Puppet power for poor people

Out of my commitment to being a kinder, gentler James, I mostly try to ignore the tiresome talking points emanating from Art Pope's Puppetshow. But every now and then the Puppets write something so sublimely ignorant that it's hard to let it pass. That's what happened today, with the latest "report" produced by Daren Bakst.
Recent high energy prices are taking their toll on the economy, Bakst said. “A Congressional Budget Office study that examined the impact of high gasoline prices on the economy found Gross Domestic Product in 2006 is probably lower by about one percent, or $132 billion, than it would have been if energy prices had not risen,” he said. “In addition, the average household’s annual spending on energy goods and services rose by about $1,700 between 2003 and 2006, and their saving rate dropped sharply.”
Some policymakers recognize the importance of low-cost energy, but they ignore that critical need in their quest to fight global warming, Bakst said. “Many misguided energy proposals are based on the fear of global warming and the dubious notion that cutting carbon dioxide emissions would help cool the planet,” he said. “Even global warming alarmists admit there’s nothing that the whole world could reasonably do to have any meaningful effect on temperature in the next 100 years.”
Instead these policies would “drastically” increase energy prices, hurting groups that can least afford the higher costs, Bakst said. “Low-income families must use a larger percentage of their income to meet their energy needs,” he said. “They are disproportionately harmed by increases in energy prices.”
Whenever the Puppets start arguing that such and such a policy should be avoided because it hurts poor people, you know those guys are up to no good. And when they put "drastically" in quotes in their propaganda, well, it's worth a closer look.
So let's dissect the "report."
First off, I agree with Bakst that cutting carbon dioxide emissions will not help cool the planet. In fact, I'm not aware of any responsible person who thinks it might. From all my reading, those who want to adopt policies to reduce greenhouse gases are more interested in slowing the rate of warming. In other words, when you're doing something stupid, it might be a good idea to stop. That's a concept that seems beyond the reach of Puppet "intelligence."
Second, the incremental cost impact of policies focused on climate change mitigation is trivial in comparison to price increases driven by the dwindling supply of fossil fuels and the growing demand from China. Prices for carbon-based energy are going to continue to accelerate no matter what policies America adopts. Get used to it.
Third, the availability of cheap energy has nothing to do with the kind of innovation necessary to break out of the oil-and-coal dependent box America has built around itself.
Lawmakers could avoid harming low-income residents and other consumers by dropping schemes that raise energy prices, Bakst said. “Whether you agree that global warming is a problem or not, you should understand that the best way to address any future climate problems is through private innovation,” he said. “That means we need wealth. Wealth enables individuals to adapt better to extreme weather events. Low-cost energy is critical to wealth and to providing innovators the means to solve any real environmental problems.”
That a crock of sugar. The people with the capacity to innovate to solve real environmental problems already have more money than god, and they're spending it on lobbying to protecting their short-term oil-slicked asses. There is no shortage of wealth that could be directed to sustainable energy, the only shortage relates to public policies put in place by the Republican greeders that discourage real innovation in favor of special interests.
******************
Simply put, the Puppets are of the opinion that it's possible to crap all over the world and then just move on. Like hapless sailors in a sinking boat, they're scanning the horizon for the another raft that might just come along just in the nick of time to save their gluttonous butts from drowning in the rising seas.
Who cares, they say, if the ocean rises to New Bern or all the way to Kinston? It's gonna rise, and somebody's gonna make money off all the poor suckers who have to move inland and upland.
******************
There's not much one can depend on these days. Thank goodness we can count on Daren and the rest of the Show to keep us entertained with their oh-so-hand-wringing concerns about the plight of poor people.
- James Protzman's blog
- Login or register to post comments








The Bad News
... is that low cost *anything* is going to be a rarity unless we get our act together. Our dollar just isn't worth much oil, gas, corn, or chicken any more:
The problem is with folks who are already spending 15-20% of their income on food today. How much room is in their bundget?
And you've hit the nail on the head with the problem, James:
From my perspective, though, the problem isn't the lobbyists. Lobbyists are just exercising their First Amendment right as they beg for subsidies, tax breaks, and favors. They may be saying stupid things, but their speech is still protected.
It seems that problem is our Establishment legislators from BOTH parties who take their money, acquiesce to their demands, and provide the blatantly unconstitutional benefits. For example, the Farm Bill -- talk about bipartisan support!
Perhaps it will be easier to eliminate the influence-peddling politicians than all the lobbyists... that is, once voters figure out why their grocery and gas bills keep going up.
BJ
William (B.J.) Lawson
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District
The difference between lobbyists and me.
I don't get paid to exercise my free speech. In fact, once someone is paid to say something, it's not "free speech" anymore, at least it's not their own free speech. It's someone else's. A fine point, perhaps, but that layering of money in the system of free speech is a huge problem. As my friend Brunette is wont to point out, there are legitimate reasons for lobbyists, and some voices would never be heard were it not for the lobbyists that represent them.
But I'm not sure I can get behind the "it's free speech" deal when it's bought and paid for.
Just sayin'.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
How are lobbyists regulated?
What separates a lobbyist from an advocate (or a constituent)? What prevents a lobbyist from saying "I'm just really, really interested in X" legislation and thereby getting around regulations? And how are individual rights protected? For example, what protects the ability of your average school teacher to advocate for smaller classroom sizes at the legislature?
- - - - -

