The NYT’s Coverage Of Climate In The 1970s Was A Megaphone For Science, Not ‘Global Cooling’ Alarmism
The NYT’s Coverage Of Climate In The 1970s Was A Megaphone For Science, Not ‘Global Cooling’ Alarmism
Our guest blogger is Robert Brulle, professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University.
The New York Times’ climate science coverage in the 1970s reflected the lack of consensus among scientists.
In “Climate Science in a Tornado,” George F. Will has completely misrepresented the historical New York Times coverage of the “global cooling” issue. Despite Will’s claim that the New York Times was a “megaphone for the alarmed” during “1970s predictions about the near certainty of calamitous global cooling,” its coverage was actually nuanced and prescient.
On December 21, 1969, the New York Times ran a UPI wire story, “Scientists Caution on Changes In Climate as Result of Pollution,” which reported that scientists discussed the possible threat of manmade global warming at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, with calls for greater monitoring of the climate:
J.O. Fletcher, a physical scientist for the Rand Corporation in Santa Monica, Calif., said that “man had only a few decades to solve the problem of global warming caused by pollution.” Global warming could cause further melting of the polar ice caps and affect the earth’s climate.
On December 29, 1974, the New York Times ran the story, “Forecast for Forecasting: Cloudy.” This article is a long discussion of the state of climate forecasting, and has an extensive discussion of the process of global cooling due to aerosols, and the contrary impact of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and the great difficulty in developing valid and reliable climate forecasting models. The lead paragraph:
In the long term, climate is cooling off — or is it warming up? As for tomorrow’s weather, even the world’s biggest computer can’t say for sure what it will be.
On May 21, 1975, the New York Times ran the story, “Scientists Ask Why the Climate is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead.” This article begins with a clear statement of uncertainty:
The world’s climate is changing. Of that scientists are firmly convinced. But in what direction and why are subjects of deepening debate.
On August 14, 1975, the New York Times ran, “Warming Trend Seen in Climate.” In this article, the New York Times discusses two scientific articles that focus on the overall climate patterns. It covers the debate over global cooling due to aerosols and global warming due to CO2 increases:
Dr. [Wally] Broecker’s argument is that the present cooling trend in the north will be reversed as more and more carbon dioxide is introduced into the atmosphere by the burning of fuels.
In the decades since, of course, scientists have come to the consensus that our continued burning of fossil fuels are tied to the warming of the planet. It is not the New York Times that is dishonest in its coverage, it is George F. Will.
The editors who checked the Arctic Research Climate Center Web site believe it did not, on balance, run counter to Will's assertion that global sea ice levels "now equal those of 1979." I reviewed the same Web citation and reached a different conclusion.Alexander did not address any of the other lies.
- Comments
- 7
John Kerry Challenges George Will: Let’s Debate Your Recycled ‘Errors Of Fact’
John Kerry Challenges George Will: Let’s Debate Your Recycled ‘Errors Of Fact’
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is the first member of Congress to weigh in on George F. Will’s egregiously mendacious “global cooling” columns. In a Huffington Post column, Kerry delivers a withering critique of one of his “favorite intellectual sparring partners,” stepping up to the plate on behalf of science and scientists everywhere, including Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and White House Science Adviser John Holdren:
Dragging up long-discredited myths about some non-existent scientific consensus about global cooling from the 1970s does no one any good. Except perhaps a bankrupt flat earth crowd. I hate to review the record and see that someone as smart as George Will has been doing exactly that as far back as 1992. And it’s especially troubling when the very sources that Will cites in his February 15th column draw the exact opposite conclusions and paint very different pictures than Will provides, as the good folks at ThinkProgress and Media Matters for America have demonstrated so thoroughly.
Stephen Chu “is no Cassandra,” Kerry explains. “If his predictions about the effects of our climate crisis are scary, it’s because our climate is scary.” To be fair to Cassandra, her predictions of the fall of Troy were right — what would make Dr. Chu different is if the American people listen to him, instead of the George Wills of the world. Which is why Senator Kerry took up Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt’s challenge and calls on Will for a public battle of the minds:
I know George Will well, I respect his intellect and his powers of persuasion — but I’d happily debate him any day on this question so critical to our survival.
Treasury Inspector General: Regulators ‘Viewed Growth and Profitability’ As Evidence IndyMac Was Fine
Treasury Inspector General: Regulators ‘Viewed Growth and Profitability’ As Evidence IndyMac Was Fine
Yesterday, the Inspector General of the Treasury Department released a report showing that regulators at the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) — which is responsible for monitoring banks that specialize in mortgage lending — “repeatedly ignored warnings, including from their own employees, about the dangerous excesses at California mortgage lender IndyMac Bancorp.” The collapse of IndyMac last year cost the U.S. government about $10.7 billion.
