Tainted Saints

For two weeks we’ve been listening to the story of the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia—a media tempest in an English teapot. And all the time the biggest scandal has been directly under our noses.

This afternoon at Copenhagen a document mysteriously leaked from the UN Secretariat. It was first reported from the Guardian, and by the time it was posted online it oddly had my name scrawled all across the top—I don’t know why, because I didn’t leak it.

My suspicion, though, is because it confirms something I’ve been writing for weeks. The cuts in emissions that countries are proposing here are nowhere near good enough to meet even their remarkably weak target of limiting temperature rise to two degrees Celsius. In fact, says the UN in this leaked report, the  cuts on offer now produce a rise of at least three degrees, and a CO2 concentration of at least 550 ppm, not the 350 scientists say we need, or even the weak 450 that the US supposedly supports.

In other words, this entire conference is an elaborate sham, where the organizers have known all along that they’re heading for a very different world than the one they’re supposedly creating. It’s intellectual dishonesty of a very high order, and with very high consequences. And it’s probably come too late to derail the stage management—tomorrow Barack Obama will piously intone that he’s committed to a two degree temperature target. But he isn’t—and now he can’t even say it with a straight face. [more...]

Ed Kilgore has a very perceptive analysis in The New Republic about the underlying (and largely unexamined) ideological and strategic differences among progressives that are at least partially driving the rift over the health care bill.  He argues — correctly — that the current debate “displays a couple of pretty important potential fault lines within the American center-left” that have manifested in other disputes as well.  That was the principal point of this much-maligned Daily Kos post observing that many (but not all) of the progressive bloggers most vehemently demanding passage of the health care bill also supported the Iraq War.  As the author of that post (Jake McIntyre) explicitly said, his intent wasn’t to suggest that those individuals shouldn’t be listened to because of their Iraq position six years ago (that would be an invalid and unfair claim), but simply that — as Kilgore says – there are underlying and significant differences in strategic and ideological outlook driving the health care debate that have been present for some time but are typically ignored.

Shared contempt for the Bush administration (at least once Bush and the Iraq War became discredited) largely obscured these differences when Bush was in office.  The desire to undermine the Bush GOP and dislodge that movement from power subsumed all other objectives and united people with vastly different political outlooks and agendas.  There is still a shared revulsion towards the Palin/Limbaugh Right, but that faction is too marginalized and impotent to serve the same function.  With the unifying force of Bush/Cheney gone, the divisions Kilgore describes are now vibrant and increasingly potent.  In addition to health care and Iraq, roughly the same progressive fault lines are seen over the bank bailout, escalation in Afghanistan, Obama’s economic team, tolerance for Obama’s embrace of Bush/Cheney civil liberties polices, and even the reaction to Matt Taibbi’s recent Rolling Stone article on Obama’s subservience to Wall Street. 

There are many reasons for the progressive division on the health care bill.  There are differences over the narrow question of health care policy, with some believing the bill does more harm than good just on that ground alone.  Some of it has to do with broader questions of political power:  if progressives always announce that they are willing to accept whatever miniscule benefits are tossed at them (on the ground that it’s better than nothing) and unfailingly support Democratic initiatives (on the ground that the GOP is worse), then they will (and should) always be ignored when it comes time to negotiate; nobody takes seriously the demands of those who announce they’ll go along with whatever the final outcome is.  But the most significant underlying division identified by Kilgore is the divergent views over the rapidly growing corporatism that defines our political system. [more...]

No deal. Not even a fig leaf.

That seemed to be the implication of President Barack Obama’s much-anticipated speech at the Copenhagen climate summit.

He arrived at the Bella Center at 9:30 in the morning and immediately huddled in a non-scheduled and tense meeting with 18 other world leaders, including Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei. As Obama and the others talked, White House officials told reporters that Obama had ripped up his schedule for the day–supposedly the last day of the conference–and was attempting to rescue the troubled negotiations. He apparently did not succeed.

After the meeting ended, the summit began its most high-profile session. Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen opened the gathering, saying that it is “not too often us leaders get a chance to chart out a new course for our planet.” No such course was forthcoming. Minutes later, Chinese Premier Wen Jibao hailed his own nation’s efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. But he offered no give on the key matters that had been raised by the United States: China placing its emissions reductions within a binding treaty and subjecting them to outside verification. Wen indicated that China would keep its emissions limits voluntary and unilateral. Next Brazilian President Luiz Lula da Silva said it would take a “miracle” to reach an accord at Copenhagen. He complained that due to the lack of progress in the negotiations he had been forced to participate in a 2:00 am meeting with other world leaders. He declared that “each country has to have the confidence to do its own oversight”–seemingly siding with China on this front.

Then it was Obama’s turn. His eight-minutes of remarks signaled a global train wreck. Not hiding his anger and frustration, he said, “I think our ability to take collective action is in doubt.” He maintained that his administration has started to mount an “ambitious” plan to cut emissions. And he contended that it is “in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to steps, and to hold each other accountable for certain commitments.” According to his prepared text, Obama was next supposed to say, “I believe that the pieces of that accord are nowclear.” (Emphasis added.)Instead, he asserted, “I believe that the pieces of that accord should now be clear.” That is, there was no consensus among the major global leaders regarding what a deal would look like–not even one that would paper over the deep differences that have plagued the Copenhagen summit from the start: what targets to set; how to include both developed and developing countries within the same framework; what financing would be available for international programs to help poorer nations contend with climate change. [more...]

