Mar 14, 2023·edited Mar 14, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
It's the vote, or, rather, voter turn-out. If 50% of independents and 50% of Democrats would just show up, most of these hard right mis-decisions would be avoided. We all read what we want to read or listen to what we want to listen to and so the great left/right blue/red divides are pretty healthily sustained within their own new ecosystems. But if the independents who don't really like either side (evidently) would just turn out and vote their consciences, we'd really start making progress.
And the way to get them out is by choosing attractive candidates (politically, not necessarily physically) who get out and meet with voters personally instead of relying on social media. The Republicans are, by and large, afraid to meet with groups of voters because of the opposition they'll encounter so there is a huge void to fill.
Absolutely not, there must be grassroots support and a media organization that blankets the area that the candidate hopes to represent. Retail politics was always the strength of the Democratic Party but has been lost in the shuffle of major money, professional consultants whose knowledge of the electorate seems questionable, and the ease of using electronic contact media instead of face-to-face interaction.
Mar 14, 2023·edited Mar 14, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
"There is a simple—albeit difficult to achieve—solution. We need only elect a Congress and president willing to enact legislation to reform the federal judiciary. That will require (in my view) a carve-out of the filibuster, an expansion of the Supreme Court, curbs on the ability of a single federal judge to issue nationwide injunctions, restrictions on the ability of the Supreme Court to issue merits-based decisions on its “shadow docket,” and enactment of an enforceable code of ethics on the Supreme Court (among many other reforms)."
This will happen after the Earth reverses the direction of its rotation and there is regular commuter service via starship to the suburbs on Alpha Centauri. (I wish I was wrong)
Well, we had the votes in Congress and the presidency from 2008- 2009, and 2018 and 2020. So slightly more frequently than a reverse rotation of the earth. The only missing element was the will to overcome the filibuster. When an ****** judge in Texas tells 150 million women they can't have access to abortion care at all, but the filibuster won't seem so important.
Yeah, and if Obama hadn't been getting advice from a collection of New Democrat clucks in 2009-2010, funneled to him through the cluck of clucks Rahm Emanuel...
If Robert is right and the seditious White Christian judicial system bans Mifepristone, the Earth will reverse direction and women will fly to Alpha Centuri with the anger and passion needed to re-elect Biden (despite his age) as well as defeat every Republican running for office. Then we'll control both the presidency, the House and Senate (w/a filibuster proof majority), expand the Supreme Court and impeach this right-wing nuts from the bench.
Along the lines of the piece you mentioned about needing to move the needle to 55% of the vote in order to achieve progressive priorities that a majority of Americans actually support, I’m deeply troubled by recent positions Biden has taken and am wondering who is advising him!
His approval of the Willow Project to extract oil and gas from Alaskan wilderness areas is horrible and is alienating the very young climate change activists who came out to vote in ‘20 and ‘22, based on Biden’s advocacy of solid climate change policies and the important support for same in the Inflation Reduction Act in the last Congress.
His support of defeating the DC Crime bill is puzzling, and his moves towards some of Trump’s heinous immigration policies, including potential family detention are all alienating to the Democratic base. I remember feeling disappointed and resentful when Obama took middle of the road positions on a lot of issues, apparently banking on the reality that the Dem base would have nowhere else to go.
But if we have a prayer of increasing our potential support among the American electorate, I believe we must focus on engaging young people, who represent the future of this country. And with so many young people motivated by gun control issues and climate change issues, this has been starting to happen. The last thing Biden needs to do is move away from this clear area of progress!!!
I have noted my disagreement with Biden on both decisions. While I agree with you about where the Democratic Party can pick up votes, Biden believes (wrongly, in my view) that he is moving to the center to pick up votes there. I think it is the both the wrong strategy and the wrong decision on the merits in both cases.
Re the Alaska oil drilling: The White House has claimed that pre-existing authorizations for drilling mean that Conoco would sue successfully to get those drilling permits.
One might argue that Biden should go down fighting (doesn’t he already have enough fights on his hands?), but at least the argument should be acknowledged and discussed as non-ideologically as possible.
I’m so curious as to where he’s getting this not sage advice. This constant search to regain white working class voters is mostly in vain. If there are some in between who are tired of Trump and may not like DeSantis, they will hold their noses and vote for Biden in any case.
But motivating younger voters in particular, and to some extent, minority voters as well, can be difficult, because younger folks have not turned out much generally. The fact that there was a significant increase in that population as part of the voting public in the past couple of years is so critical! Expanding their reasons to vote by strongly supporting efforts to combat climate change and to expand gun safety laws, as well as fight the anti abortion folks, is absolutely necessary to get them out. Let’s think about the future of our country and the planet, for Pete’s sakes!
I am also gobsmacked by the Willow decision. But it seems that among substack authors I've read, someone speculated that the decision was made to balance the oil industry losses (if any) because of support of the Russian oil boycott, or, because the site is near(er)to Russia, a means to supply Europe for its refusal to use Russian oil in the future. I may be far off, and I don't know if the oil-igarchs really sustained losses, but I am searching for sensibility, I guess. Also, Saudi Arabia cozying up to Russia and China, means there's a need for energy backup for the West. (Those Saudi Arabians are playing two ends against the middle!)
Yes to engaging young people. At least one is hoping Gavin Newsome will run if Joe does not.
My worry is the voter suppression, especially targeting the youth vote. Prohibiting polling locations on college campuses, not accepting student ID as a valid form of identification, reducing early voting especially around holidays where college kids may be home…..there are so many ways to suppress the vote. There’s so much more. I sincerely worry about “getting to 55”.
What I find interesting is how good people (present company probably included, given we can't see what's hidden) don't see how future problems are forming under the surface of the current landscape of judges that are corruptly using their power to achieve personal (and blatantly religious) goals.
The same strategies that enable that corruption are making the legal profession very toxic to new arrivals. The leaders of the legal community are profiting from their silent control of our legal system and rank-and-file lawyers who provide legal services to ordinary people are dropping out of the profession in surprisingly large numbers - not to mention the numbers of lawyers who succumb to addiction, mental illness, and suicide.
