.  35% opposed the bill because it was "too liberal."  16% opposed the bill because it "isn't liberal enough."

The "not liberal enough" crowd would, I would infer, include those upset about the rejection of the public option, the inherent conservatism of the ACA (I mean, come on, the individual mandate came from the Heritage Foundation, the dismissal of single-payer as even an option despite its effectiveness in Canada, or its failure to achieve fully universal coverage.  This group wanted a stronger health care bill, one that enshrines the right to health found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  Even though I (obviously) oppose the Republican efforts of repeal, if interviewed for such a poll, I would have put myself in the "not liberal enough" category because I think the bill doesn't go far enough, and I would want that view properly represented.

Rather than look at the results in the reductionist framework of support/oppose, I would suggest combining the "support" and "strengthen" categories together because those two groups represent the constituency for universal health care.  Together, then, you have 59%--nearly a super-majority--saying that they think Obamacare should be kept or strengthened. Joining "support" and "strengthen" reminds me of Senator Tom Harkin's description of ACA as a "starter home" for health care reform, noting, "This bill is the beginning of health reform, not the end."

This reminds me of a statistic I read recently about the public's view of health care as a right. Back in 1991, for the bicentennial of the Bill of Rights, the American Bar Association commissioned a poll to test public knowledge and opinion about the Bill of Rights. Although most people couldn't identify the purpose of the Bill of Rights, almost 3 out of 4 said that they would like the Constitution to guarantee adequate health care for all Americans.

I would love to go into more detail about the demographics of support, but the link to the PDF of poll results on CNN doesn't work for me.  Unsurprisingly, however, the demographics that support the ACA are those who voted for Obama:

A majority of younger Americans favor the new health care law; support among other age groups falls as low as 31% among senior citizens. Only a third of whites support the law, compared to six in 10 non-whites. Obamacare also wins majority support in urban areas and in the Northeast, the bluest region of the country.

I would be curious to see the demographics of the "strengthen" crowd.  If the link works for you, feel free to post the info!

Obama Said That He Didn't Agree with Much of What Medea Benjamin Said. Well, What Did She Say?

On Thursday, Obama delivered a speech on U.S. counter-terrorism policy (the GWOT) at the National Defense University. The most memorable parts of the speech were not the words he spoke but rather the interruptions by anti-war activist and CODE PINK founder Medea Benjamin. If you want to read good takes on Obama' speech, I'd recommend this, this, or this.  In essence, my main takeaway was that words are not a policy change because policy change only occurs when you change policies.

I want to address the interaction between Obama and Medea Benjamin. In response to Medea's heckling (or birddogging as I've heard some call it), Obama responded, "The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to. Obviously I do not agree with much of what she said, and obviously she wasn't listening to me and much of what I said. But these are tough issues. And the suggestion that we can gloss over them is wrong."  Medea was listening to what he said because her questions were directed at issues he was clearly evading.  He said that he didn't agree with much of what she said. Let's look at the questions and statements she shouted with which he claimed to disagree.

What about the indefinite detention?

This is a question. One cannot disagree with a question, only its phrasing or its premises. Obama signed the NDAA just a few months ago despite its provisions for indefinite detention, and his oft-cited 2009 plan to close Gitmo would not have ended indefinite detention either. Progressive former senator Russ Feingold voted against it precisely because it did not address that key issue.

What about the 102 hunger strikers?

He can't disagree with that either.  It's a question.  He might only disagree with the premise if he acknowledges that the tally is now 103.

What about the killing of 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki? Why was he killed?

Again, this is a question. He cannot disagree with it as such, and its premise is true:  16 year-old American citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was killed by a U.S. drone.  In his letter to Pat Leahy, Eric Holder claimed that Abdulrahman was not "specifically targeted," but that language seems intentionally vague as Marcy Wheeler and Jeremy Scahill have both explained.

Can you tell the Muslim people their lives are as precious as our lives?

The first and second questions had factual premises and demanded explanations.  This question is different.  One cannot disagree with such a question, per se.  However, saying "I don't agree" would be effectively a "no," a rather disturbing answer.

Can you stop the signature strikes that are killing people on the basis of suspicious activities?

Again, one cannot disagree with a question.  He cannot disagree with its premise either, i.e. that he can stop the signature strikes.  The targets of signature strikes are unidentified; they are merely killed for "suspicious activities."  Think stop-and-frisk, but instead of getting stopped and frisked, you get killed.

Will you apologize to the thousands of Muslims that you have killed?

As this is a yes-or-no question, a disagreement is an effective "no."  The U.S. tends not to like to apologize for the atrocities it commits or facilitates in other countries.

Will you compensate the innocent family victims? That will make us safer here at home.

A question and a statement.  With the former, a disagreement is an effective "no," i.e. that he will not compensate the families of innocent victims.  Ending the drone war or at least taking such actions as compensating the families of innocent civilians could reduce "blowback," making us safer at home.  That statement is true.  Three scholars from the University of Arizona published in article in the Middle East Policy Journal last fall that highlighted five forms of "blowback":

•    Attacks on America targets such as the 2009 Khost bombing of a CIA Camp
• Increased ability of Al Qaeda to recruit new members, particularly those who had loved ones killed in drone attacks
• Decreased U.S. accountability, resulting from control of the drone program oscillating between the CIA and Joint Chiefs of Staff
• Continued destabilization of Yemen
• An increasingly precarious alliance between the American and Yemeni governments

Can you take the drones out of the hands of the CIA?

A disagreement would be an implicit no, but transferring control over the drone program from the CIA to the Pentagon, where there would be more oversight, is entirely within his power.

You are commander-in-chief. You can close Guantanamo today! You can release those 86 prisoners [cleared for release]. It's been 11 years.

