Senator Webb Introduces the Clean Energy Act of 2009

“The Clean Energy Act of 2009” introduced by Senator Jim Webb D-VA appropriates $20 billion over the next 10 to 20 years to fund a series of loan guarantees; nuclear education and workforce training assistance; research into nuclear reactor lifetime-extension; and the development of solar power, biofuels, and alternative power technologies. The bill follows the urging of Secretary of Energy Steven Chu to increase funds available for the development of nuclear power facilities and technology.

“This legislation is measurable, achievable, and targeted. By making a concerted investment in nuclear power and other renewable energy technologies, we can effectively address our nation’s energy requirements and also the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions,” said Senator Webb. “This legislation is a practical approach to move the United States toward providing clean, carbon-free sources of energy, to help invigorate the economy, and to strengthen our workforce with educational opportunities and high-paying jobs on U.S. soil.”

The legislation directs the Department of Energy to conduct five “Mini-Manhattan Projects” to study carbon capture technologies, non-ethanol biofuels, electric vehicles and electricity storage, cost-competitive solar power, and Generation IV reactors and technologies that will ultimately reduce nuclear waste

This initiative is also designed to keep the United States competitive in a global marketplace that has accelerated the development of nuclear power. While the U.S. has been at a stand-still in developing nuclear power in the last 30 years, others are forging ahead. France – with the lowest electric rates in Europe - now gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear power, while Japan’s nuclear fleet accounts for 35% of its electricity. And this week the United Kingdom announced plans to expand its reactor fleet.

“The Clean Energy Act of 2009” provides a framework that will facilitate the revival of nuclear power and the expansion of renewable energies in the United States, including:

A $10 billion appropriation that can leverage up to $100 billion in government backed loans for the development of clean, carbon-free energy to bring in investors and project developers to jump start efforts that are otherwise too capital-intensive up front.

$100 million per year for 10 years toward nuclear education and training. The nuclear revival cannot take place without a workforce and for that reason the bill provides much-needed support to educate and train craftsmen, engineers, operators and other workers.

$200 million per year for 5 years for a cost-sharing mechanism between government and industry to enable the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to review new nuclear reactor designs such as small and medium reactors and help bring those technologies from concept into the market place.
$50 million per year for 10 years for much needed research to extend the lifetime of our current nuclear fleet and maximize the production of low-cost nuclear power.

$750 million per year for 10 years for research and development of low-cost solar technology, battery technology, advanced bio-fuels, low-carbon coal, and technologies that will reduce nuclear waste. Each of these will be funded at $150 million, annually.

FDR's Economic Bill of Rights

U.S. is the only advanced economy without paid vacation law

WASHINGTON,DC: The United States is the only advanced economy that does not guarantee its workers any paid vacation time, according to a report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research. As a result, 1 in 4 private-sector workers in the U.S. do not receive any paid vacation or paid holidays.

The report, No-Vacation Nation, by Rebecca Ray and John Schmitt, finds that European workers are legally guaranteed at least 20 paid vacation days per year, with 25 and even 30 or more days common in some countries. The gap between paid time off in the United States and the rest of the world is even larger when legal holidays are included. The United States does not guarantee any paid holidays, but most rich countries provide between 5 and 13 per year, in addition to paid vacation days.

“The United States is the only advanced economy in the world that does not guarantee its workers paid vacation days and paid holidays,” said John Schmitt, senior economist and co-author of the report. “Relying on businesses to voluntarily provide paid leave just hasn’t worked. It’s a national embarrassment that 28 million Americans don’t get any paid vacation or paid holidays.”

The sum of the average paid vacation and paid holidays provided to U.S. workers in the private sector ― 15 in total ― would not meet even the minimum required by law in 19 other rich countries.