The stigma ingrained in our legal profession prevents lawyers from seeking help and a crisis is coming where the corruption disregards the industry-wide unwellness and our legal system for ordinary disputes will become completely unreliable.
Much as you and I admire Biden's accomplishments, why have you not commented on his disastrous decision to support oil extraction in Alaska (Willow Project) & the hypocrisy inherent in his simultaneously declaring future extraction off limits.
Your husband is mistaken that I have not commented on the Willow project.
I have criticized Biden's decision regarding Willow in two newsletters. I excerpt my comments below. In the second excerpt, I linked to a Mother Jones article that included a lengthy discussion of the impact on the environment and indigenous peoples of Alaska.
Here is a part of what I wrote on Sunday evening:
I am a big fan of Joe Biden, as are many of you. But we should acknowledge when he makes decisions that are unpopular with substantial portions of his base (although certainly not all).
The second controversial decision is the apparent approval of the Willow oil drilling project in Alaska. See NYTimes, Administration to Approve Huge Alaska Oil Project on Monday, Two Officials Say. It is difficult to rationalize the approval of the Willow project with Biden’s promises regarding clean and renewable energy. Although Biden initially adhered to his campaign promise not to approve new oil and gas leases, that promise was effectively invalidated by federal court rulings.
It appears Biden’s decision was driven by short-term political pressures—including the recent spike in gasoline prices. Delivery of oil from the Willow project is years away (in part because of threatened litigation) and will have no impact on gas prices before the election. So, Biden’s decision appears to be primarily about political optics.
LAST WEEK, I wrote the following:
An impending decision of immense environmental impact.
The Biden administration will make a decision in the next week or so that could have a major environmental impact. ConocoPhillips is seeking permission to open five sites on Alaska’s North Slope to produce 600 million barrels of oil over the next 30 years. Mother Jones takes a deep dive into the proposed project here: Alaska Natives Beg Biden to Halt Massive Oil Project – Mother Jones. Per the article,
The Willow Project, proposed by ConocoPhillips, would be the largest single oil development to proceed under the Biden administration if it is approved. The project would pump more than 600 million barrels of oil over 30 years from a rapidly warming Arctic region, and environmental groups say it is wholly inconsistent with the administration’s climate goals.
I learned of this project on my recent trip to Alaska. If approved, it will have significant negative effects on the Alaskan environment and native peoples. Moreover, it will simply prolong US dependence on oil and displace demand for green energy sources.
I highly recommend the article in Mother Jones. Although the administration may make a decision as early as next week, there are always opportunities to delay or reverse the decision. Now is a good time to educate yourself about the fight to come. Check out the article. More on this topic in future newsletters.
Robert, may I sneak in a short comment between your back-and-forth with David Holzman? (This is not to criticize either your or David Holman’s remarks.)
The emphasis on the Willow project is misplaced, in my opinion, with regard to global warming (environmental destruction is a different matter).
Your view, and that of ‘progressives’ is an inverted form of the old supply-side economics: if we cut off domestic oil drilling, there will be less gas for drivers, hence less CO2 from vehicles. However, petroleum will be available from other nations.
I think the best way to curb vehicle CO2 emissions is to convince people to operate electric or (in the mid-term) hybrid vehicles. That addresses the amount of CO2 emissions directly. Requiring ever-higher mileage efficiency would also help.
Address the problem directly. Don’t push on a string.
51 million cars may sound like a lot, but the US currently has 290 million cars. Cars cause around 16% of US greenhouse emissions. So emissions from 51 million cars is equal to 2.8 percent of annual US emissions.
Anyone who feels this is a concerning amount of emissions should be aware that the Census Bureau projects 17 million new immigrants per decade for the next four decades. That's almost one New York State population equivalent per decade (20 million). The average immigrant's greenhouse emissions rise threefold after arrival in the US (they come here because they want to consume like Americans). 20 years from now the annual excess emissions from immigration is likely to be at least twice that of 30 years from the Willow project.
And that probably doesn't even count the greenhouse emissions caused by developing virgin land, which the US will have to do to accommodate an additional 34 million over the next 20 yrs, and 68 million over the next 40 (plus 7.5 million in native increase). Virgin land sequesters large amounts of carbon dioxide (you can read about that problem in an article I wrote in Environmental Health Perspectives http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430251/
So if you're worried about the Willow project's effect on US CO2 emissions, you should be well more worried about the impact of immigration to the US--which is the major industrialized nation with the greatest per capita resource use and greenhouse emissions.
Please note: if you google emissions from cars, google will most often give you emissions from total transportation, which also includes travel and shipping on planes, trains, ships, and trucks, which comes to around 29% of US GH emissions--nearly twice the 16% from passenger cars, SUVs and and personal pickup trucks (which are used as passenger cars).
Hi, David. I disagree with your analysis for two reasons.
First, if we want to cut carbon emissions, we have to start somewhere. We can't cut everything all at once, so saying that there are OTHER sources (even greater sources) of carbon emissions is not an argument for not starting somewhere to reduce some carbon emissions. If we don't start somewhere, we will never start.
Second, this seems wrong: The average immigrant's greenhouse emissions rise threefold after arrival in the US (they come here because they want to consume like Americans). Can you please provide a source? Thanks!
Hi Robert. Thanks for your questions. Although I agree with the vast majority of what you say in every day's Today's, I have been concerned about overpopulation in the US since I was 9, in the '60s. And the population has grown by more than a third since then. I also studied environmental science under John Holdren in 1975, as a UC Berkeley student, and I've written a fair amount about those issues, and they are all aggravated by increasing population. (Holdren later became Pres O's Science Advisor.)
As an adult, I also became concerned about the welfare of workers in the US. When she ran a commission on immigration reform under President Clinton, Barbara Jordan advocated cutting immigration numbers roughly in half (to a little over half a million annually), and strict enforcement of immigration laws, the motivating factor being the need for more jobs for African Americans. Had her recommendations been followed, I suspect Trump never would have been elected. As you probably remember, immigration was his signature issue.