Yes, he is commander-in-chief; that is a fact. It is also a fact that Gitmo has been open for 11 years. Although the President often likes putting the blame on Congress, he certainly shares  the burden for the continuation of the moral stain that is Guantanamo Bay Prison.  The executive branch, not Congress, placed the moratorium on transferring prisoners to Yemen.  According to Human Rights First, Obama could have appointed "a high-level White House official with responsibility to ensure timely and effective implementation of the president’s plan to close Guantanamo" at any time.  He could have also--again, at any time-- directed Robert Gates, Leon Panetta, or Chuck Hagel "in concurrence with the secretary of state and in consultation with the director of national intelligence, to certify detainee transfers and issue national security waivers, to the fullest extent possible consistent with applicable law.”

In an op-ed this morning in the NYT, Joe Nocera furthered this argument that Obama has more power to close Guantanamo than he admits: "One reason innocent detainees can’t get out is that the courts have essentially ruled that a president has an absolute right to imprison anyone he wants during a time of war — with no second-guessing from either of the other two branches of government. By the same legal logic, a president can also free any prisoner in a time of war."

I love my country. I love the rule of law.

Since these are statements, one can disagree with them.  A disagreement would either mean that Obama believes that Medea Benjamin does not love her country and the rule of law or that Obama himself does not love his country or the rule of law.  I would infer he means neither; however, the failure of the Department of Justice to bring accountability to the banksters or the Bush administration architects of the torture regime shows that the administration's respect for the rule of law is wanting.  The drone program itself, as it has operated, is also in clear violation of the rule of law.

Abide by the rule of law. You're a constitutional lawyer.

The first part is a command, the second a statement.  The statement is factually true; he cannot disagree.  Does he disagree with her command, i.e., to abide by the rule of law? 

 

Now, Obama may not have actually heard Medea Benjamin's questions and statements. However, it's never wise to disagree with something that you haven't heard.

No, Brad Plumer, Fixing the Economy First is not the Best Way to Pass a Climate Bill

When journalists report on the results of scientific studies—from social sciences like economics and psychology to physical sciences like biology—they often overstate the results and draw far more general conclusions that the study results themselves warrant.  At times, such exaggeration stems from the decisions of copy editors who seek attention-grabbing titles.

Earlier this week, in the Washington Post's Wonkblog, Brad Plumer had an article entitled "What’s the best way to pass a climate bill? Fix the economy first."  Thankfully, he took a more measured tone in the article itself; however, the title draws conclusions that the study presented and the current facts on the ground do not fully support.

In it, he cited the work of University of Oregon professor Grant Jacobsen, who analyzed the voting records of 296 senators between 1976 and 2008.  He matched the local unemployment rate in the senators' respective states with the "green scores" they achieved in the annual report card released by the League of Conservation Voters.

The result? “A one point increase in the [state] unemployment rate leads to a statistically significant 0.48 point decline in the LCV score of the average senator.”
This was true for senators in both parties, although conservatives saw a steeper decline. Incumbent Republicans saw their green scores fall by 0.83 percentage points, on average, for every one-point rise in local unemployment. Incumbent Democrats saw their scores fall by an average of 0.29 points.

Jacobsen also tried to figure out what would happen if unemployment hadn't risen throughout this period. He estimated that if each state had stayed at its lowest observed unemployment rate, “then the proportion of [Senate] votes taking the environmentally favorable outcome would have increased from 36% to 41%.”

In other words, even if unemployment hadn't risen, environmentally favorable votes would have still been a minority--and not a close one--of the Senate votes on environmental issues.  Looking more recently, the LCV scorecard for the House in 2012 was 42%; for the Senate, it was 56%.  In both cases, these scores roughly equal the percentage of the respective body in the Democratic caucus, interestingly enough--presumably as the worse Democrats and better Republicans and the good Democrats and awful Republicans cancel each other out. 

The shift in scores discussed by the study, although statistically significant, are still small, considering LCV scores follow a 0-100 scale, and we must also note that the LCV covers a wide array of environmental issues, not just climate change.  Because of regional interests, some senators may vote well on a handful of environmental topics and abysmally on others.

Seeing this study made me curious about the relationship between unemployment and pro-environment votes.  You can look at that data either longitudinally (as the study did) or latitudinally.

For a latitudinal analysis (across states at the same time), you can consider the question of whether the senators of states with lower unemployment rates tend to vote in a more pro-environment way.
Let's look at the LCV ratings for 2012 of the Senators of the states with the lowest unemployment rates and those with the highest unemployment rates.  The unemployment stats below are the average monthly unemployment from 2012 for each state.

Lowest Unemployment
(1) North Dakota ---  Unemployment rate: 3.1%    --- Avg. LCV Score: 50%
(2) Nebraska       ---  Unemployment rate: 3.9% --- Avg. LCV Score: 35.5%
(3) South Dakota ---  Unemployment rate: 4.4% --- Avg. LCV Score: 57%
(4) Vermont        ---  Unemployment rate: 5.0% --- Avg. LCV Score: 100%
(5) Iowa            ---  Unemployment rate: 5.2% --- Avg. LCV Score: 52%
(5) Oklahoma    ---  Unemployment rate: 5.2% --- Avg. LCV Score: 10.5%
(7) Wyoming       ---  Unemployment rate: 5.3% --- Avg. LCV Score: 7%
(8) New Hampshire - Unemployment rate: 5.4% --- Avg. LCV Score: 64.5%
(9) Minnesota   ---   Unemployment rate: 5.6% --- Avg. LCV Score: 93%
(10) Utah            --- Unemployment rate: 5.7% --- Avg. LCV Score: 7%

The average LCV score for the senators in the states with the 10 lowest unemployment rates is 49.55%.

Highest Unemployment
(41) Michigan    ---  Unemployment rate: 8.85% ---   Avg. LCV Score: 93%
(42) Illinois       ---   Unemployment rate: 8.86% ---  Avg. LCV Score: 82%*
(43) Georgia      ---  Unemployment rate: 8.95% ---  Avg. LCV Score: 7.5%
(43) South Carolina - Unemployment rate: 8.95% --- Avg. LCV Score: 14%
(44) Mississippi    --- Unemployment rate: 9.0% ---   Avg. LCV Score: 25%
(45) New Jersey  --- Unemployment rate: 9.4% ---   Avg. LCV Score: 96.5%
(47) North Carolina - Unemployment rate: 9.5% ---   Avg. LCV Score: 46.5%
(48) California      -- Unemployment rate: 10.5% ---  Avg. LCV Score: 100%
(49) Rhode Island  -  Unemployment rate: 10.8% --- Avg. LCV Score: 100%
(50) Nevada    ---    Unemployment rate: 11.5% --- Avg. LCV Score: 53.5%

*I used Kirk's lifetime score because he was out for 2012.