A review of international standards shows that the United States lags far behind the rest of the world's rich countries. The lack of paid vacation and paid holidays in the U.S. is particularly acute for lower-wage and part-time workers, and for employees of small businesses. The report finds:

Employees of small businesses in the U.S. are less likely to have any paid vacation (70 percent) than those in medium and large establishments (86 percent).

Lower-wage workers in the U.S. (those making less than $15 per hour) are even worse off. Only 69 percent have paid vacation, compared to 88 percent of higher-wage workers.

Part-time workers in the U.S., who are much more likely to be women, are far less likely to have paid vacations (36 percent) than are full-time workers (90 percent).
The authors also found that several foreign countries offer additional time off for younger and older workers, shift workers, and those engaged in community service such as jury duty or voting.

The report reviewed the most recently available data from a range of national and international sources on statutory requirements for paid vacations and paid holidays in 21 rich countries (16 European countries, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and the United States).

http://www.cepr.net

Made In the U S A

Fiscal Year 2010 budget will restore funding for worker protection programs

SECRETARY OF LABOR HILDA SOLIS

From the AFL-CIO's NOW blog:

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis told two congressional committees this week that the Department of Labor’s fiscal year (FY) 2010 budget will restore capacity in our worker protection programs, which have languished for years.

Appearing in separate hearings before the Senate and House Appropriations committees’ Labor, Health and Human Services and Education subcommittees, Solis said the department’s budget—including a 10 percent increase for worker protection programs—will fund three priorities:

Renewed capacity of programs that protect workers’ safety and health, pay and benefits; new and innovative ways to promote economic recovery and the competitiveness of our nation’s workers; and carrying out programs in a way that is accountable and transparent to the public and our stakeholders.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said the budget will allow significant improvements in labor protections and workplace safety and health.

At the House hearing, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said during the past eight years, the department relied far too heavily on voluntary employer compliance programs for workplace safety and other worker protections.

Your budget makes it clear that your department is in competent hands.

Solis said the proposed funding for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will restore OSHA’s capacity to enforce statutory protections, provide technical support, promulgate safety and health standards, and strengthen safety and health statistics.

The increased funding for worker protection programs, Solis said, will allow the department to hire an additional

130 safety and health inspectors (a 10 percent increase from FY 2009);
25 whistle-blower investigators (a 33 percent increase);
13 full-time employees to strengthen OSHA’s capacity to quickly respond to the sudden emergence of safety and health hazards, such as a pandemic influenza;
20 full-time employees to restore OSHA’s rule-making capabilities, allowing the agency to simultaneously address multiple complex longstanding and emerging regulatory issues.

Solis told the committees the budget request for the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)—including funds to hire 15 new inspectors for metal and nonmetal mines—will allow MSHA to ensure a 100 percent completion rate for all mandatory safety and health inspections; support MSHA’s enhanced enforcement initiatives, which target patterns of violation, flagrant violators, and scofflaws.

In March, a report from the Government Accountability office (GAO) found the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division under the Bush administration had a pattern of failing to investigate worker complaints of employer wage theft. The report followed up two earlier GAO investigations outlining the Wage and Hour Division’s failure to investigate worker complaints of employer wage violations.

Solis told the panels that the Wage and Hour Division’s budget includes a $35 million increase over the last Bush budget and allows the hiring of 288 more inspectors to help revive its customer service focus by supporting improved complaint intake and more in-depth complaint investigation processes. In FY 2010, the Wage and Hour Division will hire additional investigators to strengthen enforcement resources on behalf of vulnerable workers; verify future compliance of prior violators; and conduct high quality, responsive complaint investigations strategically, to increase protections for the greatest number of workers.

Rep. Shuler joins with Progressives for Immigration Reform to promote SAVE Act

CONGRESSMAN HEATH SHULER D-NC WORKING FOR REAL IMMIGRATION REFORM

The Washington Examiner reports:

Rep. Heath Shuler will soon reintroduce the SAVE Act (Secure America through Verification and Enforcement) within the next few weeks. The legislation is built around a three part plan to reduce illegal immigration. This includes: a strict emphasis on border security, the verification of an employee’s legal status, and increased enforcement of existing laws.