But a large part of Jordan's reasoning was the issue of jobs for Black people. There's a recent book, which I will be happy to send you, if you give me your address (you can email me at supernova1@aol.com), called Back of the Hiring Line: A 200-Year History of Immigration Surges, Employer Bias, and Depression of Black Wealth, by Roy Beck. The book is solid, covering the relevant academic economic history, black periodicals, statements from black leaders, beginning with Frederick Douglas, and gov't commissions on immigration reform (296 footnotes, yet highly readable, as the author was an environmental journalist for three decades).
Among other things, the book recounted that in 1980, meat packers were predominantly black, and they were earning good middle class wages, having spent 60 years organizing their way up in the trade. That was news to me. But by the end of that decade, meat packers were predominantly immigrants, earning barely over minimum wage, toiling under atrocious conditions.
As the book recounts, companies often encourage migrants to come here, as Zuckerberg does with his fwd.US, because they like the cheap labor, and even in the 1800s, companies were sending ships to Europe to bring back white European workers. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), the leading exponent of reducing immigration on Capitol Hill in the '90s and '00s told me that two fast food execs spent an hour trying to buy him off of the issue, telling him they'd keep his campaign coffers full if he did as they wanted. And Karl Rove told Tancredo to "never darken the White House door again." The Koch organization has supported mass immigration, as have big biz GOPers generally. A national mandatory E-Verify came within about 25 votes of passing the House in 2017. It probably would have passed the House had Speaker Paul Ryan and Trump supported it, but they didn't.
Similar changes had happened all over the low/no-skilled trades, and they are now making life harder for white workers (which shows up in all the opioid deaths) and the Democratic Party is losing its hold on immigrants. And now Biden wants to double immigration. I think that's crazy, but I also think Biden is doing so much good that I'm not going to stress about this. Nonetheless, I'm an activist on immigration, and I will continue, but my donations to elections that help Democracy now greatly exceed my immigration-related donations.
The source for the three-fold increase is the Center for Immigration Studies. HOwever, I'm not finding it right now. So here is the source for their older, obsolete finding of immigrants' greenhouse gas emissions rising fourfold after arrival here. (The reduction in the rise of greenhouse emissions after arrival here probably has to do with the fact that the numbers of immigrants from Asia has increased over the last handful of years, while the number from Latin America has dropped.) https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-United-States-and-WorldWide-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions
But consider the fact that they come mostly from third world countries where per capita emissions are very low compared to in the US. And consider the spread out nature of our country compared to their countries of origin, the fact that most of their countries of origin don't require winter heating as much of the US does, etc.
If you're questioning the statement that they want to consume like Americans, most have come for economic reasons, despite the focus on the crime in the northern Triangle countries as a major impetus more recently, and the adverse politics in Venezuela (the economic impetus for the migrations was clear from a graph I saw in Pew probably half a dozen years ago). Additionally, until recently, Mexico encouraged its poor to emigrate to the US in large part because remittances vied with oil for Mexico's biggest source of wealth.
Regarding the need to cut carbon emissions, it's at least as important to cut the demand side. We need smaller cars, and smaller EVs, we need zoning regs that require strong insulation for buildings. And we need to stop growing the population. From 1990-2020 we added 83 million (four NY State equivalents plus 3 million); half of that from immigration. Biden wants to double immigration, but if we add 20 million+ every decade, it's going to be all but impossible to reduce GH emissions.
A correction: SVB is a "regional bank" not a "community bank." Community banks are small enough they won't create bigger problems and so didn't get the regualtions, being less that $50B in total valuation per bank. The 2018 "deregulation" (which 17 Democratic Senators and 33 Congress critters voted with the Republicans) raised that limit to $250B, which as we have now discovered, is big enough to cause a crisis.
"let’s hope that he is able to honor his promise to reinstitute the regulatory oversight provisions eliminated by Trump."
Don't hold your breath, the contemporary House GOP has now divided banks into "red" banks and "blue" banks, with "blue" banks being ineligible for government support since all their problems are because they were too busy being "woke" to take care of their business affairs (SVB being "blue" in this formulation, though DEI had nothing to do with the CEO being a moron).
The Trump Administration roll back of the Dodd Frank regulations for smaller banks was bipartisan and many Democrats in both the House and Senate voted for these changes. Special interest groups and lobbyists invested millions to weaken the laws. The bigger question is are these same legislators today willing to fix the problem they created?
the only variable in your analysis of Congress dividing bank is Kevin McCarthy and his slim Republican majority come largely from the 5 flipped seats in California (New York also, but not my comment).
It may be called "Silicon Valley Bank," but tech start-ups are all over California, especially in Southern California/San Diego. SVB was/is a regional bank.
My Congressional District in the Central Valley is one that flipped--by 584 votes; the last Congressional race called in the nation. And it's next door to McCarthy's. There are numerous tech start-ups that are developing/have tech products designed to serve the needs of farmers.
There are many tech products of the past 40 years that are indeed useful. Unfortunately, the ones on the other side are so egregious that though they are outnumbered in actual products, they can outweigh the good ones, leading to the point one decides the progress of the past 40 years hasn't been that progressive. Fleeceblock alone is 80% of the bad, and that's planet-wide.
We should not have bailed out SVB, or its clients. Neither qualified for protection under US banking regulations. We made an exception because the masters of Silicon Valley demanded that we make one for an industry that has repeatedly asserted that "the rules don't apply to us." If we give in to the tech industry everytime the rules become inconvenient to it, the lesson the industry will learn is that they can ignore the law without consequence.
Silicon Valley hedge funds created the liquidity crisis at SVB, which threatened hedge fund investees. The hedge funds then demanded that the US protect its startup investments from the consequences of the hedge funds decision to start a run on SVB. That rewards bad behavior by the hedge fund sector.
Second, the SVB clients who had hundreds of millions in cash stashed at a community bank were reckless. Any well-run company with a risk manager would have never permitted that to happen. But the startups left large sums on deposit with SVB as a "quid pro quo" for SVB making loans to uncreditworthy startups (as a favor to the hedge funds).
Why did the US step in to protect SVB and its startup depositors? Because big money donors in Silicon Valley demanded that the US do so. That is dark money in operation at its worst.