The average LCV score for the senators of the 10 states with the highest unemployment rates is 61.8%.

In other words, across states at the same time, low unemployment rates don't necessarily translate to more environmentally-friendly voting behaviors. (It is possible, however, that a more comprehensive analysis, listing each variable on a separate axis and determining the line of regression, could prove a correlation; however, it does not appear to be a strong one.)

We can also consider the relationship between unemployment and pro-environment votes within a state over time.  If my tallies are correct, 65 Senators had a "green score" for 2012 greater than or equal to their historical average, and 34 Senators had a "green score" less than their historical average.  This occurred during an economic recession.  One year does not a trend make, and they very well might veer from the overall line of regression developed in Jacobsen's study.  However, that fact still challenges the logic of the "just fix the economy to get environmental votes"  recommendation. And considering the gridlock that we currently see in Congress, economic stimulus seems to be about as little of a priority to them as climate.

The "fix the economy first" claim downplays the employment dynamics in the various states that end up affecting how Senators vote, even though Plumer briefly addresses this fact.  Take, for instance, North Dakota, which is currently near full employment.  North Dakota's low unemployment rate is in large part a result of the state's oil boom.

According to Bloomberg Economic Evaluation of States data, North Dakota's economy has outpaced every state since the "technical" end of the recession in 2009, with the fastest growth in personal income, tax revenue, job creation, and home prices.  That job growth has likely made North Dakota's senators less likely to support climate action because the key industry for their state's growth is one of the main drivers of climate change. It should come as no surprise that John Hoeven (R-ND) is one of the most vocal advocates for the Keystone XL pipeline.

Do you think that the fracking boom in Pennsylvania is going to make Senator Bob Casey, let alone Club for Growth-er Pat Toomey, more likely to vote for a climate bill that shifts us off fossil fuels?
Would the jobs created by Obama's expansion of offshore drilling make Gulf state senators like Mary Landrieu more likely to vote for a climate bill?

Of course not.

We must abandon the cliched "economy vs. environment" frame if we are to address the problem of climate change with the requisite urgency.  For one, it is not borne out by the facts:  the economic benefits of EPA regulations greatly outweigh their costs.   A far-reaching, comprehensive climate plan would also have to entail considerable public investment in labor re-training, infrastructure, energy, etc, and infrastructure spending has a more significant return on investment than other forms of government spending, such as defense, and would bring economic benefits.

As I noted earlier, even if we were at full employment, many senators--because of powerful state industries or their own ideology--would be hesitant to back a climate bill.  The climate bill from 2009/2010 failed back when the Democrats had a stronger majority in the Senate, and it only passed the House because a handful of Republicans crossed party lines to support it.  An improved economy would facilitate the passage of a climate bill only if the economy rebounded so much that it helped the Democrats have a landslide victory in 2014 elections; that's a great wish, but not a likely reality.
Climate change action in the near future will have to come from the White House, not the Senate or the House.  Last week, the NYT Editorial Board made the same assertion and laid out some of the executive actions the President could take to address climate change.  The Times highlighted three in particular:

As this page has noted, it is possible to adopt a robust climate strategy based largely on executive actions. The most important of these is to invoke the E.P.A.’s authority under the Clean Air Act to limit pollution from stationary industrial sources, chiefly the power plants that account for almost 40 percent of the country’s carbon emissions. The agency is reworking a proposed rule to limit emissions from new power plants. A more complex but no less necessary task is to devise rules for existing power plants, which cannot be quickly shuttered without endangering the country’s power supply, but which can be made more efficient or phased out over time.

Mr. Obama can also order the E.P.A. to curb the enormous leakage of methane, a potent global warming agent, from gas wells and the pipes that bring natural gas to consumers. .....
He can hasten the development of less-polluting alternatives to older-generation refrigerants and other chemicals. He can order the Energy Department to embark on a major program to improve the efficiency of appliances and commercial and residential buildings, which consume a huge chunk of the country’s energy supply. And he can ramp up investment in basic research.

If Obama were to take these actions, he'd be more likely to forge a positive legacy in the eyes of future generations than he would by continuing his misguided attempt for a "Grand Bargain" that would end up harming the economy.

Senate's Sweet Tooth and Tobacco Fix: Farm Bills Produce Strange Bedfellows

Perhaps more than any other bills, the Farm Bill and the NDAA are always great at illuminating the hypocrisy of our elected officials, particularly regarding their trumpeting of "fiscal responsibility," and the farm bill is especially fascinating in its production of strange bedfellows as regional identities sometimes trump ideologies.

I've written two diaries about the farm bill so far, highlighting the noble but failed efforts of Kirsten Gillibrand to restore SNAP funding and of Bernie Sanders to guarantee states the ability to pass GMO labeling laws.  Both of those bills were voted down by large margins, with many oft-progressive senators unfortunately voting against them.

However, now, I thought it would be fun to focus on some of the examples of "strange bedfellow" bills.

Today, the Senate voted on Diane Feinstein's amendment "to prohibit the payment by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation of any portion of the premium for a policy or plan of insurance for tobacco." In other words, our tax dollars shouldn't be subsidizing a product whose dangers to individual and public health the Surgeon General outlined almost five decades ago and which is the leading cause of preventable illness in the country.

DiFi's amendment failed 44-52.  30 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 13 Republicans voted in favor, and 20 Democrats, 31 Republicans, and 1 Independent voted against.