Shuler outlined his plan and discussed its prospects at a forum held near Capitol Hill Tuesday evening at the office of Progressive for Immigration Reform.
Shuler emphasized the importance of “interior enforcement” in his talk and said the E-Verify program could serve as a foundation for future efforts aimed at reducing the flow of illegal immigration. The electronic system would provide local officials with the ability to cross check federal databases and would essentially work like a Google search, he explained.

“This is not about discrimination because E-verify is activated after someone has been hired,” Shuler said. “This helps to ensure that local officials can identify who they arrest. Interior enforcement is crucial.”

Shuler also said there were not enough immigration judges available to hear cases and this complicates the interior enforcement of federal law. But he sees enough common ground among members in both parties to rally around key provisions in the SAVE Act that would help change the current dynamic.

Up until now the cause of tighter border security and interior enforcement has been identified with conservative Republicans but Leah Durant, executive director of Progressives for Immigration Reform, believes there is an opportunity to broaden this base of support.

“We started this organization because we wanted to bring in more liberals on the side of tighter enforcement,” Durant said. “There is a lot of concern about the impact mass immigration will have on the environment. In fact, there is a natural marriage here between immigration reform and environmental preservation. So we can have people across the political spectrum.”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/Rep-Shuler-Joins-with-Progressives-for-Immigration-Reform-to-Push-SAVE-Act-44135177.html

ADA says real unemployment at 15.8%

Washington, DC - The real unemployment rate released on Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is 15.8%, nearly 7 points higher than the rate officially reported according to Americans for Democratic Action (ADA).

The real rate includes marginally attached workers which the BLS reports “are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not looking currently for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.”

Since April 2008, 6 million people have lost their job. ADA’s Real Rate of Unemployment represents a staggering 23 million people who are unemployed or underemployed.

The increase of another 563,000 jobless claims for April 2009 was the smallest rise in 6 months, providing some evidence that government stimulus is working but underscoring the urgent need to put more government dollars to work motivating the private sector to begin hiring laid-off workers.

ADA National Director, Amy Isaacs, said: “While the Republican Party of No is looking backwards, rather than coming up with new ideas to help America’s working families, President Obama and Democrats in Congress are moving forward with a bold agenda. There is still much to do as record lay-offs continue and economic challenges abound, but we share the optimism of leading economists who believe the worst is behind us.”

http://www.adaction.org

Political Courage

Facing South: Are the Blue Dogs getting a bad rap ?

In a post at the Institute for Southern Studies blog Facing South, Chris Kromm asks if Blue Dog Democrats are facing unfair criticism from the netroots. As Kromm notes, most of the Democrats who vote more conservative than their districts (especially on economic issues) are not members of the Blue Dog Coalition.

Kromm writes:

The Blue Dog Democratic Coalition is one of the favorite punching bags of the progressive blogosphere. From DailyKos to OpenLeft, the Blue Dogs -- a group of 51 "moderate and conservative" House Democrats -- are routinely held up as a symbol of all that's wrong with the Democratic Party.

A piece yesterday in Firedoglake is typical of the anti-Blue Dog genre, in which they are savaged for being hypocritcal about government spending, opposed to hate crime laws and being the descendants of racist Dixiecrats (although the majority of Blue Dogs aren't in the South). http://firedoglake.com/2009/05/07/the-other-white-meat-blue-dogs-hate-pork-unless-its-theirs/

Defenders of the Blue Dogs respond by saying that these Democrats come from "hard districts," and they can't take progressive stands because they'll get voted out of office by their conservative constituents.

Put aside for the moment the unpleasant implication that Blue Dog votes are devoid of moral conviction and based purely on political calculation. Even on its own terms, is the idea that Blue Dogs come from uniquely conservative "hard districts" even true?

