Good News About America

I’ve been wanting to write this post for several weeks now, but I’ve been at something of a loss as to exactly what I want to say.

Fulfilling another one of his major campaign promises, President Obama has now removed all combat troops from Iraq. After more than seven years, this pointless, costly war is finally over. That’s certainly good news. But is it really over?

We still have “support” troops in Iraq, and it’s unlikely that we’ll stay out if the country appears to be falling into civil war. While it was a bad idea to invade in the first place, and it was pretty obvious that there was no way the occupation was going to go anywhere near as well as President Bush predicted, the invasion and subsequent mismanagement makes the country our responsibility. We needed to get a functioning government into place (although imposing a modern democracy on a third world country is, shall we say, not easy), get the violence under control, declare victory, and get out. Metaphorically speaking, anyway…I don’t think anybody’s actually declared victory in Iraq since Bush’s stunt on the aircraft carrier all those years ago.

Mission accomplished?

One of the big stories today, of course, is how BP finally stopped the oil leak; I previously talked about it here and here.

The good news is that supposedly the well is completely sealed off, with no oil leaking. It remains to be seen whether the pressure inside the well will remain steady; a steady pressure would indicate that oil is not leaking around the cap. Meanwhile, one of the relief wells is 150 feet away from intersecting the leaking well; after the test is complete, drilling will resume so the leaky well can be finally killed.

The other major piece of good news is that the financial reform bill finally passed the Senate, as three republicans  - Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Scott Brown of Massachusetts – joined with democrats to break the GOP filibuster.  (Democrat Russ Feingold voted against the bill on the grounds that it isn’t strong enough). The republican leadership, of course, immediately called for repeal.

Public interest groups praised the legislation, which has been languishing in the Senate since the House passed it in June. The law attempts to avoid the need for another wall street bailout by setting up an advance warning system for banks that are deemed too big to fail, setting new limits on speculation by banks, and regulating the derivatives market. It also launches a new customer protection agency.

Many regulations called for by the law still need to be drafted over the next two years; it is expected that those opposed to reform will be donating heavily to republicans in order to water them down as much as possible.

Overcoming near-unanimous Republican opposition, the House yesterday passed the Disclose Act, which requires corporations and unions to disclose contributions, bans political donations from corporations with government contracts exceeding $10 million, and prohibits foreign corporations from contributing to political campaigns.

The bill unfortunately contains an exception, included under pressure from the NRA, for organizations that have over 1 million members, have been in existence for at least a decade, and receive less than 15 percent of their funding from corporations. However, it’s still a blow for transparency in government, helping to undo some of the damage caused by the supreme court’s faulty ruling in Citizens United.

As I’ve probably mentioned before, I intend to keep this blog nonpartisan; however, an incident today just happens to provide a perfect example of something I wanted to discuss.

During Tony Hayward’s testimony before Congress today,  Rep Joe Barton (R-Texas)^[1] apologized to the BP CEO, calling the $20 bailout fund set up to pay for BP’s mistake a shakedown^[2] and a tragedy.

Now, why would he make a statement like that? Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that his largest campaign contributor is Anadarko Petroleum, which owns 25% of the Deepwater Horizon well and has been asked by BP to pay their share of the damages?

Why does this qualify as good news? On its own, it doesn’t; on the contrary, it’s just another corrupt politician. Where I see something positive lies in the fact that  today’s databases and reporting requirements allow journalists to quickly uncover things like this; a more informed electorate should eventually lead to better, cleaner government.

Under a deal reached between BP and the White House today, BP will pay $5 billion annually for the next four years into an escrow account to cover damage claims related to the oil spill; $3 billion will be paid this summer and $2 billion in the fall, followed by $1.25 billion each quarter until the full amount is reached. Additionally, they must set aside an equivalent amount in US assets as collateral until the account is fully funded. BP also agreed to donate $100 million to support unemployed oil industry employees during the six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling. Although Congress has not yet overturned the $75 million cap on damages, BP has already paid $81 million in claims, and the new escrow account does not come with a liability waiver; the final cost of damages from the oil spill could reach as $40 billion.