According to the report, “OTS viewed growth and profitability as evidence that IndyMac management was capable”:
OTS identified numerous problems and risks, including the quantity and poor quality of nontraditional mortgage products. However, OTS did not take aggressive action to stop those practices from continuing to proliferate. OTS had at times as many as 40 bank examiners involved in the supervision of IndyMac; however, the examination results did not reflect the serious risks associated with IndyMac’s business model and practices.
In 2005, the OTS found that IndyMac “was having trouble with its cash flow,” but the office “did not issue any enforcement action, either informal or formal, until June 2008.” And this is not the first such tale to emerge; in October, the SEC’s Inspector General found similarly ignored warnings with regard to Bear Stearns before its federally financed collapse into the arms of J.P. Morgan. If nothing else then, the report underscores the desperate need for regulatory reform, in the wake of a Bush administration that “made it clear they planned to deliver less supervision over the financial services industry.” We all know the outcome of that deregulatory philosophy.
This week, President Barack Obama laid out his framework for regulatory reform. These reforms are still short on detail, but the most important could be the one aimed at ensuring that “companies cannot cherry-pick among competing regulators.” After all, in 2007, Countrywide Financial “simply switched regulators” to come under the more lax supervision of the OTS. Countrywide proceeded to go bust due to risky mortgages, and needed to be rescued by Bank of America. Allowing banks to shop around for the regulator they like best will inevitably lead to trouble, as the banks will settle on the regulator that is most in tune with their business interest.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has floated the idea of a “systemic risk regulator” — possibly the Federal Reserve — that would be charged with identifying risk that could topple the financial system. This could work, but waiting until risk is systemic to identify it means that risk large enough to endanger the system has been allowed to build up.
Instead, a focus on reforming the smaller agencies, like the OTS, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and others may be the key to a successful reform effort. But perhaps most important of all is this — Obama needs to appoint regulators who believe prudential oversight is important, something the Bush administration excelled at not doing.
Wallace: Republicans Should Lie About Obama Raising Taxes On Small Businesses
Wallace: Republicans Should Lie About Obama Raising Taxes On Small Businesses
This morning on Fox News, Chris Wallace gave some advice to conservative politicians who oppose Barack Obama’s proposal to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire and limit deductions for tax filers in the top two income tax brackets:
I think you do it in terms of what’s best for everybody, and if you’re removing the incentives and profits, and a lot of the people that make over $250,000 a year are small business owners and small businesses, as we all know, are the prime generators of jobs. So I think the better argument for Republicans is going to be this is going to hurt the economy, the generation of jobs, this is going to result in layoffs and say for Joe Six-pack out there. It’s not just the taxes of the rich guy, your livelihood is in jeopardy.
Watch it:
Actually, Mr. Wallace, it is overwhelmingly “just the taxes of the rich guy.” Here are the facts:
Less than 2% of “small businesses” would be affected by Obama’s tax change:
According to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, only 1.9% of filers with small business income file in the top two income brackets. Even among those 1.9% of filers, many of those individuals don’t have employees, are otherwise employed, and earn their income through passive investments.
A “small business” is very often an employed rich individual declaring business income:
As Len Burman and Eric Toder of the Tax Policy Center explained in October, “Members of corporate boards, for example, report their compensation for that service on schedule C of their individual tax return. Partners in many law firms, accounting firms, medical practices, and Wall Street hedge funds also report business income rather than wages, as do people who receive rents or royalties from investments in real estate and oil and gas partnerships.”
Washington Post’s Fred Hiatt Defines George Will’s Lies As ‘Inferences’
Washington Post’s Fred Hiatt Defines George Will’s Lies As ‘Inferences’
George Will lashes out at New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin for “meretricious journalism” in a column today that attempts to justify his significant factual errors but “can’t help making new ones.” But in an interview with Columbia Journalism Review, Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt defended George Will, saying he is simply “drawing inferences from data that most scientists reject,” and calling critics “irresponsible.”
In fact, Science Progress Chris Mooney explains, “George Will made factual errors rather than debatable inferences.” In sum, Will has not only lied about scientific research, he has also falsely attributed his own opinions to the following named sources: New York Times, Science, Science News, the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, and the “Arctic Climate Research Center” (sic). Before Hiatt’s outburst, Oregonian commentary editor Galen Burnett told the Wonk Room in a telephone interview:
I was a little troubled by the response from the Washington Post editors which was basically dismissive of people’s challenge of the column. That’s the more troubling aspect to me. I would expect more of the Post.