We, i.e. the US government, did NOT "bail out" SVB. Its stockholders, unsecured debt holders and stock optionees had a 100% loss of their investment, existing or prospective. The entire management's employment contracts have been rendered worthless. The actions of SVB's officers may very likely have been imprudent, but they have been severely punished for those errors. What we did was secure the holdings of DEPOSITORS, for reasons that a Democratic administration deemed valid. I myself do not have the requisite knowledge to determine if this was fully justified. I have no doubt that the 2018 removal of certain Dodd-Frank restrictions by a GOP-controlled Congress and by Donald Trump was unwise and probably scurrilous. But the elections of 2018 and 2020 have almost certainly prevented similar actions from being enacted in the future. That's what elections are for, so long as they are run cleanly and fairly.
My understanding is that deposits up to $250,000 were guaranteed, as are the deposits of any one of us in an FDIC-covered institution. I would be disappointed if that guarantee was extended to those foolish depositors with "hundreds of millions" sitting in the bank; it would be a terrible precedent to encourage such behavior.
Biden assured that no "tax dollars" would be spent, which is some measure of relief. Wisely, investors in the institution are on their own. Thank you for the feedback.
Well, I am disappointed! I circled back to a WaPo article on the intervention: "The decision by Treasury to backstop all deposits at SVB and Signature — not just those up to $250,000 that are insured under federal law..." Yep, bad move in my book as well, tax money or not. Those depositors are yet another reminder that simply having money is no guarantee of good judgement in managing it. How many of them were the depositors behind the run on the bank? I have to suspect that are a significant part of the problem.
Overall however, the administration limited the damage and prevented a bigger problem. Once again savings us from another largely conservative fiasco based on their primal need to deregulate. I discern a problem in self-restraint! Tsk-tsk!
Ah, yes, the Crapo bill-which brought down a goodly number of conservative Democrats, and Dean Heller, in its wake. Jon Tester and Joe Manchin have lived to fight another day, which is a coming destraction in 2024. Methinks it'd be wise for both gentlemen to be in the forefront of a Dodd-Frank revival,
I am continually troubled by Republicans co-opting our values and claiming them as their own. Recently we re- watched SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT. It is obvious that these movies send the following message..WAR IS A DREADFUL WASTE BUT IN THE END IT IS WORTH IT TO SAVE DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM.
Today we have GOP members posing as patriots while supporting insurrectionists, election deniers and white supremacists, all the while claiming to be be patriots. None of their objectives can be aligned with freedom or democracy no matter how perverted your logic.
Yet here we are. The countless deaths and sacrifices are not just being minimized by the bad actors in the GOP...they are clearly saying those sacrifices were worthless by setting out to destroy all that our brave men and women were fighting for. The original concept of freedom and democracy has been long lost on them.
We need to own our values and need to call out these miscreants like Greene, Jordan, Hawley, Scalise, and on and on. We need to pound away at what they really are doing. We need more representatives to match their pathetic vitriol with undisputable logic. We need to be the sound bites..on offense. No one can tell me that MTG is too difficult to match wits with. Same with Jordan. Same with all of them.
Can we just show up for once and truly represent? We're all waiting for the real character...the real substance to emerge.
I couldn't agree more. Biden has finally started an aggressive messaging machine. The DNC and all the state party committees need to amplify the megaphone. The "war" in culture wars is the right descriptor and it's a war we need to win for so many reasons.
Mar 14, 2023·edited Mar 14, 2023Liked by Robert B. Hubbell
Missed in all the cheers for the bailout of SVB is that behind the claim the plan does not cost the taxpayers a cent is the reality that the bonds are being bought at par (face amount), not the discount their sale in the open market would have required. Thus, the real cost is the 15-20% loss on all of the $40-50 billion involved. This is far from "cost free".
Hi, Henry. You raise an interesting point. I have a few questions:
Are the bonds being bought at par as part of the resolution of "old" SVB? If so, isn't the US effectively canceling the principal amount of its debt instruments, dollar for dollar?
And isnt' the "bailout" of SVB and other regional banks is really the opening of a one-year credit facility of unlimited amount? Those are loans, no? So the US will recoup interest.
I am interested in your argument, so any insight. you can give would be appreciated. I recognize that my understanding may be mistaken, so I want to clarify.
Regarding the Texas judge’s likely ban on the abortion pill, that decision is likely to be stayed . That’s because of a smart strategy from Washington State’s Attorney General Bob Ferguson. His office joined by several other states are suing the federal government for having unnecessarily tight restrictions on the pill. A judge in Washington is likely to uphold that position. So with two contradictory suits in play both will be stayed for a good long time. One smart strategy!
I agree thst the youth vote is the key to the future because they have more at risk than all of us. I remember when JFK created the “ great society” and attacked the youth vote of which I was a part. The Democrats need to think about two critical requirements to attract these young and new voters. They need a compelling message about how and why Democrats are worth investing in for the future of young voters and they need spoke people who connect with this age group and someone they can trust and get behind and represents to them the future of this country. I am not sure the Democrats today can deliver on both fronts.
Congress needs to reinstate Glass-Steagall, but We also need to take it to another level. The government must be measured by a Well-Being Index rather than simply GDP. As they are now doing in the United Kingdom and a number of other countries, all legislation must show how it would benefit We, the People, all of us this time. It is time to replace Citizens United with the People United. Corporations including banks are not People. Money is not free speech. Citizens United is simply legalized bribery of members of Congress. The economy should be measured by economic strength across all the People not just the top 1%. I like the Native American philosophy where one's Wealth is measured by one's generosity to others so that the entire community thrives. With rights come responsibility to protect those rights for others.
It's the vote, or, rather, voter turn-out. If 50% of independents and 50% of Democrats would just show up, most of these hard right mis-decisions would be avoided. We all read what we want to read or listen to what we want to listen to and so the great left/right blue/red divides are pretty healthily sustained within their own new ecosystems. But if the independents who don't really like either side (evidently) would just turn out and vote their consciences, we'd really start making progress.
And the way to get them out is by choosing attractive candidates (politically, not necessarily physically) who get out and meet with voters personally instead of relying on social media. The Republicans are, by and large, afraid to meet with groups of voters because of the opposition they'll encounter so there is a huge void to fill.