An analysis by the Swing State Project this week might give the Blue Dogs some backup.

In a widely-circulated post, blogger Crisitunity ranked members of the 110th Congress by their votes compared to their districts' Partisan Voting Index, a measure first developed by political analyst Charlie Cook in 1997. The idea is to find out if a Representative's voting record in 2008 was more or less "Democratic" than his district. http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/4578/pvivote-index-for-2008

"Under-performing" Democrats are those that consistently vote more conservative than they could likely get away with given their district's Democratic leanings. "Over-performing" Democrats are those that somehow manage to vote more Democratic-friendly than their constituency.

So how do the Blue Dogs stack up? According to the Swing State Project's analysis:

* Only three of the top 20 "under-performing" Democrats in 2008 were in the Blue Dog Coalition: Reps. Scott (GA-13), Harman (CA-36) and Cooper (TN-5).

* By contrast, six of the Blue Dogs were among the 20 most "over-performing" Democrats: Reps. Taylor (MS-4), Matheson (UT-2), Pomeroy (ND-AL), Lampson (TX-22), Herseth (SD-AL) and Chandler (KY-6).

An analysis of Cook's own PVI rankings for Congressional districts shuffles some of the names but arrives at the same conclusion: there are more Blue Dogs topping the list of Democratic "over-performers" than "under-performers." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index

What does it all mean?

One take is that, in key cases, the Blue Dogs are right about the makeup of their districts and the amount of political room they have to maneuver.

Furthermore, Blue Dogs are hardly unique -- in fact, most of the top Democrats who are voting more conservative than their constituents aren't Blue Dogs.

But then there are those representatives who cement the case that Blue Dogs can be out of touch with their districts. Exhibit A is Rep. David Scott whose conservative, business-friendly votes are a mismatch for his diverse and strongly Democratic district in the Atlanta suburbs. Rep. Jane Harman is clearly another.

An important note: The PVI is a limited tool. It measures the political lean of a district by presidential votes -- useful shorthand, but one that ignores complicated questions like the way a presidential election played out in a particular district.

And it clearly doesn't capture the breadth of political views among constituents -- for example, what about Southern populists who may vacillate on social issues but be progressive on economic ones?

The Blue Dogs also have to answer another question: Many Democrats, either due to conviction or opportunism, vote more conservative than their districts. But why have Blue Dogs taken the extra step of organizing/joining a political bloc that often defines itself by its opposition to the broader Democratic agenda -- as with the stimulus bill and Obama's budget?

In other words, the question for Democrats isn't necessarily whether the Blue Dogs are too conservative, but why they've organized in a way that frequently undermines the Democratic brand.

http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/05/do-blue-dog-democrats-get-a-bad-rap.html

Dissent: We Need a Permanent Solution for Our Banks

Writing in Dissent Magazine [www.dissentmagazine.org], Greg Smithsimon makes a strong argument for bank nationalization. As Smithsimon points out in the article, publicly owned does not have to mean government owned.

Smithsimon writes:

The Obama administration has gone to great lengths to insist that if nationalization of banks is necessary, it will only be temporary—as if the general public thinks the U.S. government was planning to permanently nationalize banks.

Yet that’s exactly what should be done. Time and time again, our experiences in the United States and in the global economy have taught us that banks are like weapons of mass destruction: they can cause so much damage to our society that they have to be guarded by stable states rather than rogue private interests who will exploit them for their own dangerous ends. On a regular basis privately held banks decimate our economy and those of an inexhaustible list of other countries. The inevitability of privately owned banks wriggling free of regulation and engaging in dangerous speculative activity for private gain is by now clear. The cost is unacceptably high.

The Realities and Benefits of Nationalized Banks
Nationalizing the banks can bring us two different sets of improvements to our current situation: As retail banks, they will provide consumers with healthy, stable replacements for the bankrupt zombie banks now paralyzing the economy. As democratized versions of the Federal Reserve Bank, they can oversee financial reform and fiscal policy that serve the needs of real Americans.