Union of Concerned Scientists spokesman Aaron Huertas told the Wonk Room:
Clearly something wrong is going on with their factchecking process, because what Will said was clearly incorrect.
We’ll continue to attempt to get word from Hiatt — who has ignored several telephone calls and emails — to see if he considers the Oregonian and the Union of Concerned Scientists “irresponsible” critics.
The factual errors in George Will’s “Dark Green Doomsayers” [2/15/09] (DGD) and “Climate Science in A Tornado” [2/27/09] (CST): More »
Obama’s Energy Budget Begins To Repair Bush’s Toxic Legacy
Obama’s Energy Budget Begins To Repair Bush’s Toxic Legacy
Speaking before a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, President Barack Obama declared that his plan to restore America’s economic prosperity “begins with energy.” The details of his proposed budgetary outline reveal what Obama meant. George W. Bush’s energy policy was based on tax breaks for polluters and making everyone else pay the costs of pollution. Obama’s decision to make polluters pay instead is a breath of fresh air:
Restoration of Superfund. In 2002, Bush shafted Superfund, the successful program to clean up the most toxic sites in America, by eliminating the tax on industrial polluters “that once generated about $1 billion a year.” President Obama’s budget reinstates Superfund taxes in 2011, restoring $17 billion over ten years to the depleted program.
Polluters Pay To Fight Climate Change And Make Work Pay. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, instituted a voluntary program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 2002 (they rose). President Obama calls for a mandatory cap on carbon emissions starting in 2012, expected to raise $645.7 billion over ten years. Instead of sending those revenues back to the polluters, $15 billion a year will go to clean energy technologies, with the rest funding the Making Work Pay tax credit to reduce payroll taxes for every working American.
Ending Tax Breaks For Fossil Fuel Industry. Big Oil had no better friends in the White House than Bush and Cheney, both oil men. Oil, natural gas, and coal companies enjoyed record profits even as the rest of America suffered from skyrocketing energy prices. Yet Bush protected numerous incentives and tax breaks for companies that drill and mine our shared resources. President Obama’s budget eliminates $31.75 billion in oil and gas company giveaways and increases the return from natural resources on federal lands by $2.9 billion over ten years.
In a column at the Center for American Progress, director of climate strategy Dan Weiss analyzes the budget and finds: “President Obama’s proposed energy budget is a ray of sunshine after an eight-year blackout. Congress must now make this clean energy future a reality.”
The WonkLine: February 27, 2009
The WonkLine: February 27, 2009
Welcome to The WonkLine, a daily 10 a.m. roundup of the latest news about health care, the economy, national security and climate policy. This is what we’re reading. Tell us what you found in the comments section below.
Economy
The Treasury Department has reached a deal “to take a stake of 30 to 40 percent in Citigroup as part of a third bailout of the embattled bank.”
The federal insurance fund protecting bank deposits “is being drained by a sharp rise in bank failures and has dwindled to its lowest level since 1993“; in response, the FDIC may double the fees it charges banks.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) “is pledging to refuse campaign contributions from banks in the wake of their resistance to a mortgage bill that she considers a top priority.”
Climate
George Will lashes out at New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin for “meretricious journalism” in a column that attempts to justify his significant factual errors.
In an interview, Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt defended George Will, saying he is simply “drawing inferences from data that most scientists reject,” and calling critics “irresponsible.”
Power Shift 2009 begins today in Washington, with speakers from Nancy Pelosi and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to Van Jones and Billy Parish greeting “nearly ten thousand students from across the country.”
National Security
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said yesterday that the United States, Afghanistan, and Pakistan plan to hold a regular “trilateral meeting of allies in the seven-year-old Afghan war.”
President Obama issued a directive outlining the plans for his National Security Council, which “is by far the most expansive” of any other president because it deals with “economic, climate, energy and cyber-threats.”
With a newly funded, 18-acre training site, Palestinian forces are being trained by the United States to increase security in the region. The U.S. hopes to have a “well-trained battalion based in each of eight West Bank cities.”
Health Care
The Obama administration “will move to rescind a controversial rule that allows health-care workers to deny abortion counseling or other family-planning services if doing so would violate their moral beliefs.”
The health benefits for retired autoworkers “may be the envy of most Americans,” but it’s a deal “that’s not likely to last long” after GM announced a $30.9 billion loss for 2008.
Medical research institutions “scored a major coup” with $10.4 billion for the National Institutes of Health in the stimulus bill, “but their advocates are not stopping there.”