The 13 YEA's of the Republican Caucus:
Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
Dan Coats (R-IN)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Dean Heller (R-NV)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mark Kirk (R-IL)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Toomey (R-PA)

The 32 YEA's of the Democratic Caucus:
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Bob Casey (D-PA)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Mark Udall (D-CO)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Republican NAY's (i.e. those who want to continue subsidizing tobacco)
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Deb Fischer (R-NE)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
John Hoeven (R-ND)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Rob Portman (R-OH)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)
David Vitter (R-LA)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)

And the 20 NAY's of the Democratic Caucus:
Max Baucus (D-MT)
Mark Begich (D-AK)
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Chris Coones (D-DE)
Mo Cowan (D-MA)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Kay Hagan (D-NC)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Angus King (I-ME)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Mark Warner (D-VA)

The top 10 tobacco-producing states are NC, KY, VA, TN, SC, GA, PA, OH, CT, and IN.  However, that can't really explain the cross-over votes. Both PA Senators voted for it, the two CT Dems split, and in Indiana the Republican voted against it.
Now to the Senate's sweet tooth.

Yesterday, Jeanne Shaheen offered an amendment to reform the federal sugar program. Because of the import restrictions, production limitations, and price supports in place to protect domestic sugar producers (e.g. cane sugar and sugar beets) from the world market, sugar in the U.S. is about twice the price of what it is in other countries.  The USDA was recently considering purchasing 400,000 tons of sugar to boost market prices and then selling the sugar to domestic ethanol producers--likely at a loss of $80 million.

Shaheen's amendment, which had received cross-the-aisle sponsorship from Pat Toomey and Mark Kirk, failed 45-54. 20 Democrats and 25 Republicans voted in favor.   32 Democrats, 2 Independents, and 20 Republicans voted no.

The 25 Republican YEA's:
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Dan Coats (R-IN)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Dean Heller (R-NV)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mark Kirk (R-IL)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Rob Portman (R-OH)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Pat Toomey (R-PA)

The 20 Democratic YEA's
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Bob Casey (D-PA)
Chris Coons (D-DE)
Mo Cowan (D-MA)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Mark Warner (D-VA)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

The 20 Republican NAY's
Barrasso (R-WY)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Deb Fischer (R-NE)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
John Hoeven (R-ND)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)
David Vitter (R-LA)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)

34 YEA's of the Democratic Caucus:
Max Baucus (D-MT)
Mark Begich (D-AK)
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Kay Hagan (D-NC)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Angus King (I-ME)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Mark Udall (D-CO)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

In the U.S., sugar beets are grown in California, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming.  Sugar cane is big in Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, and Texas.

Farm bills always reveal hypocrisy on two fronts; they show how hollow the talk of "fiscal responsibility" always is, and they show how although the U.S. encourages neoliberal reforms on agriculture in developing countries, it remains protectionist at home.

Which Democrats Just Voted Against GMO Labeling?

In the ongoing farm bill amendment process, progressive champion Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced an amendment that would guarantee states the right to pass and implement GMO labeling laws.  The statement of purpose for Sanders's amendment reads "to permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient."  Companies like Monsanto have argued that states do not have the right to pass such laws, that only the federal government has that authority.  Sanders's amendment would eliminate that counterargument.

GMO labeling is very popular among the public--and, of course, not popular at all with Big Ag.  In a YouGov poll from two months ago, 82% thought GMO foods should be labeled, with just 9% opposed.

In what should come as no surprise because Congress listens more to industry than to public opinion, the amendment failed.  The vote count was 27-71. Among the 27 supporters were 24 Democrats, 2 Independents, and 1 lone Republican.

Who stood up for consumer rights and sustainable agriculture and voted for Sanders's amendment?
Mark Begich (D-AK)
Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Angus King (I-ME)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

The entire Republican caucus in attendance, save Murkowski (who has been a leader with Begich in fighting industry on the issue of GE fish), voted against it.  One would expect nothing less.  Which Democrats, however, voted against the interests of consumer rights and environmental sustainability?

Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Max Baucus (D-MT)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Bob Casey (D-PA)
Chris Coons (D-DE)
Mo Cowan (D-MA)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Kay Hagan (D-NC)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Mark Udall (D-CO)
Mark Warner (D-VA)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

I was very disappointed with Baldwin, Brown, Franken, Gillibrand, and Warren here. 

Which 19 House Democrats Just Voted for the Keystone XL Pipeline?

Today, the House of Representatives voted for the flagrantly unconstitutional Northern Route Approval Act.  The act eliminates the need for TransCanada Corp., the company constructing the pipeline, to get a cross-border permit from the President, overriding executive authority and long-standing tradition.  Obama has said that he would veto the bill if it came to his desk. I've written about the danger of Keystone in past diaries; if you'd like a refresher, here's a good article on why you should oppose the pipeline.

The final vote was 241 to 175 with 19 Democrats voting with the Republican majority in favor of the pipeline. One Republican---Justin Amash (MI-03)--simply voted present.  He explained his vote in a later tweet:

Keystone bill violated Rule of Law by exempting one entity from laws every similar entity must follow. I favor general dereg, not privilege.

Who were those 19 Democrats?

John Barrow (GA-12)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
William Enyart (IL-12)
Al Green (TX-09)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
William Owens (NY-21)
Colin Peterson (MN-07)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)
John Yarmuth (KY-03)

The Democrats offered nine amendments that the GOP allowed to go to a vote.  I would like to highlight the two that I find to be most important.

First of all, Rush Holt (D-NJ) offered an amendment that would require that all oil transported by the pipeline be used within the United States.  Basically, he is trying to call the bluff of the Republicans and conservaDems who argue that the pipeline would make the U.S. more energy independent rather than just allow Canada a route to export the oil abroad.

The Holt amendment failed 162 to 255.  3 Republicans voted for it, and 36 Democrats opposed it.
10 Representatives voted both for Keystone and for the Holt amendment.  That includes 7 Democrats....