Read the ethics law, Jerimee
It's not loosey-goosey stuff.
Any individual may advocate. He or she will have stiff competition, however, from the folks who know the ropes of the General Assembly. He or she also has to figure out how to get the attention fo a given legislator. Not easy to do. But there is nothing to stop any individual from writing, visiting the legislator's office, phoning, emailing etc . . . .
Too lazy
But I don't wanna read the law . . . I was hoping someone could give me the cliff notes version. (I don't even know where to find the law, what is the statute number?)
I suppose it has something to do with the amount of time spent and what percentage of your income you receive.
Unrelated, here's a picture of Sen. Rand with Little Red Riding Hood and the Fairy Queen Mother. I hope the libraries get their money.
- - - - -

Too lazy myself
Or I'd have pulled out the General Statute citation for ya.
what about journalists?
They get paid to express ideas for a living--just like lobbyists. Does constitutional free speech not apply whole heartedly to them?
What about Journalists?
I don't understand the question.
Constitutional free speech is the guarantee by the government that the government will not squelch your right to say what you think (as long as you don't commit libel or slander, encourage someone to commit a crime or scream "FIRE" in a crowded theater).
A lobbyist is paid to speak for a client. It is the client's free speech that is being exercised.
A journalist (typically) is paid to write text for a publisher. It is the publisher who is exercising free speech. There are all kinds of journalists who work under different kinds of contracts with a publisher, but you get the idea.
i was refering to Linda's comment
My question: does she feel the same away about journalists? Her post (I'll let you read the rest) seemed to call into question the "right" of lobbyists to free speech, since it's "bought and paid for". I was thinking, hmmm, who else is paid to speak, to persuade in effect*, on behalf on an employer. Journalists come to mind. Wonder if Linda sees them in a similar light as lobbyists vis-a-vis the free speech issue.
*Almost all speech is meant to persuade. Facts, in the way the word is usually defined, don't really exist. We must be persuaded to believe something we did not see with our own eyes. Sometimes the letters "CNN" or "NYT" are enough for us to accept something we are told, but whether is happening explicitly or implicitly, we must decide to accept something as "fact". Thus, all speech is a form of persuasion, even it is purporting to relate "facts", as in (much of) journalism.
No, I don't call into question their right to free speech
It depends on what the journalist is doing. I believe in a free press. I also am experienced enough to know that a journalist who works for CNN or the NYT or any organization has agreed to follow the editorial guidelines of that organization in order to be published and, in those cases in order to be paid.
It is the same with lobbyists. I understand that the lobbyist - the individual - is not necessarily expressing their own opinion. They are expressing the opinion of their employer or client. It is their right to decide for whom they work, just it is my right to decide for whom not to work.
I probably didn't express myself correctly this morning. There was zero caffeine in my house.
It's not the right of the lobbyists I question. I want to be clear that I don't believe that the lobbyist is anything more than a tool of a system that is broken. The individual has a right to do the work as long as it's legal, even if I don't like what they're doing. And their client has a right to the representation.
Attack the system. Attack the despicable client. But the individual who is doing the lobbying? I just don't see it.
As I said, I hope I'm more experienced and can think more critically than to take as fact anything that someone prints just because they work for CNN or the NYT or any news organization. And I hope that my elected officials are more experienced than to take the word of an individual simply because they work for a law firm or lobbying firm. (See - that's the system I'm talking about. We need to elect the people who will not be swayed by the money but will take the information offered with critical analysis and hopefully make the best decision for We, the People.)
I hope this makes more sense than my earlier post this morning did.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
Here's the problem, BJ:
The First Amendment is about free speech, not the funneling of millions into campaign coffers. Indeed, this behavior actually stifles the free speech of those who don't know how/can't afford to play the game.
I know there is a subset of conservatives (and liberals) who view stringent campaign finance reform as an attack on First Amendment rights, but it truly is the only way to combat corporate influence over government.
I think we're stuck with the Supreme Court's decision
that contributions ARE free speech, whether we like it or not.
On a related point, the fact that a lobbyist is being paid to advocate doesn't take away the client's right to that advocacy, which is his/her "free speech." It isn't that the lobbyist is asserting his/her free speech; it is that the lobbyist is the tool by which a client's free speech is expressed.
If you're talking about Buckley vs Valeo (1976),
while SCOTUS did find that expenditures of candidates should be unlimited, so as to not infringe upon free speech, they concurred with Congress that donations to candidates could be limited without violating the 1st Amendment.
Chief Burger's dissent explores many good points about the 1st Amendment impact to small contributors:
While he makes some compelling arguments later, I think he failed to elevate the public's right to privacy over the public's right to know.
I dunno
I thought the decision was much more recent than Buckley v. Valeo, but maybe that means that I'm aging more quickly than I thought.
I thought this was a late eighties or early nineties decision, and haven't the slightest idea what the name of it was -- so you may be citing the case.
(Don't you love Burger?)
On that note, there's an excellent article by Toobin in this week's New Yorker about how we might as well throw ourselves off the nearest cliff if McCain gets to name the next members of SCOTUS.
The best reason to vote Democratic in 2008
No Democrat in the country with a conscience should let this happen.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
THere have been some
There have been two or three SCOTUS rulings on campaign finance in the last 10 years or so. One was the McConnell challenge to McCain-Feingold. Another was a challenge to Vermont campaign finance laws for things like Governor and State House.
All of them have just defined and extended the findings of Buckley.
"Keep the Faith"
I read somewhere that Scalia and Thomas
were plotting to use Burger's dissent in this case as tool to help overturn the limitations on contributions set forth in this Act, but I don't think a strong attempt has been made yet in the Court to actually try it out.
While I disagree with many (most?) of his positions, he was undoubtedly one of the most brilliant Supremes we've ever had.
Also, I'm a nut for dissenting opinions. I've read a couple from Stevens and Breyer that were captivating and made the majority opinion seem foolish in comparison.
minor hijack
Thurgood Marshall.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors
dude
Now I'm totally craving a burger.
- - - - -