Rep. Foxx: Housing Bill Helps People ‘Who Irresponsibly Got Mortgages’ And ‘Continue To Look For Welfare’
Rep. Foxx: Housing Bill Helps People ‘Who Irresponsibly Got Mortgages’ And ‘Continue To Look For Welfare’
Yesterday, in the face of “nearly unanimous opposition from Republicans” and “concerns raised by moderate Democrats,” the House delayed voting on a housing bill that would allow judges to “cram-down” mortgage payments for troubled homeowners. Part of the reason for the delay is that the bill has been continually mischaracterized as a bailout for irresponsible homeowners.
Embodying this idea, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) took to the House floor to decry the bill as helping those “who irresponsibly got mortgages” and now “continue to look for bailouts and continue to look for welfare”:
94 percent of the American people are paying their mortgages and they are paying them on time and they don’t understand why this is happening…Let me tell you a little bit about why that is the case and why I think that people who irresponsibly got mortgages to begin with continue to look for bailouts and continue to look for welfare. This is basically expanding the welfare program in our country.
Watch it:
First, about one-third of residents rent and one-third of homeowners own their homes outright, so how are “94 percent of the American people” paying their mortgages? Are the 62,948 renters in Foxx’s district not Americans? Also, Foxx’s stat isn’t right even if just people with mortgages are included, as about one in ten is behind on payments.
Plus, in 2008, there were 41,750 homes in foreclosure in North Carolina, a 16.2 percent increase from 2007 and a 153 percent jump from 2006. Does Foxx think that all of these homeowners were irresponsible?
What actually caused all of these housing problems is the economy tanked, home prices plummeted, and people got laid off. The proposed housing legislation is meant to complement the Obama administration’s housing plan by giving bankruptcy judges the right to cram-down homeowners mortgages “as a last resort alternative to foreclosure.”
The notion that this constitutes “welfare” is ludicrous. Bankruptcy is unpleasant. Those going through it “have to live under the supervision of a trustee and a judge, and under the observation of creditors for up to five years,” and a bankruptcy can remain on your credit report for up to 10 years. This is not a walk through the park we’re talking about here, but a step for those with, literally, nowhere else to turn.
Now, there will inevitably be some reckless borrowers who will be helped. In an attempt to aid 7 to 9 million homeowners, that’s almost impossible to avoid. But as Clive Crook wrote, this “is a price worth paying if it stems the tide of foreclosures.” Indeed, if the plan is implemented, the average homeowner will be protected from $6,000 in housing price declines as a result of neighbors staying out of foreclosure.
Obama Budget Lays Groundwork For Reducing Health Care Costs
Obama Budget Lays Groundwork For Reducing Health Care Costs
President Obama’s budget allocates $634 billion towards health care reform but only half of that amount will come from new sources of revenue (namely, reducing itemized deduction rates for families with incomes over $250,000). The other half is already in the health care system, but we’re wasting it.
Up to $700 billion a year is wasted on unnecessary or ineffective care and the Obama administration believes that it can re-orient some of those dollars to fund health care reform.
Part of that waste comes from unnecessary care. In fact, according to the most recent Dartmouth study which looked at “variations in spending growth and spending patterns among U.S. regions,” certain areas of the United States were spending more on care than others because physicians in higher spending regions “were much more likely than those in lower spending regions to recommend discretionary services.”
More care, however, does not always translate into better health outcomes. In fact, evidence suggests “that the quality of care and health outcomes are better in lower-spending regions.” Here is the Medicare data:
Part of the problem is that current payment methods — which reimburse doctors for the number of treatments they prescribe — encourage “hospitals and doctors to try to expand their services”; doctors also often don’t know if certain treatments work better than others.
So to eliminate over-spending, Obama’s budget bundles payments for post-hospital providers and links a portion of Medicare payments for acute in-patient hospital services to hospital performance. The stimulus bill smartly invested in comparative effectiveness research.
The Dartmouth study argues that “to slow spending growth, we need policies that encourage high-growth (or high cost) regions to behave more like low-growth.” Some providers (like academic health centers or providers in high spending regions) may oppose restructuring the payment system, but insurance companies (who now reimburse for every procedure) and patients (who’ll be able to avoid unnecessary surgeries) would likely embrace the change. Overall it’s smart policy: it will reduce health spending and improve the qualify and efficiency of care.
Fortunately, the Obama budget adopts some of these cost-saving measures and reinvests the savings into health reform. But as the Dartmouth study suggests, there is more that can be done.