That is certainly one critical way to get out the vote. But we can’t stop there.
Absolutely not, there must be grassroots support and a media organization that blankets the area that the candidate hopes to represent. Retail politics was always the strength of the Democratic Party but has been lost in the shuffle of major money, professional consultants whose knowledge of the electorate seems questionable, and the ease of using electronic contact media instead of face-to-face interaction.
"There is a simple—albeit difficult to achieve—solution. We need only elect a Congress and president willing to enact legislation to reform the federal judiciary. That will require (in my view) a carve-out of the filibuster, an expansion of the Supreme Court, curbs on the ability of a single federal judge to issue nationwide injunctions, restrictions on the ability of the Supreme Court to issue merits-based decisions on its “shadow docket,” and enactment of an enforceable code of ethics on the Supreme Court (among many other reforms)."
This will happen after the Earth reverses the direction of its rotation and there is regular commuter service via starship to the suburbs on Alpha Centauri. (I wish I was wrong)
Well, we had the votes in Congress and the presidency from 2008- 2009, and 2018 and 2020. So slightly more frequently than a reverse rotation of the earth. The only missing element was the will to overcome the filibuster. When an ****** judge in Texas tells 150 million women they can't have access to abortion care at all, but the filibuster won't seem so important.
Yeah, and if Obama hadn't been getting advice from a collection of New Democrat clucks in 2009-2010, funneled to him through the cluck of clucks Rahm Emanuel...
If Robert is right and the seditious White Christian judicial system bans Mifepristone, the Earth will reverse direction and women will fly to Alpha Centuri with the anger and passion needed to re-elect Biden (despite his age) as well as defeat every Republican running for office. Then we'll control both the presidency, the House and Senate (w/a filibuster proof majority), expand the Supreme Court and impeach this right-wing nuts from the bench.
Get rid of the damn filibuster, period!
Be careful what you ask for because what goes around comes around. 😬
That's the spirit, says this person with flagging hopes.
I wish you were wrong, too, Tom.
Please don't "like" my stuff. I don't agree with your politics.
Along the lines of the piece you mentioned about needing to move the needle to 55% of the vote in order to achieve progressive priorities that a majority of Americans actually support, I’m deeply troubled by recent positions Biden has taken and am wondering who is advising him!
His approval of the Willow Project to extract oil and gas from Alaskan wilderness areas is horrible and is alienating the very young climate change activists who came out to vote in ‘20 and ‘22, based on Biden’s advocacy of solid climate change policies and the important support for same in the Inflation Reduction Act in the last Congress.
His support of defeating the DC Crime bill is puzzling, and his moves towards some of Trump’s heinous immigration policies, including potential family detention are all alienating to the Democratic base. I remember feeling disappointed and resentful when Obama took middle of the road positions on a lot of issues, apparently banking on the reality that the Dem base would have nowhere else to go.
But if we have a prayer of increasing our potential support among the American electorate, I believe we must focus on engaging young people, who represent the future of this country. And with so many young people motivated by gun control issues and climate change issues, this has been starting to happen. The last thing Biden needs to do is move away from this clear area of progress!!!
I have noted my disagreement with Biden on both decisions. While I agree with you about where the Democratic Party can pick up votes, Biden believes (wrongly, in my view) that he is moving to the center to pick up votes there. I think it is the both the wrong strategy and the wrong decision on the merits in both cases.
Re the Alaska oil drilling: The White House has claimed that pre-existing authorizations for drilling mean that Conoco would sue successfully to get those drilling permits.
One might argue that Biden should go down fighting (doesn’t he already have enough fights on his hands?), but at least the argument should be acknowledged and discussed as non-ideologically as possible.
I’m so curious as to where he’s getting this not sage advice. This constant search to regain white working class voters is mostly in vain. If there are some in between who are tired of Trump and may not like DeSantis, they will hold their noses and vote for Biden in any case.
But motivating younger voters in particular, and to some extent, minority voters as well, can be difficult, because younger folks have not turned out much generally. The fact that there was a significant increase in that population as part of the voting public in the past couple of years is so critical! Expanding their reasons to vote by strongly supporting efforts to combat climate change and to expand gun safety laws, as well as fight the anti abortion folks, is absolutely necessary to get them out. Let’s think about the future of our country and the planet, for Pete’s sakes!
I am also gobsmacked by the Willow decision. But it seems that among substack authors I've read, someone speculated that the decision was made to balance the oil industry losses (if any) because of support of the Russian oil boycott, or, because the site is near(er)to Russia, a means to supply Europe for its refusal to use Russian oil in the future. I may be far off, and I don't know if the oil-igarchs really sustained losses, but I am searching for sensibility, I guess. Also, Saudi Arabia cozying up to Russia and China, means there's a need for energy backup for the West. (Those Saudi Arabians are playing two ends against the middle!)
Yes to engaging young people. At least one is hoping Gavin Newsome will run if Joe does not.
Thanks, Hope. This helps to digest the Willow decision.
My worry is the voter suppression, especially targeting the youth vote. Prohibiting polling locations on college campuses, not accepting student ID as a valid form of identification, reducing early voting especially around holidays where college kids may be home…..there are so many ways to suppress the vote. There’s so much more. I sincerely worry about “getting to 55”.
What I find interesting is how good people (present company probably included, given we can't see what's hidden) don't see how future problems are forming under the surface of the current landscape of judges that are corruptly using their power to achieve personal (and blatantly religious) goals.
The same strategies that enable that corruption are making the legal profession very toxic to new arrivals. The leaders of the legal community are profiting from their silent control of our legal system and rank-and-file lawyers who provide legal services to ordinary people are dropping out of the profession in surprisingly large numbers - not to mention the numbers of lawyers who succumb to addiction, mental illness, and suicide.
The stigma ingrained in our legal profession prevents lawyers from seeking help and a crisis is coming where the corruption disregards the industry-wide unwellness and our legal system for ordinary disputes will become completely unreliable.
Be worried.
Question from my husband:
Much as you and I admire Biden's accomplishments, why have you not commented on his disastrous decision to support oil extraction in Alaska (Willow Project) & the hypocrisy inherent in his simultaneously declaring future extraction off limits.