If we nationalize retail banks, they can provide checking and savings accounts, make loans for homes and small businesses, and do so without the speculative madness that private banks recently exhibited. Thus state banks would restore liquidity to the credit markets, confidence in the banking system, and sanity to lending practices.

What would this look like? Dozens of countries already have such state-owned banks. The state-owned CGD is Portugal’s largest bank. Most such countries have “post banks,” including Greece, New Zealand, and Ireland. Typically, they are state-owned banks in which customers make deposits and withdrawals at the counter of their local post office. Israel just created a separate postal bank company in 2006. Great Britain’s National Savings and Investments is state owned, and just last month a British survey showed 75 percent of the public supports creation of a new, publicly owned post bank as an alternative to private banks.

This would not be a new idea in the United States, which had a post bank until 1967. (The attraction of the bank originally was that only its deposits were insured by the full faith and credit of the United States. The FDIC eventually extended that benefit to private banks as well, but the recent banking debacles raise the question of whether such public guarantees should be made without the kind of oversight offered by public control.) Thus one promising model is for the United States to convert failed private banks into a system of publicly owned banks that could use depositor savings to make responsible home and business loans.

Beyond creating stable retail banks, public banks are also useful for macro-level policy purposes: state-run central banks set interest rates and implement de facto regulatory safeguards, and the more that macro-level banks are in the hands of the public instead of bankers on loan from Citibank, the more they can operate in the public interest rather than in the interest of speculative investment banks.

The Federal Reserve is already a state-run, not-for-profit, macro-level bank. But while it’s a government agency, its board of directors are made up of bankers from the very institutions that have lately run amok (and then aground). The Fed sets interest rates and makes important policy decisions about the U.S. economy. But in a perverse reversal of democracy, many of its executives are actually picked and installed in their positions by the private banks themselves. The desire for a more democratic bank dates to the Fed’s creation. Populists like William Jennings Bryan wanted the bank under public control, but banks wanted it controlled by bankers. The bankers won. While most Fed directors are picked by the private banks, the board of governors at the top is appointed by the president. And past presidents have almost always selected yet more bankers for those fourteen-year governorships.

At the moment, the Fed has two vacancies that could be filled by people who actually live up to the Fed’s mandate that governors represent groups like consumers and labor unions. While the first step is to begin appointing Federal Reserve governors who don’t represent the banking industry, the next step would be to let the public choose the second-tier directors rather than the banks, either through elections, state appointments, or other more representative means. If done poorly, political control could mean the bank would do the bidding of whatever political party was in power. But just as the Fed has successfully assuaged private banks’s fears that a member from Citibank would only represent Citibank interests (rather than those of Citibank and the rest of its ilk), so insulation from political influence can be structured into a more responsive, democratic, and transparent Federal Reserve Bank. In this model, nationalizing a bank would mean giving the public a real voice in an institution it already owns.

Read the complete article at:
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online.php?id=232

The Atomic Show: A view from the Left on nuclear energy

David Walters from Left Atomics and Daily Kos joins Rod Adams for a discussion about atomic energy from a far left point of view. Check out this link to a podcast of the Atomic Show.
http://atomic.thepodcastnetwork.com/2009/04/14/the-atomic-show-131-view-from-the-left-on-atomic-energy/

Rod Adams, host of the Atomic Show and pro-nuclear blogger www.atomicinsights.blogspot.com writes:

It is well known that much of the opposition to nuclear power in the US, Europe, and Australia comes from people who are normally considered to be on the political left. David Walters, a self confessed socialist and long time labor activist has a different point of view. He believes, like I do, that abundant, clean, reliable, atomic energy is a boon for the working class.