Reid, Pelosi Call For End To Coal At U.S. Capitol Power Plant
Reid, Pelosi Call For End To Coal At U.S. Capitol Power Plant
Responding pre-emptively to plans of a massive act of civil disobedience at the coal-fired U.S. Capitol Power Plant, the leaders of Congress today called for an end to its use of coal. In a letter to the Architect of the Capitol, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) describe the plant as “a shadow that hangs over the success” of the architect’s efforts to green the Capitol:
The Capitol Power Plant (CPP) continues to be the number one source of air pollution and carbon emissions in the District of Columbia and the focal point for criticism from local community and national environmental and public health groups.
Reid and Pelosi note that “there are not projected to be any economical or feasible technologies to reduce coal-burning emissions soon.” (In other words, coal is dirty.) They ask the architect to switch the plant fully to natural gas “by the end of the year”:
Therefore it is our desire that your approach focus on retrofitting at least one of the coal boilers as early as this summer, and the remaining boiler by the end of the year.
The switch will allow the plant “to dramatically reduce carbon and criteria pollutant emissions, eliminating more than 95 percent of sulfur oxides and at least 50 percent of carbon monoxide,” as well as the costs of “cleaning up the fly ash and waste.”
Gristmill’s Kate Sheppard reports “that doesn’t mean the big protest on Monday is off, according to organizers,” because “there are still hundreds of other power plants burning coal around the country.”
Orszag Takes On Cavuto: ‘Folks Need To Actually Look At The Budget Document’
Orszag Takes On Cavuto: ‘Folks Need To Actually Look At The Budget Document’
Today, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag appeared on Neil Cavuto’s show to discuss the budget released by the Obama administration, which “proposes significant tax increases for businesses and wealthy families worth nearly $2 trillion over the next 10 years.” Throughout the course of their conversation, Orszag debunked various conservative tax myths trumpeted by Cavuto including: the budget proposes to raise taxes during a recession, tax increases on the wealthy are a “job killer” that will ruin economic growth, and the increases will discourage investors from playing the stock market. Watch a compilation:
As Orszag said, “we’re returning to the tax rates that applied during the 1990’s. I think all Americans — including high income Americans — did quite well during that decade.”
Bolton: I Fear That Obama Would Not Come To Israel’s Aid
Bolton: I Fear That Obama Would Not Come To Israel’s Aid
Today at CPAC, after declaring that “for those who felt the Obama administration would be friendly to Israel, it’s wake up time,” former Ambassador John Bolton was asked if, “when the Arab nations attack Israel,” which the questioner expected to occur “within six months to a year,” Bolton thinks the Obama administration will act to defend Israel.
Bolton responded to this question as if it were reasonable, saying “I don’t know what the Obama administration will do in response” to an attack by the Arab nations against Israel:
BOLTON: I would certainly hope they would come to Israel’s assistance, but I think there’s no guarantee of it. I think the more likely response is to appoint a special envoy and try to negotiate an end the hostilities.
Q: Your short answer then would be “no”.
BOLTON: I very much fear that’s right.
Watch it:
As should be obvious, the scenario presented is ridiculous. There is no analyst on the right or the left who seriously thinks that the Arab states are preparing to attack Israel. (Right now these states are much more concerned about Iran, and the extent to which Iranian power and influence in the region was greatly increased as a result of the Iraq war, which Bolton still insists was awesome.) But, if this never-going-to-happen scenario did actually come to pass, I think there is little doubt that the United States would come to Israel’s aid. (Though, as it has in the past, this aid would probably come mainly in the form of replenishing the arsenal of Israel’s military, the conventional dominance of which is a main reason why the scenario is nonsensical.) But Bolton doesn’t allow any of this to get in the way of trashing the Obama administration with shameless fearmongering about Israel.
The Next Steps To Get Out Of Iraq
The Next Steps To Get Out Of Iraq
Our guest blogger is Peter Juul, Research Associate at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Today, the New York Times reports that President Obama plans to withdraw only two combat brigades from Iraq prior to that country’s next national elections, scheduled for late this year. While all “combat forces” would be withdrawn by August 2010, as many as 50,000 “advisors” would remain to train Iraqi forces and conduct counterterrorism missions. For some combat units, this shift to advisor role would amount to nothing more than a name change. According to the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq, this “transition force” would have to leave Iraq by the end of 2011.