Your husband is mistaken that I have not commented on the Willow project.
I have criticized Biden's decision regarding Willow in two newsletters. I excerpt my comments below. In the second excerpt, I linked to a Mother Jones article that included a lengthy discussion of the impact on the environment and indigenous peoples of Alaska.
Here is a part of what I wrote on Sunday evening:
I am a big fan of Joe Biden, as are many of you. But we should acknowledge when he makes decisions that are unpopular with substantial portions of his base (although certainly not all).
The second controversial decision is the apparent approval of the Willow oil drilling project in Alaska. See NYTimes, Administration to Approve Huge Alaska Oil Project on Monday, Two Officials Say. It is difficult to rationalize the approval of the Willow project with Biden’s promises regarding clean and renewable energy. Although Biden initially adhered to his campaign promise not to approve new oil and gas leases, that promise was effectively invalidated by federal court rulings.
It appears Biden’s decision was driven by short-term political pressures—including the recent spike in gasoline prices. Delivery of oil from the Willow project is years away (in part because of threatened litigation) and will have no impact on gas prices before the election. So, Biden’s decision appears to be primarily about political optics.
LAST WEEK, I wrote the following:
An impending decision of immense environmental impact.
The Biden administration will make a decision in the next week or so that could have a major environmental impact. ConocoPhillips is seeking permission to open five sites on Alaska’s North Slope to produce 600 million barrels of oil over the next 30 years. Mother Jones takes a deep dive into the proposed project here: Alaska Natives Beg Biden to Halt Massive Oil Project – Mother Jones. Per the article,
The Willow Project, proposed by ConocoPhillips, would be the largest single oil development to proceed under the Biden administration if it is approved. The project would pump more than 600 million barrels of oil over 30 years from a rapidly warming Arctic region, and environmental groups say it is wholly inconsistent with the administration’s climate goals.
I learned of this project on my recent trip to Alaska. If approved, it will have significant negative effects on the Alaskan environment and native peoples. Moreover, it will simply prolong US dependence on oil and displace demand for green energy sources.
I highly recommend the article in Mother Jones. Although the administration may make a decision as early as next week, there are always opportunities to delay or reverse the decision. Now is a good time to educate yourself about the fight to come. Check out the article. More on this topic in future newsletters.
Robert, may I sneak in a short comment between your back-and-forth with David Holzman? (This is not to criticize either your or David Holman’s remarks.)
The emphasis on the Willow project is misplaced, in my opinion, with regard to global warming (environmental destruction is a different matter).
Your view, and that of ‘progressives’ is an inverted form of the old supply-side economics: if we cut off domestic oil drilling, there will be less gas for drivers, hence less CO2 from vehicles. However, petroleum will be available from other nations.
I think the best way to curb vehicle CO2 emissions is to convince people to operate electric or (in the mid-term) hybrid vehicles. That addresses the amount of CO2 emissions directly. Requiring ever-higher mileage efficiency would also help.
Address the problem directly. Don’t push on a string.
The Willow project is tiny. Over the 30 years of drilling, the amount of CO2 emitted will be equivalent to that from 1.7 million cars over the 30 years, or 51 million cars for ONE YEAR. https://alaskapublic.org/2023/03/03/biden-faces-dilemma-in-fight-over-large-alaska-oil-project/
51 million cars may sound like a lot, but the US currently has 290 million cars. Cars cause around 16% of US greenhouse emissions. So emissions from 51 million cars is equal to 2.8 percent of annual US emissions.
Anyone who feels this is a concerning amount of emissions should be aware that the Census Bureau projects 17 million new immigrants per decade for the next four decades. That's almost one New York State population equivalent per decade (20 million). The average immigrant's greenhouse emissions rise threefold after arrival in the US (they come here because they want to consume like Americans). 20 years from now the annual excess emissions from immigration is likely to be at least twice that of 30 years from the Willow project.
And that probably doesn't even count the greenhouse emissions caused by developing virgin land, which the US will have to do to accommodate an additional 34 million over the next 20 yrs, and 68 million over the next 40 (plus 7.5 million in native increase). Virgin land sequesters large amounts of carbon dioxide (you can read about that problem in an article I wrote in Environmental Health Perspectives http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430251/
So if you're worried about the Willow project's effect on US CO2 emissions, you should be well more worried about the impact of immigration to the US--which is the major industrialized nation with the greatest per capita resource use and greenhouse emissions.
Please note: if you google emissions from cars, google will most often give you emissions from total transportation, which also includes travel and shipping on planes, trains, ships, and trucks, which comes to around 29% of US GH emissions--nearly twice the 16% from passenger cars, SUVs and and personal pickup trucks (which are used as passenger cars).
Hi, David. I disagree with your analysis for two reasons.
First, if we want to cut carbon emissions, we have to start somewhere. We can't cut everything all at once, so saying that there are OTHER sources (even greater sources) of carbon emissions is not an argument for not starting somewhere to reduce some carbon emissions. If we don't start somewhere, we will never start.
Second, this seems wrong: The average immigrant's greenhouse emissions rise threefold after arrival in the US (they come here because they want to consume like Americans). Can you please provide a source? Thanks!
Hi Robert. Thanks for your questions. Although I agree with the vast majority of what you say in every day's Today's, I have been concerned about overpopulation in the US since I was 9, in the '60s. And the population has grown by more than a third since then. I also studied environmental science under John Holdren in 1975, as a UC Berkeley student, and I've written a fair amount about those issues, and they are all aggravated by increasing population. (Holdren later became Pres O's Science Advisor.)
As an adult, I also became concerned about the welfare of workers in the US. When she ran a commission on immigration reform under President Clinton, Barbara Jordan advocated cutting immigration numbers roughly in half (to a little over half a million annually), and strict enforcement of immigration laws, the motivating factor being the need for more jobs for African Americans. Had her recommendations been followed, I suspect Trump never would have been elected. As you probably remember, immigration was his signature issue.