John Barrow (GA-12)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
William Enyart (IL-12)
Sean Maloney (NY-12)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
John Yarmuth (KY-03)

....and 3 Republicans:
Rodney Davis (IL-13)
Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)

As noted above, 36 Democrats voted against the Holt amendment.  24 of them opposed the Keystone bill but voted against the Holt amendment.  I can understand the logic of those who voted for both, but I can't understand the logic of the Democrats who voted against both.  Nevertheless, here they are:

The 12 who voted for Keystone but against the Holt amendment, admitting that they are just shills for Big Oil:

Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Al Green (TX-09)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15)
Sean Matheson (UT-04)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
William Owens (NY-21)
Colin Peterson (MN-07)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)

The 24 that Voted against Keystone and against the Holt amendment.  I frankly don't understand these people:

Ron Barber (AZ-02)
Bob Brady (PA-01) *Progressive Caucus member
André Carson (IN-07)
Joaquin Castro (TX-20)
John Dingell (MI-12)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Elizabeth Esty (CT-05)
Marcia Fudge (OH-11) *Progressive Caucus member
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Steven Horsford (NV-04)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18) *Progressive Caucus member
Hakeem Jeffries (NY-08) *Progressive Caucus member
Hank Johnson (GA-04) *Progressive Caucus member
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
Carolyn McCarthy (NY-04)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
Jared Polis (CO-02) *Progressive Caucus member
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Tim Ryan (OH-13)
Kurt Schrader (OR-15)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)
Peter Visclosky (IN-01)
Timothy Walz (MN-01)

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) offered an amendment that provided evidence that the reliance on oil sands crude would increase greenhouse gas emissions and that would thus prevent the bill from taking effect until these emissions are offset.

Waxman's amendment likewise failed 146 to 269.  47 Democrats voted against this.
Three Democrats, strangely, voted for both Keystone and the Waxman amendment:

Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
John Yarmuth (KY-03)
The 16 other Keystone sell-outs voted against Waxman's amendment.   31 Democrats who didn't vote Keystone voted against Waxman's amendment, which just seems strange to me.
Ron Barber (AZ-02)
Bob Brady (PA-01) *(Progressive Caucus member
André Carson (IN-07)
Joaquin Castro (TX-20)
Joe Courtney (CT-02)
John Dingell (MI-12)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Tammy Duckworth (IL-08)
Chaka Fattah (PA-02) *Progressive Caucus Member
Bill Foster (IL-11)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Denny Heck (WA-10) *Progressive Caucus Member
Steven Horsford (NV-04)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
Joe Larson (CT-01)
Daniel Lipinski (IL-03)
Carolyn McCarthy (NY-04)
Mike Michaud (ME-02)
Rick Nolan (MN-08) *Progressive Caucus Member
Bill Pascrell (NJ-09)
Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Tim Ryan (OH-13)
Brad Sherman (CA-30)
Mel Watt (NC-12) *Progressive Caucus Member
Timothy Walz (MN-01)

If you want to check out the roll call votes for the other amendments, such as those regarding oil spills and air pollution, you can find them here.

Addendum
I decided to look up past roll call votes for Keystone XL, and some of the votes I deemed strange are the votes of prior Keystone supporters---that explains it to some extent, I guess.

On July 26, 2011, the House of Representatives voted for Keystone XL 279 to 147, with 47 Democrats joining the Republicans in favor of it.  Then again as now, Justin Amash voted present.
Thanks, I would assume, to the efforts of the activists who have been pushing legislators on this issue, 16 Democrats who supported Keystone back in 2011 now voted against it.

Bob Brady (PA-01) *Progressive Caucus member
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Chaka Fattah (PA-02) *Progressive Caucus Member
Brian Higgins (NY-26)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18) *Progressive Caucus member
Daniel Lipinski (IL-03)
Stephen Lynch (MA-08)
Carolyn McCarthy (NY-04)
Bill Pascrell (NJ-09)
Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)
Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Peter Visclosky (IN-01)

As a native Philadelphian, I find it ridiculous that Bob Brady and Chaka Fattah voted for Keystone back in 2011, especially since they tend to be more progressive than Allyson Schwartz, who has consistently voted against it.

Anyways, because, as we all know, money talks, here's a fun fact: the average supporter took 6 Times more From oil industry interests than the opponents.

Which Democrats Just Voted against Food Stamp Funding?

The Senate began its process of amending the farm bill yesterday afternoon.  Fom what I can tell from the Senate website, as of now, three amendments have received a vote so far:

Sen. Maria Cantwell's (D-WA) amendment "to allow Indian tribes to participate in certain soil and water conservation programs" passed 87-8.  The eight "No" votes were all Republicans: John Cornyn (TX), Ted Cruz (TX), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Mike Lee (R-WY), Rand Paul (R-KY), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Pat Toomey (R-PA).

Sen. Pat Roberts's (R-KS) amendment to cut an additional $12 billion from the supplemental food assistance program (SNAP, or food stamps) failed 58-40.  Three Republicans broke party lines against it:  Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Roger Wicker (MS).

However, the amendment on which I would like to focus attention here is that of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).  Gillibrand proposed to restore the $4 billion that the current farm bill--designed by Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Thad Cochran (R-MS)--cuts from SNAP (Supplemental Food Assistance, known as food stamps--as I indicated above) and to offset this restored funding with a limitation on crop insurance reimbursements. Our current crop insurance subsidies benefit large farms at the expense of smaller ones and are one of the many glaring manifestations of corporate welfare that Congress never fixes.  Gillibrand's amendment would, in essence, cut corporate welfare spending to restore social welfare spending.  Did this progressive proposal pass?  Not even close.  It failed 26-70:  not even a majority of Democrats voted for it.

Which Democrats voted against restoring food stamps--voting against veterans, children, seniors, and struggling to get by?

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE)
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE)
Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
Sen. Al Franken (D-MN)
Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT)
Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO)
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA)

I was shocked to see Al Franken on that list, but I'd guess it's because he's from a big agricultural state.

Now, on the positive side, who were the 26 that voted for Gillibrand's amendment?

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK)
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Sen. Sherod Brown (D-OH)
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Sen. Robert Casey (D-PA)
Sen. Mo Cowan (D-MA)
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Sen. Angus King (I-ME)
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)
Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Yes, my friends, Apple is still a soulless corporation run by plutocrats

From the Associated Press today:

WASHINGTON – Apple Inc. employs a group of affiliate companies located outside the United States to avoid paying billions of dollars in U.S. income taxes, a Senate investigation has found.