President Obama’s emerging plan for U.S. withdrawal fits in between his 16-month campaign pledge and the SOFA. Still, the president must be prepared to conduct a quicker withdrawal, whatever the situation on the ground in Iraq. Why? In order to pass the SOFA through the Iraqi parliament, a provision for a popular referendum by July 2009 was included alongside the agreement. If the referendum rejects the SOFA, the United States will have one year to completely withdraw from Iraq. But Obama’s plan doesn’t make a sufficient “down payment” on withdrawal prior to the referendum in order to convince skeptical Iraqis that the United States really does plan to leave Iraq on the timetable specified in the SOFA. So it’s not outside the realm of possibility that the United States could be forced to make a complete withdrawal from Iraq by July 2010.
Nevertheless, the Iraq debate in Washington continues to ignore the political realities in Iraq. As fellow Iraq blogger Eric Martin noted, many observers – including Tom Ricks – continue to make this same fundamental error. Even the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, General Raymond Odierno, has intimated the possibility of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the SOFA withdrawal deadline while officially hewing to the SOFA. And today, Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, the Keystone Cops of Iraq policy, argue that the Obama administration should be willing to slow down withdrawals and in effect ignore the SOFA and the referendum. So once again the Beltway debate is being waged in favor of ignoring Iraqi realities in order to keep the U.S. military in Iraq while even John McCain admits the situation in Afghanistan keeps getting worse.
So what should Obama do? More »
Hutchison: Economic Crisis Should Postpone ‘Our Nation’s Answers To Health Care’
Hutchison: Economic Crisis Should Postpone ‘Our Nation’s Answers To Health Care’
Previewing the Republican attack on the budget, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) appeared on CNBC this morning to spew-off the kind of neo-Hooverism that confuses ‘principles’ and ‘ideology’ for economic reality:
ANCHOR: Senator, do you believe it’s necessary to postpone our nations answers to health care because it costs too much?
BAILEY HUTCHISON: I do. I certainly do, and I think that again going into this nationalized health care, universal health care, takes it out of the private sector, and again that’s jobs…You start taking that out of the private sector and put it into government, more government spending and less private sector jobs that — what is happening to our free enterprise system?
Watch it:
As Peter Orszag suggested this morning during the budget unveiling, getting health care costs under control and expanding access to coverage is the “single most important thing” we can do to solve the economic crisis. Health care costs “are the long-term driving force in federal and state budgets” and health spending consumes “$1 out of every $6 in the economy, dwarfing automobiles and all other economic segments.”
In fact, the health care crisis is best pronounced in Texas. The state leads the nation in “the highest percentage of residents without health insurance,” and ranks last in children’s access to health care.
The current economic recession and growing unemployment numbers are likely exacerbating the problem. A look at December’s unemployment figures (the latest date for which data is available), for instance, reveals that an 11,500 additional Texans lost their jobs every day, and many likely lost their employer-based health insurance coverage.
But while the crisis is real for Texans, Bailey Hutchison, who as a Senator receives government subsidized health insurance, is concerned about “more government spending” on health care. Of course the point of real health reform is to eliminate wasteful expenditures, improve quality, and reduce overall health care spending (now at an unsustainable 16% of the GDP), not increase it. Unfortunately, by postponing reform, health care spending will only increase. By 2017, health care will consume 20 percent of the GDP.
Hannity Rises To Jindal’s Defense, Attacks Wonk Room’s Analysis Of Louisiana’s Unemployed
Hannity Rises To Jindal’s Defense, Attacks Wonk Room’s Analysis Of Louisiana’s Unemployed
Last night, Fox’s Sean Hannity defended Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and attacked our recent analysis of the Louisiana labor market. In response to Jindal’s rejection of stimulus funds to expand unemployment benefits, which would benefit 25,000 unemployed workers in Louisiana, we calculated that there were 430 new unemployed people in Louisiana for each day in December.
Claiming that the “folks at the Center need to make some progress on their math skills,” Hannity pointed to an employer payroll survey showing that Louisiana added jobs in December. Watch it:
We wonder –- are Hannity and Jindal trying to assert that the fundamentals of the economy in Louisiana are strong? While their statements are technically true, the statistic they are highlighting tells us the number of jobs — not the number of people who are unemployed.
Here’s where the confusion lies: In our headline, we should have said Louisiana had 430 new unemployed people for every day in December, as opposed to 430 jobs being lost.
There are two primary ways that the government measures the labor market: the employer payroll survey and the household survey. Hannity and Jindal are relying on the fact that the employer survey, which asks businesses about additions and subtractions from their payrolls, showed that businesses added jobs (although even this measurement is down .4 percent for Louisiana from its peak in August 2008).