A hearing in Sen. Claire McCaskill’s Contract Oversight subcommittee on contracting in Afghanistan has highlighted some important statistics that provide a window into the extent to which the Obama administration has picked up the Bush-era war privatization baton and sprinted with it. Overall, contractors now comprise a whopping 69% of the Department of Defense’s total workforce, “the highest ratio of contractors to military personnel in US history.” That’s not in one war zone—that’s the Pentagon in its entirety.

In Afghanistan, the Obama administration blows the Bush administration out of the privatized water. According to a memo [PDF] released by McCaskill’s staff, “From June 2009 to September 2009, there was a 40% increase in Defense Department contractors in Afghanistan.  During the same period, the number of armed private security contractors working for the Defense Department in Afghanistan doubled, increasing from approximately 5,000 to more than 10,000.”

At present, there are 104,000 Department of Defense contractors in Afghanistan. According to a report this week from the Congressional Research Service, as a result of the coming surge of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, there may be up to 56,000 additional contractors deployed. But here is another group of contractors that often goes unmentioned: 3,600 State Department contractors and 14,000 USAID contractors. That means that the current total US force in Afghanistan is approximately 189,000 personnel (68,000 US troops and 121,000 contractors). And remember, that’s right now. And that, according to McCaskill, is a conservative estimate. A year from now, we will likely see more than 220,000 US-funded personnel on the ground in Afghanistan.

The US has spent more than $23 billion on contracts in Afghanistan since 2002. By next year, the number of contractors will have doubled since 2008 when taxpayers funded over $8 billion in Afghanistan-related contracts.

Despite the massive number of contracts and contractors in Afghanistan, oversight is utterly lacking. “The increase in Afghanistan contracts has not seen a corresponding increase in contract management and oversight,” according to McCaskill’s briefing paper. “In May 2009, DCMA [Defense Contract Management Agency] Director Charlie Williams told the Commission on Wartime Contracting that as many as 362 positions for Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) in Afghanistan were currently vacant.” [more...]

Hopes for a strong deal on climate change appeared slim last night with countries so far failing to agree on fundamental issues and blaming each other for the descent towards a humiliating end.

Last-ditch efforts by the UN to get the 120 world leaders to at least commit to targets on temperature rises, emissions cuts and deadlines to finalise the treaty appeared gloomy, barring a late-night change in positions. With the talks stretching into the evening, some delegates held out the prospect of a weak, political agreement emerging, but on that would fall far short of expectations at the start of the two-week meeting.

The day saw successive versions of a draft agreement circulated with each version becoming less ambitious, until the evening when a slight increase in ambition was detected. Only weak, long-term aspirations for an overall global emissions cut of 50% by 2050 and an 80% cut by 2050 for rich countries appeared to be agreed by all. These commitments, and a pledge to keep temperature rises below 2C, were assumed to be givens at the start of the summit.

 Officials suggested Gordon Brown would convene a smaller group of countries and ask them to sign up to a “plan B”. This might include the proposals for a $100bn fund for climate protection which the prime minister had first proposed. There was a “good deal of agreement surrounding it” he said.

 An official said a plan B was possible because “there are not thousands of variables in this [negotiation], there are a handful. It is only the 2050 target and the issue of how to verify [emission cuts countries pledge].”

 The two most serious stumbling blocks were demands from rich countries that developing countries should peak their emissions within a few years, and that the legally binding Kyoto protocol should be abandoned before a new legal treaty was in place. [more...]

WASHINGTON — Progressive radio’s most popular talker seems a little fed up with President Obama after this week’s health care concessions.

“Right now, Mr. President,” declared Ed Schultz on his 6 pm MSNBC show, “Your base thinks you’re nothing but a sellout, a corporate sellout, out that. I know it’s tough audio, but I’m your buddy Ed. I’ve got to tell you this. I don’t think anybody else is.”

Schultz’s words echo the flurry of liberal criticisms aimed at Obama and the Democratic leadership this week, following their jettisoning of the popular public option and the Medicare buy-in provision for those 55 and up from the legislation.

“You aren’t listening to the very people who put you in office, Mr. President,” Schultz, who is typically a vigorous supporter of Obama, continued. “This isn’t about your legacy. It’s about the people in America who need health care now.”

The current bill is projected to cover roughly an additional 30 million Americans, largely through federal subsidies and mandates that individuals purchase insurance. Progressives argue that without an expansion of government-run options, the legislation fails to fix the core problems in the system.

Schultz also reflected the sentiment put forth by Arianna Huffington and other progressives — that this bill is effectively a bailout for insurance companies.

“Mr. President, I don’t know if you’ve noticed or not,” he said, “but you have carved out the most important elements of reform. The only people who like this current bill right now, Mr. President, is the insurance industry. They get a bunch of new customers.”