But a large part of Jordan's reasoning was the issue of jobs for Black people. There's a recent book, which I will be happy to send you, if you give me your address (you can email me at supernova1@aol.com), called Back of the Hiring Line: A 200-Year History of Immigration Surges, Employer Bias, and Depression of Black Wealth, by Roy Beck. The book is solid, covering the relevant academic economic history, black periodicals, statements from black leaders, beginning with Frederick Douglas, and gov't commissions on immigration reform (296 footnotes, yet highly readable, as the author was an environmental journalist for three decades).
Among other things, the book recounted that in 1980, meat packers were predominantly black, and they were earning good middle class wages, having spent 60 years organizing their way up in the trade. That was news to me. But by the end of that decade, meat packers were predominantly immigrants, earning barely over minimum wage, toiling under atrocious conditions.
As the book recounts, companies often encourage migrants to come here, as Zuckerberg does with his fwd.US, because they like the cheap labor, and even in the 1800s, companies were sending ships to Europe to bring back white European workers. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), the leading exponent of reducing immigration on Capitol Hill in the '90s and '00s told me that two fast food execs spent an hour trying to buy him off of the issue, telling him they'd keep his campaign coffers full if he did as they wanted. And Karl Rove told Tancredo to "never darken the White House door again." The Koch organization has supported mass immigration, as have big biz GOPers generally. A national mandatory E-Verify came within about 25 votes of passing the House in 2017. It probably would have passed the House had Speaker Paul Ryan and Trump supported it, but they didn't.
Similar changes had happened all over the low/no-skilled trades, and they are now making life harder for white workers (which shows up in all the opioid deaths) and the Democratic Party is losing its hold on immigrants. And now Biden wants to double immigration. I think that's crazy, but I also think Biden is doing so much good that I'm not going to stress about this. Nonetheless, I'm an activist on immigration, and I will continue, but my donations to elections that help Democracy now greatly exceed my immigration-related donations.
The source for the three-fold increase is the Center for Immigration Studies. HOwever, I'm not finding it right now. So here is the source for their older, obsolete finding of immigrants' greenhouse gas emissions rising fourfold after arrival here. (The reduction in the rise of greenhouse emissions after arrival here probably has to do with the fact that the numbers of immigrants from Asia has increased over the last handful of years, while the number from Latin America has dropped.) https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-United-States-and-WorldWide-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions
But consider the fact that they come mostly from third world countries where per capita emissions are very low compared to in the US. And consider the spread out nature of our country compared to their countries of origin, the fact that most of their countries of origin don't require winter heating as much of the US does, etc.
If you're questioning the statement that they want to consume like Americans, most have come for economic reasons, despite the focus on the crime in the northern Triangle countries as a major impetus more recently, and the adverse politics in Venezuela (the economic impetus for the migrations was clear from a graph I saw in Pew probably half a dozen years ago). Additionally, until recently, Mexico encouraged its poor to emigrate to the US in large part because remittances vied with oil for Mexico's biggest source of wealth.
Regarding the need to cut carbon emissions, it's at least as important to cut the demand side. We need smaller cars, and smaller EVs, we need zoning regs that require strong insulation for buildings. And we need to stop growing the population. From 1990-2020 we added 83 million (four NY State equivalents plus 3 million); half of that from immigration. Biden wants to double immigration, but if we add 20 million+ every decade, it's going to be all but impossible to reduce GH emissions.
Robert I have a conflict and can't watch your interview with Kristol and Rosenberg. Is it being recorded so it can be watched later?
I am told it is being recorded by CSpan for later replay.
A correction: SVB is a "regional bank" not a "community bank." Community banks are small enough they won't create bigger problems and so didn't get the regualtions, being less that $50B in total valuation per bank. The 2018 "deregulation" (which 17 Democratic Senators and 33 Congress critters voted with the Republicans) raised that limit to $250B, which as we have now discovered, is big enough to cause a crisis.
"let’s hope that he is able to honor his promise to reinstitute the regulatory oversight provisions eliminated by Trump."
Don't hold your breath, the contemporary House GOP has now divided banks into "red" banks and "blue" banks, with "blue" banks being ineligible for government support since all their problems are because they were too busy being "woke" to take care of their business affairs (SVB being "blue" in this formulation, though DEI had nothing to do with the CEO being a moron).
The Trump Administration roll back of the Dodd Frank regulations for smaller banks was bipartisan and many Democrats in both the House and Senate voted for these changes. Special interest groups and lobbyists invested millions to weaken the laws. The bigger question is are these same legislators today willing to fix the problem they created?
Perhaps, Stephen
DEMOCRATS WHO VOTED TO DEREGULATE WALL STREET GOT WIPED OUT IN A SETBACK FOR BANK LOBBYISTS
https://theintercept.com/2018/11/10/dodd-frank-deregulation-midterms-2018/
thanks for the great link!
Thanks
the only variable in your analysis of Congress dividing bank is Kevin McCarthy and his slim Republican majority come largely from the 5 flipped seats in California (New York also, but not my comment).
It may be called "Silicon Valley Bank," but tech start-ups are all over California, especially in Southern California/San Diego. SVB was/is a regional bank.
My Congressional District in the Central Valley is one that flipped--by 584 votes; the last Congressional race called in the nation. And it's next door to McCarthy's. There are numerous tech start-ups that are developing/have tech products designed to serve the needs of farmers.
There are many tech products of the past 40 years that are indeed useful. Unfortunately, the ones on the other side are so egregious that though they are outnumbered in actual products, they can outweigh the good ones, leading to the point one decides the progress of the past 40 years hasn't been that progressive. Fleeceblock alone is 80% of the bad, and that's planet-wide.
"It was the right thing to do in the moment, but the wrong thing to do in the long run. "
I'm not sure that I understand the point about being a mistake "in the long run." Would you clarify?
We should not have bailed out SVB, or its clients. Neither qualified for protection under US banking regulations. We made an exception because the masters of Silicon Valley demanded that we make one for an industry that has repeatedly asserted that "the rules don't apply to us." If we give in to the tech industry everytime the rules become inconvenient to it, the lesson the industry will learn is that they can ignore the law without consequence.
Silicon Valley hedge funds created the liquidity crisis at SVB, which threatened hedge fund investees. The hedge funds then demanded that the US protect its startup investments from the consequences of the hedge funds decision to start a run on SVB. That rewards bad behavior by the hedge fund sector.