Power plants provide good, stable jobs, often at union wage scales. They enable a vibrant local economy and good public infrastructure based on the plant’s addition to the property tax base and the salaries of the workers that get spent in local establishments. They allow generational employment with opportunities for young people to keep living and working in the towns where they grow up if they want to.

Link to Dave Walter's Blogs and Left Manifesto on Nuclear Energy
http://left-atomics.blogspot.com/
http://left-atomics.blogspot.com/2007/06/left-manifesto-for-nuclear-energy.html
http://davidwalters.dailykos.com/

David Sirota: Populism is Popular

David Sirota writing for In These Times www.inthesetimes.com:

April 24, 2009
Newsflash: Populism Is Popular
by David Sirota

In 2006, journalist Christopher Hayes wrote a little-noticed article for In These Times magazine about a proposal in Oregon to crack down on predatory lending. http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2733/ The initiative had become so popular that conservative legislators supported it fearing that if it were put on the state’s ballot, the resulting gusher of grassroots support would not only ratify the measure, but depose the bank-allied Republican Party, too.

Hayes’ piece was titled “Economic Populism Proves Popular,” the headline a sarcastic middle finger flashed at a political and media Establishment that portrays policies “supporting the rights and power of the people”—i.e., the dictionary definition of “populism”—as somehow anathema to the people.

That depiction, of course, continues today. But now, populism isn’t just popular in America; it is becoming the dominant paradigm, and that has the Establishment frightened.

For years, the country watched its populist desire for health care, tax, trade and financial reform run into the reality of elite politicians handing out trillions of dollars worth of corporate welfare and bank bailouts as the economy collapsed. Not surprisingly, a new Rasmussen poll on attitudes toward government and corporations shows 75 percent of the country “can be classified on the populist or Mainstream side of the divide” while just 14 percent “side with the political class.”

As if to confirm the chasm, this “political class”—consultants, politicians, lobbyists and commentators—has been denigrating populism as too overwrought to be taken seriously. Listen to a typical pundit defending AIG’s bonuses or criticizing demands for a new trade policy, and you will inevitably hear the word “populist” accompanied by the word “rage” and/or “dangerous,” followed by tributes to the status quo.

This elite propaganda, says Georgetown University’s Michael Kazin, dismissively implies “that anger from ordinary people is emotional, coming from people who don’t understand how the economy works and are just lashing out at their social betters.”

The caricaturing cribs from Richard Nixon’s playbook. Whereas the 36th president got himself re-elected by steering the country’s anger at the Vietnam War into anger at countercultural war protestors, today’s political class portrays the public’s outrage as the nation’s biggest problem, rather than what the public is justifiably outraged at.

Today, though, Tricky Dick’s tactics aren’t working, and not just because 2009’s economy is far worse than 1972’s.

This is the era when “You” are Time magazine’s person of the year—an era whose information and interactivity revolution now has us looking to ourselves for direction, not officialdom’s gatekeepers. Additionally, America has lately been taught to expect results from democracy. TV viewers get to decide “American Idol” winners, Facebookers get to change their site’s bylaws and voters get to autonomously use Obama campaign resources to win elections—and we get to do all this from outside the press clubs and smoke-filled rooms.

This profound rewiring of instincts and expectations is why the vilification of “populist rage” has failed as a political barbiturate, why the country still seethes, and why both parties are suddenly listening to “the people” instead of the Establishment. This is why, for instance, Republicans are staging “Tea Party” protests against federal spending and why Democrats are pushing bills to expand health care, re-regulate Wall Street and cap executive pay — because they know the political class, however offended, can no longer stop a voter backlash.

Admittedly, contradiction is everywhere: Republican rallies bewail deficits the GOP manufactured, and Democrats lament deregulatory schemes they originally crafted. But no matter how hypocritical the response is, it is a response, and that represents change from decades of aloof government. It suggests a democratic renewal whereby populism—i.e., advocating what the public wants—isn’t merely one popular brand of politics, but is politics itself.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4388/newsflash_populism_is_popular/