The world’s most valuable company is holding overseas some $102 billion of its $145 billion in cash, and an Irish subsidiary that earned $22 billion in 2011 paid only $10 million in taxes, according to the report issued Monday by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

The strategies Apple uses are legal, and many other multinational corporations use similar tax techniques to avoid paying U.S. income taxes on profits they reap overseas. But Apple uses a unique twist, the report found. The company’s tactics raise questions about loopholes in the U.S. tax code, lawmakers say.

Senator Carl Levin, interviewed by The Guardian, remarked,

Apple sought the Holy Grail of tax avoidance. It has created offshore entities holding tens of billions of dollars, while claiming to be tax resident nowhere. We intend to highlight that gimmick and other Apple offshore tax avoidance tactics so that American working families who pay their share of taxes understand how offshore tax loopholes raise their tax burden, add to the federal deficit and ought to be closed.

Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, in advance of the hearing in the Senate tomorrow, called for "revenue-neutral" tax reform, which we all know is a joke.  

I wanted to highlight this case because I have always been irritated by the liberal embrace of Apple because of the "hipness" of its products.  For instance, the Occupiers in New York had a moment of silence for Steve Jobs when he passed away while they were protesting the plutocratic practices in which Jobs's own company regularly engages.  I could highlight the problem of e-waste, the labor abuses at Apple's subcontractors, Jobs's known anti-regulation and anti-labor positions, the simple fact that Apple epitomizes the concept of planned obsolescence, or many other glaring problems with Apple's business model.

Now, I am not saying that Apple is a worse abuser in these regards than HP, Microsoft, or any other tech company.  My irritation lies in the disconnect between image and practice.  Hipness need not bring either regard for the law or a social conscience.


Oftentimes, you'll hear liberals justify corporate practices like those of Apple and its peers by noting that the corporation is amoral, that its goal is profit maximization and that alone, and that we should expect nothing else.  In other words, it seems as though Milton Friedman has won the battle of ideas.  In a 1970 op-ed in the New York Times, the neoliberal Chicago economist penned a well-known piece arguing that the social responsibility of business was to increase its profits--nothing else.  Friedrich Hayek, likewise, argued that questions of social justice simply have no place in a market economy; justice is a question of morality and ethics, and there is no morality but that between individual actors.  As Hayek saw it, neither a firm or a system could have any moral valence to it.  Opposed to these ideas has been a concept of stakeholder capitalism, which emphasizes the obligations to the community and perhaps the environment.  Corporate social responsibility, when it is more than just simply PR, can offer a similar alternative, an idea of a "triple bottom line" that demands that businesses pay attention to both people and planet, not just profit alone.

If you want an example of a company with a progressive business model, turn toward Costco (which is like an anti-Walmart in its labor practices) or Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap (a personal favorite).

Donations to 501(c)4's are not tax-deductible. Good. Why are those to 501(c)3's?

 **The following is a revised and expanded version of a former post**

With the IRS "scandal" (and, yes, "scandal" belongs in quotes), we have seen an increased attention to the exemptions built into the tax code for various types of organizations.  In the story in question, the tea party groups had applied for 501(c)4 status, or determination as a "social welfare" organization.  I want to go over the definitions of 501(c)4's, 527's, and 501(c)3's to cover the poles of political activity among tax-exempt groups (other than labor unions, agricultural leagues, and business leagues).  After that, I will discuss the charitable deduction and why I think it is a flawed policy despite its popularity.

501(c)4's are tax-exempt organizations, but donations to 501(c)4's, albeit anonymous, are mostly not tax-deductible. The IRS defines 501(c)4's in the following manner:

Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.

501(c)4's are allowed to lobby for specific pieces of legislation; such 501(c)4's are often called "action funds." (That's why every think tank and issue group has an "action fund.") The IRS describes such a group in the following manner:

(a) its main or primary objective or objectives (as distinguished from its incidental or secondary objectives) may be attained only by legislation or a defeat of proposed legislation; and (b) it advocates, or campaigns for, the attainment of such main or primary objective or objectives as distinguished from engaging in nonpartisan analysis, study, or research and making the results thereof available to the public.

501 (c) 4's are allowed to intervene in political campaigns as long as their "primary" activity is still the promotion of the general welfare.  This is why 501 (c) 4's with expensive tax lawyers can design their tax returns to show exactly 49% campaign activity. 

 

527 organizations include political committees (including state, local, and federal candidate committees), political action committees, "Super PACs," and political parties.  527's are mostly tax-exempt because, although their investment income is subject to the federal income tax, the IRS does not include the following sources of revenue in their taxable income:

(A) a contribution of money or other property,
(B) membership dues, a membership fee or assessment from a member of the political organization,
(C) proceeds from a political fundraising or entertainment event, or proceeds from the sale of political campaign materials, which are not received in the ordinary course of any trade or business, or
(D) proceeds from the conducting of any bingo game (as defined in section 513 (f)(2)),

527 organizations, unlike 50 (c)4's, have to publicly disclose their donors and expenditures. 527's can engage in candidate election advocacy, but can only have minimal engagement with legislative advocacy and non-election-related public advocacy.  Donations to 527's are not tax-deductible. 

501(c)3's represent the opposite pole of political activity among tax-exempt groups.  This group includes your standard non-profits, houses of worship, foundations, museums, colleges, etc.  The IRS defines 501 (c) 3's in the following manner:

Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

501(c)3's are prohibited from engaging in candidate advocacy.  They can only engage in limited legislative advocacy, but they are free to engage in public advocacy on non-election concerns.  Donations to 501(c)3's, unlike donations to 501(c)4's or 527's, are tax-deductible. 

 

**

Although 501(c)3's, 501(c)4's, and 527's are all tax-exempt organizations, only donations to 501(c)3's are tax-deductible, and the charitable deduction remains very popular.  According to an April 2011 Gallup poll, 71% of those surveyed opposed eliminating the charitable deduction as part of plan to lower the overall income tax rate, and 68% opposed eliminating it as a part of a plan to reduce the budget deficit.  Despite its popularity, the charitable deduction, as I will argue, is a flawed policy.  I will focus particularly on both libertarian and social democratic objections.