BP also agreed to suspend approximately $7.5 billion in dividend payments over the next three quarters. By giving them several years to deposit the $20 billion, President Obama avoids chasing off investors in BP and potentially bankrupting the company; by agreeing, BP is able to improve their image and avoid a prolonged fight with the US government. The $100 million fund should take pressure off of newly unemployed oil workers.  Meanwhile, the $20 billion fund will be managed by Kenneth Feinberg, who oversaw the 9/11 victim’s compensation fund, and it is expected that it will be more efficient at handling individual claims than the current process handled by BP.

Of all the things that turn people off to politics, one of the biggest has to be attack ads.

If you watch (American) television, you know what I’m talking about.  Candidate X is a horrible, horrible person who hates mom and apple pie, wants to free child molesters from prison, and doesn’t have enough experience.  Meanwhile, candidate Y is a puppet of the special interests, is too much of an insider, and will drive away businesses and kill jobs.

So it was with pleasure that I read about Harry Reid’s (D-Nevada) series of advertisements that, rather than attacking his opponent, focus on his own accomplishments.  The advertisements highlight his work in obtaining funding for clean-energy jobs and the development of “green” energy sources.

It’s definitely a welcome change from typical political news stories, such as the attention that Carly Fiorina (the GOP nominee for senator in California) has received for making fun of the current senator’s hairstyle.  Seriously?  I’ve been happy to hear that gender has not been an issue in the primaries this year; now if we could just get the media to ignore any candidates who can’t focus on the issues..

Senator Lugar, R-Indiana, is crafting an alternative bill to legislation already passed in the House that holds the possibility of bipartisan support.  While his bill lacks a carbon tax, considered by many to be necessary to allow the market to properly price the economic effects of carbon^[1], it promotes energy efficiency, helping to conserve our resources. (Since the bill hasn’t yet been introduced, I’m going off of what has been announced; as always, particulars are subject to change). Rather than having Congress fight over fuel efficiency standards for cars, for example, there would be an automatic four percent increase in the required efficiency every year. It also offers low-interest loans to make builds more energy-efficient, building on the “Cash for Caulkers” program currently awaiting a vote in the senate^[2].

One of the hardest areas of the federal budget to reign in is defense spending; after all, who wants to be seen as weak on defense?  Unfortunately, this tendency, combined with the massive amounts of money that military contracts can bring to a district, mean that it can be almost impossible to kill redundant and obsolete programs.  In the latest defense bill, for example, the House voted to approve an alternate engine for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, over the objection of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has indicated he will recommend that President Obama veto any bill that includes it.  Unfortunately, this is only the latest example of Congress insisting on funding a project that the military doesn’t actually want because it will bring jobs and money to the home states of powerful senators and representatives.

Recently Secretary Gates has directed across-the-board efficiency measures, including eliminating low-priority programs, with the savings to be redirected to funding personnel and modernizing our forces.  Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield announced similar intentions in 2001, but such efforts were abandoned after the September 11 attacks.  The current goal is to find $7 billion in spending cuts and efficiencies for 2012, growing to $37 billion annually by 2016, allowing 3 percent real growth in the accounts that pay for combat operations (the overall Pentagon budget allows for 1 percent real growth over the next five years).  Every dollar saved by each branch of the military will be reinvested in upgrading that branch’s combat forces.

Details on programs to be cut and a description of the savings thus obtained are due to Secretary Gates by July 31st;  the Army, Air Force, and Navy must each find $2 billion in savings, with $1 billion coming from the rest of the Defense Department; in 2016 these numbers increase to $10 billion and $7 billion, respectively.

Bloomberg reports that BP began recovering oil from the leak last night, at the rate of approximately 1,000 barrels per day. Estimates are that the well is leaking 12,000 to 19,000 barrels per day and that the cap may capture up to 90% of the leaked oil.

Congress is attempting to raise the $75 million cap on damages that oil companies are liable for to $10 billion (approximately half a year’s profit for BP); this would ensure that oil companies, rather than taxpayers, are responsible for their own mistakes; it is currently being blocked by Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, but is considered likely to pass.  While the bill likely would not be retroactive (although the Justice Department believes that retroactively raising the cap would be constitutional), BP has already promised to pay all costs of cleanup for the current disaster.