The household survey, however, asks members of households whether or not they have jobs or are looking for work. This measures the unemployment rate, which has been rising steadily in Louisiana, from 4 percent in December 2007 to 5.9 percent in December 2008. There was also an increase from 5.3 percent in November 2008 to 5.9 percent in December 2008. This statistic is more pertinent to the discussion at hand, since we are debating unemployment benefits.
We believe that rejecting additional funds for unemployment benefits at a time when unemployment in Louisiana is rising is an unwise decision. However, the people of Louisiana will have the final say on whether that is the right thing to do. More »
Geithner: Bank Nationalization Is ‘The Wrong Strategy For The Country’
Geithner: Bank Nationalization Is ‘The Wrong Strategy For The Country’
During an interview yesterday with Jim Lehrer, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner firmly dismissed nationalization as an option for combating the banking crisis:
GEITHNER: I think that’s the wrong strategy for the country, and I don’t think it’s a necessary strategy. What we need to do is to make sure that these institutions have the resources necessary to perform their critical function on an ongoing basis in our economy as a whole.
Now, Geithner is clearly in a tough spot. Openly musing about whether or not to nationalize the banks can have an effect on bank stocks, and as Matthew Yglesias noted, “while it’s fine if the stock market doesn’t like the idea of nationalizing banks, it’s not fine if the stock market goes into a total panic over it.” So there is wisdom in not parading around the fact that nationalization is being considered.
That said, nationalization needs to be considered, and there’s something wrong if Geithner really believes it’s not an option. Adam Posen, Deputy Director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, explained the logic of nationalizing to Congress today:
[N]ew private owners will always demand majority voting control and removal of current top management who are accountable for the accumulated problems. The American taxpayer would be ill-served to receive anything less for putting in the vast amount of money needed to restructure and recapitalize [the banks]. And the American taxpayer, just like any acquirer of distressed assets, deserves to reap the upside from their eventual resale. That basic logic is why failed banks that are too systemically important to shut down should be nationalized temporarily.
Geithner’s alternative has the government receiving stock in the banks “just like anybody else,” so there will be a return on the investments. But that doesn’t change the fact that the government would be sinking a lot of money into these banks without gaining authority and accountability over the use of taxpayer funds. The banks could simply work to maximize short-term gains — or throw lavish parties — and there would be very little Treasury could do about it.
In the budget that the administration proposed today, there is a $250 billion placeholder for more bank aid. While it’s admirable that the administration acknowledges that more might need to be done to save the banks, there is no sense in spending this amount of money without positioning taxpayers to reap significant rewards. A situation in which the government is providing a “slow intravenous drip that’s enough to keep the banks shambling along” will hinder the economic recovery and be a tremendous waste of money.
Bill Clinton: Obama Has ‘Better Than 50-50 Chance He’ll Succeed’ In Reforming Health Care
Bill Clinton: Obama Has ‘Better Than 50-50 Chance He’ll Succeed’ In Reforming Health Care
Greg Sargent asks President Clinton about President Obama’s chances of passing comprehensive health reform and the challenges of shepherding a plan through Congress:
It’s gonna be much harder to get the doctors and the business community to come out against reform than it was 14 years ago…The only way they can beat it this time is if they can convince public opinion and enough members of Congress that reforming health care now will cost more jobs than it will save. And I think that’s gonna be a pretty hard sell…The President’s gonna be on strong ground…The last election showed a cultural shift in America which had been building for a decade, and a rejection of the economic and social policies of not just the eight years of President Bush but the 12 years before me. There’s a willingness to take a fresh look at all this. I believe he should try, I’m glad he’s going to, and I think it’s a better than 50-50 chance he’ll succeed.
Indeed, Obama has explained the health care crisis in the context of the economic recession. It’s a connection more and more Americans can personally appreciate, as rising unemployment numbers translate into an increase in the uninsured. In fact, during a time when the automakers are shedding health care benefits to remain competitive and employers are struggling to provide coverage, the nay-sayres are sounding like Hooverites — out of touch with Wall Street and Main Street.
A crisis is a terrible thing to waste and if Obama’s stimulus package and budget are any indication, he plans to take full advantage of it to reform the health care system.
The WonkLine: February 26, 2009
The WonkLine: February 26, 2009
Welcome to The WonkLine, a daily 10 a.m. roundup of the latest news about health care, the economy, national security and climate policy. This is what we’re reading. Tell us what you found in the comments section below.
Climate
“Icecaps around the North and South Poles are melting faster” and “much more widespread than thought,” raising sea levels and fueling climate change, the International Polar Year survey.
Next week, Americans are being invited to take part in “what could become the largest act of civil disobedience against global warming in the country’s history,” protesting at the coal-fired power plant that powers Capitol Hill in Washington DC.