We should begin by establishing a definition of charitable giving.  First, charitable giving is a private act; it refers to what an individual does with his/her own money in contrast to what a government does.  Second, the recipient of the money is doing work that the donor expects will advance a vision of the good society, broadly defined.  Third, charitable giving differs from investment in that the donor does not expect pecuniary return on the funds contributed.  So, taken together, charitable giving refers to the private contributions of individuals to institutions that they believe to be advancing the good of society and from which they expect no pecuniary return.  Moreover, in connection to the tax code, we are talking about large contributions;  the IRS only recommends itemization in such cases.  Those who make small donations are more likely to take the standard deduction.

The charitable deduction as a part of a tax code enables an individual to subtract charitable donations from his/her total income, thus reducing the total amount of money on which s/he has to pay taxes.  The simplest set of justifications for the charitable deduction would also be threefold: (1) that individuals as private actors know better how to spend their money to improve society than they do as a collective, (2) that the government cannot by itself address the problems of society, and (3) that the government should provide incentives for private individuals to contribute to the betterment of society.

Even though the first two justifications clearly echo a libertarian philosophy, the last justification runs against libertarian principles, specifically the central claim that the government should be blind to the economic, social, and political activities of its citizenry.  According to libertarians, the income tax is a violation of liberty first and foremost because it removes the blindness to individual economic activity and requires the release of information on economic gains for government oversight.  However, viewing the income tax as a given, it should  be as neutral to the economic activities of private individuals as possible.  Consequently, all tax credits and deductions would be problematic because they consist of actions taken by the government to encourage or discourage private economic actions.  Why should the government's tax collector care whether an individual does or does not contribute to charity? Additionally, why should the government have the right to know to which institutions an individual chose to allocate funds, especially in cases in which no economic gain will result?

A libertarian, or perhaps more appropriately now civil libertarian, argument would continue on church-state grounds.  Among the IRS list of qualifying organizations are "churches, a convention or association of churches, temples, synagogues, mosques, and other religious organization."  The charitable deduction in such cases, then, becomes the equivalent of a government subsidy to religious institutions.  The government is not "establishing" a religion per se, but it is subsidizing contributions of houses of worship--a violation, in my opinion, of the separation of church and state.
The charitable deduction also leads the government to subsidize organizations that are viewed by many as hate groups. Take, for instance, the Westboro Baptist Church, which both the ADL and the SPLC consider a hate group.  White nationalist Peter Brimelow's VDARE Foundation is a registered 501(c)3, meaning that the government effectively subsidizes donations to that organization as well.

The social democratic argument against the charitable deduction stems from opposition primarily to the first aforementioned justification for the charitable deduction and partially to the second justification. In other words, the social democrat does not agree with the claim that private individuals know how to allocate large funds better than the government (those individuals taken together in a collective participating in deliberation) can, and even though the social democrat acknowledges that the government cannot solve all problems, s/he still believes in the power and efficacy of the government as an actor for social betterment.  Although individual wisdom can guide small purchases--the government should not buy your shoes for you, it is not the best guide for the disbursement of large funds with more far-reaching effects. In this context, the charitable deduction is taking money away from the social services that the government provides, depriving it of the opportunity to shore up funding for existing programs or innovate with new ones.  Moreover, especially as they relate to universities, such large private donations can create undue influence on the nature of research itself.  The extra funds in the pool of general revenue gained from the elimination of such a deduction could be used to provide a more robust funding base to universities, guaranteeing their freedom to work for the advancement of the scholarly disciplines and for the public good.  Despite the occasional use of charity as PR or as a tool to advance self-interest, charitable contributions are more oft than not quite noble; however, they are not adequate substitutes for the actions of government and should not be treated as such.

"Yes, I understand both of your points.  But people won't donate to charity without the charitable deduction," you might respond.  To believe so is to have very little faith in human beings.  Are people so selfish and stingy that we need to dangle dollars in front of their face in order to break the vise-like grip they have over their wallets?  Isn't the virtue of benevolence that one expects nothing in return?  Shouldn't the desire to contribute to the betterment of society as an individual be something inculcated in the young through parenting and schooling and, thus, need no financial incentive?  I would not be willing to say that charitable donations would not drop in the face of an elimination of the charitable deduction because I have no empirical proof either way, but I think it would be a sad reflection on human character if they did.

Is OFA Serious About Climate Change or Not?

Yesterday, Ryan Grim and Lucia Graves of the Huffington Post reported on OFA's refusal to take a stand against Keystone XL despite the organization's recent claim that it would make climate change a priority.  Grim and Graves explain,

Leaders of the group have on multiple occasions told gatherings of activists and donors that OFA will not pressure the White House on Keystone regardless of its members' interest in the project, a 1,700-mile pipeline that would move heavy crude from the Canadian tar sands to the Gulf. The administration recently pushed back a decision on approving the pipeline to November, December or even 2014. OFA's refusal to press the administration on the controversial Keystone project is reminiscent of its decision not to pressure Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) on gun purchase background checks, despite -- or perhaps because of -- OFA Chairman Jim Messina's close relationship with him. Baucus voted against the president and subsequently announced his retirement.

If OFA is not planning to heed its members' interests, then it is not a particularly democratic organization; however, that should not come as much of a surprise.  One of my main worries about OFA was that it would not challenge the President on anything and accept his policy proposals as good in and of themselves.  During the gun control debate, Obama and the Democratic leadership tabled the assault weapons ban and the magazine restriction early on,telling gun control groups and OFA to make the near-universal background checks provision their big "get"--no matter how watered-down it would become.  I expect this dynamic to exist in the ongoing immigration debate, i.e., that OFA will accept Obama's immigration proposalsand the Gang of 8 plan as the beau ideal of "comprehensive immigration reform" despite the fact that it encourages the continued militarization of the border  and the fact that the so-called "path to citizenship" takes a full 13 years--during which individuals will have questionable legal status and will be denied from access to benefits.  