The court...
The court has actually upheld contribution limits, so long as those limits are not overly burdensome. The problem becomes (of course) defining what is a burden and what is not.
Personally I think Congress could lower the contribution limits from their current level of 2300 per election and not run into problems with the courts, but that assumes of course that this court wouldnt try to follow Mitch McConnell's wishes and overturn Buckley.
"Keep the Faith"
I agree that
campaign finance regulations are *one* way combat corporate influence in the current environment. Full disclosure is certainly very helpful.
But I still believe we need to hold our elected representatives to a higher standard based upon their behavior in office. The question shouldn't be, "Does Representative X take money from lobbyists?"
The question should be, "Is Representative X upholding the Constitution, and serving the people as opposed to corporate and special interests?"
I'm not about to refuse money if it's offered to our campaign. But folks who donate money to our campaign know that I'm seeking to follow a specific job description (i.e., the Constitution), and that their contribution will advance a Constitutional federal government. Their contribution does not buy votes to benefit narrow interests. If I lie and behave otherwise, I deserve to be fired and voted out of office.
In other words, I don't begrudge David Price his $267,050 in PAC money. But the voters should be upset to the extent that his voting record sacrifices his Constitutional responsibilities for the benefit of his largest donors.
(That'd be the medical industrial complex, labor unions, military industrial complex, and financial industry.)
At least the Internet is helping us keep folks a bit more accountable! :-)
William (B.J.) Lawson
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District
People's Lobbying Day June 4, 9:00am
Coalitions and groups do seem to have more power when they lobby. Here's an opportunity to go with others (much less intimidating) NC Conservation Network has a day planned to go and speak with our Raleigh Representatives about crucial water issues.
Citizen lobbying Day info
*Jerimee edited this comment to fix the link
Progressive Democrats of North Carolina
Cool! Who is going?
Do other BlueNCers plan to be there?
- - - - -

meh.
duplicate comment deleted.
Oh, Yes!! All we need here is more and better private wealth.
Yes Yes YES!!! Because more money in the hands of fewer people is the only thing that will save us.
Are you kidding me? This latest JLF thing reads more like a SNL skit than a serious assessment of energy price and the economy.
If we're all very fortunate, in the next report, a JLF analyst will deftly explain to us all how and why it was really private wealth that put a man on the moon, birthed the medical device industry, and funded the research that eventually led to this marvel of modern technology we call the InterTubes.
"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit." - Harry Truman