In Michigan, environmental regulators announced “they will ask power companies seeking to build coal-fired plants to review whether they have less-polluting alternatives.”
Health Care
Responding to the health provisions in President Obama’s first budget, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said, “by the end of this year, I want to do something significant dealing with health care.” Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) “predicted in an interview that the Senate could pass legislation by its August recess.”
A new analysis by researchers at Dartmouth finds that “Medicare spending continues to vary widely across the country.”
“One in four Americans said in a survey that someone in the family put off needed health care in the past year because of cost.”
National Security
A public opinion study in predominantly Muslim countries reveals that large majorities continue to renounce attacks on civilians as a means of pursuing political goals. At the same time, large majorities agree with al Qaeda’s goal of pushing the United States to remove its military forces from all Muslim countries
France, Germany and the UK are proposing “a tough list of additional sanctions to be imposed against Iran in order to give the Obama administration more muscle in its expected engagement of the Islamic republic.”
CIA Director Leon Panetta said yesterday “that U.S. aerial attacks against al-Qaeda and other extremist strongholds inside Pakistan would continue, despite concerns about a popular Pakistani backlash.”
Economy
Only one in three Americans now believe they will be able to fully retire “as huge losses in home and stock prices dent their confidence in the future.”
Lawmakers “are already shooting down President Obama’s plan to cut farm subsidies, dealing a blow to one of the cost-savings promises he laid out in his congressional address Tuesday night.”
The Obama administration “laid out a dark economic scenario it expects banks to be able to withstand” as part of its stress test: “unemployment rate rises above 10% and home prices fall by another 25%.”
Obama Health Budget: It’s A Boat Load Of Money, But Good Health Reform Demands Even More
Obama Health Budget: It’s A Boat Load Of Money, But Good Health Reform Demands Even More
Details are slowly leaking about the health care provisions in Obama’s budget and so far, the news sounds promising. The administration plans to set aside $634 billion over 10 years for reforming the health care system, lower costs and expand coverage.
Because this is a budget proposal, we have some details on where the money is coming from, but we don’t really know how that money will be spent. The basic idea is this: cut-back on the waste in our health care system, improve the efficiency of Medicare and Medicaid and then re-invest that money back into the fund (for health care reform).
Where will the $634 billion come from? The administration wants to limit “the tax break on itemized deductions for families with incomes above $250,000″ and strip approximately $300 billion from both Medicare and Medicaid, without cutting benefits.
They believe that there is enough waste in the health system to finance at least part of the down payment for reform:
- Eliminate Medicare Advantage overpayments and modernize the competitive bidding process.
- Drug companies would be required to increase the rebate they now provide for medications sold to Medicaid.
- Competition in generic medications (move forward with creating a generic version of biologic drugs)
- Bundle payments for post-hospital providers.
Overall, the fund is a good start, but it’s certainly not enough to reach universal coverage. Still, the Obama administration has learned from the mistakes of past reform efforts. Unlike the Clinton strategy, which didn’t include any money for health reform in the budget, and left Congress to digest a 700+ page health plan, Obama and Congress will fill in the details of reform.
They’ll decide how to spend the fund and divide the pie between preventive care, managed care, reimbursement reform, etc. This leaves a lot of room for compromise, but in working out the details of reform, progressive principles of true universality and affordability must remain intact.
U.S. Ranks Last In Progress Toward ‘Knowledge-Based Innovation Economy’ Over Last Decade
U.S. Ranks Last In Progress Toward ‘Knowledge-Based Innovation Economy’ Over Last Decade
Today, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) released a study examining six areas — human capital, innovation capacity, entrepreneurship, IT infrastructure, economic policy factors and economic performance — to assess the extent to which nations are able to compete globally on the basis of innovation.
The ITIF found that the U.S.’s overall position in terms of innovation-based competitiveness is slipping, and that America “ranks last in progress toward the new knowledge-based innovation economy over the last decade”:
[T]he prevailing view among many Washington policymakers is that the United States has been number 1 for so long it will continue to be number 1. Given this situation, the thinking goes, there is no real need for the United States to develop and implement a national economic development or competitiveness strategy. But this report finds that not only is the U.S. not number 1, but that its position is slipping rapidly. Absent a coherent national innovation strategy, the U.S. position will likely continue to slip, and with it, relative U.S. living standards.
According to the ITIF, “it’s time for U.S. federal policymakers to realize that the U.S. economy now competes with other nations, and like states after World War II did, it too needs to put in place a robust economic development policy.” The U.S. is one of only three industrialized nations that lacks a national innovation policy.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