One of the benefits to organizing is the ability to push the center of debate to the left.  OFA appears to serve only to convince the individuals that spent time and money on the campaign to be content with what they're given and not push any harder.  Because of our two-party system, when Obama claims ownership of a proposal, it becomes the left side of the debate--at least in MSM and conservative representations; OFA seems likely to further that dynamic, offering no push for genuinely progressive reforms.

Do you remember the oft-cited FDR quote "I agree with you.  Now make me do it"?  If Obama wanted to reject Keystone (Well, first of all, he would have already listened to Lisa Jacksonand done so), then he would want OFA to come at him from the left and demand that he reject Keystone XL.  He could thus cite, in addition to the environmental review, the public pressure against the pipeline as the reason for his decision. The failure to do so seems to hint at the fact that he does not, in fact, agree with us.  And as many DKers already know, support for bold climate change action and support for the Keystone XL pipeline are, in fact, mutually exclusive.

A few weeks ago, at the end of April, OFA began its push on climate change.  I was pleasantly surprised to see them decide to get involved; however, I was immediately disappointed with their strategic decisions.  The video OFA created (in the article hyperlinked above) calls out Republicans for climate denialism.  However, in the end, the video is just giving more air time to climate denialism.  It reminded me of Obama's use of the hardly inspiring phrase "not a hoax" during his speech at the DNC last fall.  Psychologists have long noted that the use of such frames can undermine one's messaging goal: the repetition of false claims only strengthens their hold in people's minds and creates an "illusion of truth effect."  The climate denialist position lacks any scientific credibility; it should be treated as an "unserious" view that does not belong in legitimate debate, relegated to the fringe where it deserves to be.  In my opinion, the emphasis should be not to call out legislators on their denial but on their  inaction, especially because such inaction is unfortunately bipartisan.

As the Huffington Post passage earlier in this diary hinted, OFA is not interested in pressuring Democrats on tough issues, and meaningful action on climate change will require Democrats to take a bolder stance than they have so far.  Consider the American Climate and Energy Security Act (ACES, or Waxman-Markey), the admittedly watered-down but still valuable climate bill that passed the House in 2009 only to sputter and fail in the Senate because of the intransigence of coal state Democrats, oil-loving Democrats, Republican obstructionism, and a President with no actual strategy.  ACES passed by the narrowest of margins: 219-212, and it only passed because of the support of 8 Republicans. ACES only had 211 Democratic votes.  1 Democrat (Hastings) wasn't there, and 44 voted against it.  Pete Stark (CA), Pete DeFazio (OR), and Dennis Kucinich (OH) all opposed ACES from the left, believing (like Greenpeace and some other more left-leaning environmental groups) that the design of ACES could threaten the power of the EPA.  However, the remaining 41 all opposed it from the right.  

Most of the 41 got wiped out in the great Blue Dog massacre of 2010, some retired or lost last year, and only 8 are still in either house of Congress:

John Barrow (D-GA)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)--now in the Senate
Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ)
Jim Matheson (D-UT)
Mike McIntyre (D-NC)
Nick Rahall (D-WV)
Mike Ross (D-AR)
Pete Visclosky (D-IN)

Do these 8 acknowledge the scientific consensus on climate change?  According to my quick search of their past statements, these legislators don't deny the fact that climate change is a human-influenced problem that we need to address; they are just bought by the fossil fuel companies (especially coal) and have no intention of voting for any legislation that would challenge the economic self-interest of their backers. We have known the scientific consensus behind climate change for a long time.  Convincing people of that should not be the priority right now; what we need is to convince people of the urgency of action.

Returning to Keystone XL, we already know that the pipeline has plenty of friends in the White House because of the former Obama staffers who have no qualms about peddling access.  Former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn is one of the most prominent examples of such influence peddlers who sell access for cash, and---surprise, surprise---her firm, SKDKnickerbocker, does PR for TransCanda, the corporation currently building the southern half of the Keystone XL pipeline.  It's great that Obama acknowledges the scientific consensus on climate change, but what matters more is whether he listens to someone like James Hansen or someone like Anita Dunn.

The OFA website also offers little hope for environmentalists seeking meaningful action.  From what I can tell, the OFA website has not changed at all since the election.  It continues to tout Obama's first-term accomplishments rather than present policy prescriptions around which to mobilize in the second term.  Although the Organizing for Action website has language aboutclimate change, the website's energy section is not heartening, to say the least.   OFA does not encourage Obama to take any action on climate on its website; rather, it just praises his efforts thus far:

The President has taken historic steps to reduce carbon pollution in the United States, including establishing fuel economy standards that will cut the amount of carbon pollution from cars by a half, proposing standards to decrease carbon pollution from new power plants, and helping us transition to cleaner and more efficient energy sources.

The Energy section merely parrots the all-of-the-above talking point that Obama loves, which I have criticized in the past:

President Obama has a real strategy to take control of our energy future and finally reduce our dependence on foreign oil—an all-of-the-above approach to developing all our energy resources.

Most politicians prefer to speak about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, rather than the real necessity of reducing dependence on oil and other fossil fuels overall.  

We then get to see OFA tout the increased natural gas production and increased oil production that Obama touted during his campaign:

Under President Obama, the United States has become a world leader in natural gas, and production is at an all-time high. He is promoting the safe, responsible development of our near 100-year supply of natural gas, which could support more than 600,000 new jobs by the end of the decade.

Under President Obama, we are producing more oil than we have in 14 years. He is helping expand domestic oil production by offering millions of acres of land for development—including opening up 75% of our oil and gas resources in the Gulf and Arctic—and is improving safety measures to prevent future spills.

OFA and Obama also haven't given up on the chimera of clean coal:

President Obama has made one of the most significant federal investments in clean coal technology in history. The Obama administration has attracted more than $10 billion in private investments, and in 2011, employment in the coal sector hit its highest level since 1996.

With such an open-armed embrace of a fossil fuels, it's hard to see OFA as committed to serious, bold climate change action.