Second, the SVB clients who had hundreds of millions in cash stashed at a community bank were reckless. Any well-run company with a risk manager would have never permitted that to happen. But the startups left large sums on deposit with SVB as a "quid pro quo" for SVB making loans to uncreditworthy startups (as a favor to the hedge funds).
Why did the US step in to protect SVB and its startup depositors? Because big money donors in Silicon Valley demanded that the US do so. That is dark money in operation at its worst.
We, i.e. the US government, did NOT "bail out" SVB. Its stockholders, unsecured debt holders and stock optionees had a 100% loss of their investment, existing or prospective. The entire management's employment contracts have been rendered worthless. The actions of SVB's officers may very likely have been imprudent, but they have been severely punished for those errors. What we did was secure the holdings of DEPOSITORS, for reasons that a Democratic administration deemed valid. I myself do not have the requisite knowledge to determine if this was fully justified. I have no doubt that the 2018 removal of certain Dodd-Frank restrictions by a GOP-controlled Congress and by Donald Trump was unwise and probably scurrilous. But the elections of 2018 and 2020 have almost certainly prevented similar actions from being enacted in the future. That's what elections are for, so long as they are run cleanly and fairly.
My understanding is that deposits up to $250,000 were guaranteed, as are the deposits of any one of us in an FDIC-covered institution. I would be disappointed if that guarantee was extended to those foolish depositors with "hundreds of millions" sitting in the bank; it would be a terrible precedent to encourage such behavior.
Biden assured that no "tax dollars" would be spent, which is some measure of relief. Wisely, investors in the institution are on their own. Thank you for the feedback.
Well, I am disappointed! I circled back to a WaPo article on the intervention: "The decision by Treasury to backstop all deposits at SVB and Signature — not just those up to $250,000 that are insured under federal law..." Yep, bad move in my book as well, tax money or not. Those depositors are yet another reminder that simply having money is no guarantee of good judgement in managing it. How many of them were the depositors behind the run on the bank? I have to suspect that are a significant part of the problem.
Overall however, the administration limited the damage and prevented a bigger problem. Once again savings us from another largely conservative fiasco based on their primal need to deregulate. I discern a problem in self-restraint! Tsk-tsk!
Ah, yes, the Crapo bill-which brought down a goodly number of conservative Democrats, and Dean Heller, in its wake. Jon Tester and Joe Manchin have lived to fight another day, which is a coming destraction in 2024. Methinks it'd be wise for both gentlemen to be in the forefront of a Dodd-Frank revival,
I am continually troubled by Republicans co-opting our values and claiming them as their own. Recently we re- watched SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT. It is obvious that these movies send the following message..WAR IS A DREADFUL WASTE BUT IN THE END IT IS WORTH IT TO SAVE DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM.
Today we have GOP members posing as patriots while supporting insurrectionists, election deniers and white supremacists, all the while claiming to be be patriots. None of their objectives can be aligned with freedom or democracy no matter how perverted your logic.
Yet here we are. The countless deaths and sacrifices are not just being minimized by the bad actors in the GOP...they are clearly saying those sacrifices were worthless by setting out to destroy all that our brave men and women were fighting for. The original concept of freedom and democracy has been long lost on them.
We need to own our values and need to call out these miscreants like Greene, Jordan, Hawley, Scalise, and on and on. We need to pound away at what they really are doing. We need more representatives to match their pathetic vitriol with undisputable logic. We need to be the sound bites..on offense. No one can tell me that MTG is too difficult to match wits with. Same with Jordan. Same with all of them.
Can we just show up for once and truly represent? We're all waiting for the real character...the real substance to emerge.
I couldn't agree more. Biden has finally started an aggressive messaging machine. The DNC and all the state party committees need to amplify the megaphone. The "war" in culture wars is the right descriptor and it's a war we need to win for so many reasons.
Missed in all the cheers for the bailout of SVB is that behind the claim the plan does not cost the taxpayers a cent is the reality that the bonds are being bought at par (face amount), not the discount their sale in the open market would have required. Thus, the real cost is the 15-20% loss on all of the $40-50 billion involved. This is far from "cost free".
Hi, Henry. You raise an interesting point. I have a few questions:
Are the bonds being bought at par as part of the resolution of "old" SVB? If so, isn't the US effectively canceling the principal amount of its debt instruments, dollar for dollar?
And isnt' the "bailout" of SVB and other regional banks is really the opening of a one-year credit facility of unlimited amount? Those are loans, no? So the US will recoup interest.
I am interested in your argument, so any insight. you can give would be appreciated. I recognize that my understanding may be mistaken, so I want to clarify.
Regarding the Texas judge’s likely ban on the abortion pill, that decision is likely to be stayed . That’s because of a smart strategy from Washington State’s Attorney General Bob Ferguson. His office joined by several other states are suing the federal government for having unnecessarily tight restrictions on the pill. A judge in Washington is likely to uphold that position. So with two contradictory suits in play both will be stayed for a good long time. One smart strategy!
I agree thst the youth vote is the key to the future because they have more at risk than all of us. I remember when JFK created the “ great society” and attacked the youth vote of which I was a part. The Democrats need to think about two critical requirements to attract these young and new voters. They need a compelling message about how and why Democrats are worth investing in for the future of young voters and they need spoke people who connect with this age group and someone they can trust and get behind and represents to them the future of this country. I am not sure the Democrats today can deliver on both fronts.
Congress needs to reinstate Glass-Steagall, but We also need to take it to another level. The government must be measured by a Well-Being Index rather than simply GDP. As they are now doing in the United Kingdom and a number of other countries, all legislation must show how it would benefit We, the People, all of us this time. It is time to replace Citizens United with the People United. Corporations including banks are not People. Money is not free speech. Citizens United is simply legalized bribery of members of Congress. The economy should be measured by economic strength across all the People not just the top 1%. I like the Native American philosophy where one's Wealth is measured by one's generosity to others so that the entire community thrives. With rights come responsibility to protect those rights for others.
If all our people vote, we will win. Our voter turnout is way too low.