“The base is restless,” Schultz continued. “They are wandering in the wilderness, Mr. President. They are looking for your GPS coordinates.”

Schultz has in recent days voiced concerns as to whether the current bill is worth passing. “So much for change we can believe in,” he said.

Despite the widespread criticism of the bill, there are numerous respected progressive writers — including Paul Krugman of the New York Times — urging its passage despite the flaws, arguing that failure would be much worse.

MIAMI — The glittery and crayon-scrawled letters to Santa can seem so whimsical as they pile up in postal bins. Then, you read a letter like Michael’s and reality hits.

“His grandfather just lost his job,” said Kelly Levy, a marketing secretary and the head elf of the Letters to Santa program in Pembroke Pines, Fla. “So he’s asking Santa to find a job for him.”

Wrapped inside the envelope was his grandfather’s resume.

For more than a century, the U.S. Postal Service has pledged to read and respond to every single one of the thousands of letters sent to Santa Claus, the bulk of which officials say will arrive this week. And although it is a cute tradition carried on by the country’s most innocent civilians, it is a psychological sleigh-full.

There are sons asking for their mother’s return from Afghanistan. Questions about Santa’s technological know-how. Detailed job qualifications for their out-of-work relatives, with a crumbled up cookie inside.

This year, for the first time, Broward and Miami-Dade post offices are participating in a national program that allows volunteers and organizations to sponsor some of the neediest children. The country’s limping economic condition encouraged the district to start the program, said spokeswoman Debra Fetterly. Sponsors won’t learn much more about the child than his or her age, first name and Christmas wish. [more...]

Today’s links courtesy of Think Progress and Crooks and Liars.

Right-Wing Projection Theater: Bennett compares climate-change science to Nazi medicine, debate to Hitler’s persecutions

The Rachel Maddow Show: Tea Baggers Taking Over the Republican Party

DeMint Laughably Claims Republicans Have Been Acting In ‘Good Faith’ To Improve Health Care Reform

Fox News: Ben Nelson Opposes Health Reform Because He ‘Understands The True Meaning Of Christmas’ »

Yep. The ‘Party of No’ Blocks War Funding To Delay Health-Care Bill.

Alan Greenspan, Born-Again Deficit Hawk

The estimated time when whites will no longer make up the majority of Americans has been pushed back eight years — to 2050 — because the recession and stricter immigration policies have slowed the flow of foreigners into the U.S.

Census Bureau figures released Wednesday update last year’s prediction that white children would become a minority in 2023 and the overall white population would follow in 2042. The earlier estimate did not take into account a drop in the number of people moving into the U.S. because of the economic crisis and the immigration policies imposed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

The 2050 estimate is one of four projections released that is based on rates for births and deaths and a scenario in which immigration continues its more recent, slower pace of adding nearly 1 million new foreigners each year. Demographers said that scenario offers the best look for now at the future demographic makeup based on current conditions, rather than other models which assume higher rates of immigration.

The United States has 308 million people today; two-thirds are non-Hispanic whites.

The total population should climb to 399 million by 2050, under the new projection, with whites making up 49.9 percent of the population. Blacks will make up 12.2 percent, virtually unchanged from today. Hispanics, currently 15 percent of the population, will rise to 28 percent in 2050.

Asians are expected to increase from 4.4 percent of the population to 6 percent.

The point when minority children become the majority is expected to have a similar delay of roughly eight years, moving from 2023 to 2031.

The population 85 and older is projected to more than triple by 2050, to 18.6 million.

The actual shift in demographics will be influenced by a host of factors that can’t be accurately forecast — the pace of the economic recovery, cultural changes, natural or manmade disasters, as well as an overhaul of immigration law, which may be debated in Congress as early as next year. [more...]

Since Joe Lieberman demanded stripping the public option and Medicare buy-in provisions from the merged Senate bill, some strong progressives like Howard Dean have argued that without a public option or a Medicare buy-in provision, the bill is a giveaway to private insurers and should be killed. Other progressive leaders like Senators Jay Rockefeller, Tom Harkin and Sherrod Brown believe that the bill represents the best chance for passing health care reform in the foreseeable future. “I’m going to vote for it,” Brown told reporters. “I can’t imagine I wouldn’t. I mean there’s too much at stake.”

Change of the magnitude envisioned by health care reformers does not come easily. There have been many frustrations and there will be more. But, as a senior White House staffer with a ringside seat for the slow death of comprehensive care in 1994, I am keenly aware of the real alternative to the bills now before us: millions more Americans without health care and billions more for health care spending as the same challenges President Clinton tried to resolve continue to metastasize unchecked.

So while I have great respect for Governor Dean, and we have worked together to provide the strongest health care reform bill for the American people, I come down on the side of the Senate passing the bill.

Here’s why:

The Senate health care bill is not without its problems. But if enacted, it would represent the most significant public reform of our health care system that Congress has passed in the 40 plus years I have worked in politics. The bill will give health care coverage to a record 31 million Americans who are currently uninsured, lay a foundation that will begin to lower costs for millions of families, and provide all Americans with the access to adequate and dependable coverage when they need it most.

[The top ten reasons for why progressives should support the Senate passing the bill...]