Beware the Pied Piper of Progressive Populism

Local NEA agitator Patrick Crowley recently had a piece in the ProJo in which he piggybacks a call for a popular uprising within a book review (The Uprising by David Sirota). I haven't read the book, but I'm familiar with Sirota's progressive populist leanings and take them for what they are (ie; I don't dig the class-warfare aspects, but I'm sympathetic to workers losing jobs overseas to places like China, which engages in all sorts of unfair trade practices). However, while Sirota's Uprising is a work of non-fiction, I'm not so sure that Crowley's review can be considered entirely the same, particularly when he tries to marry some of the points made in Sirota's book to the current political and economic climate here in Rhode Island.

Here's what I mean. According to Crowley

For more than a decade, the one-party Democratic monopoly in Rhode Island’s General Assembly and weak leadership at the executive level have created a conservative consensus on tax and economic issues — a consensus creating, perhaps deliberately, the economic crisis we now face in the state. A $450 billion deficit doesn’t happen overnight.

Apparently, Rhode Island's "conservative consensus on tax and economic issues" continues to saddle us with some of the highest tax rates in the country. Yup, that's right in line with accepted conservative tax policy. (Unless RI unknowingly has been engaging in one of those "new conservatism"'s we've been hearing about). I do agree with Crowley that a $450 billion deficit doesn't happen overnight: it happens when more is spent on government programs and handouts than is collected in "revenue" (taxes). But those of us familiar with Crowley's rhetoric know that any sort of broad-based cutting--either in taxes or in spending on most government programs--don't figure into his plans. This is indicated by what he leaves out of his explanation of an economic populist platform:

Politicians across America, such as [Montana Governor Brian] Schweitzer, or U.S. Senators Sherwood Brow [sic ~ Sherrod Brown] of Ohio, Jon Tester of Montana and Bernie Sanders of Vermont (all of whom Sirota interviews for the book), have learned that economic populism — beating back corporate tax-break give-aways, fighting tax breaks for the wealthy at the expense of popular programs, and demanding that tax cheats pay up — are planks in successful election platforms.

No one likes a tax cheat and I'm not big on corporate welfare myself (though one man's corporate welfare is another's economic--or environmental--development), but those are only some of the planks of broad floor that is economic populism. I'm pretty sure that low tax rates across the board--income, sales, property--would be welcomed by most Rhode Island workers. Yet, lower taxes, much less reduced spending, rarely seem to make it into the progressive argument, even when a less onerous tax policy is something that Montana's Schweitzer, to use one of Crowley's examples, champions and promotes as a crucial part of making his state successful:

* Montana now has the one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, with more people working at higher wages than any time in history.

* More taxes have been cut for more Montanans than at any other time in history.

* $1.6 million in new funds for economic development committed in Indian country

* Our state’s wages and income are growing 3rd fastest in the United States.

* Montana has one of the top ten fastest growing economies in the nation.

* Montana has the ninth lowest combined state and local tax burden and the eighth best business tax climate in the country.

Unfortunately, Crowley can't promote tax cuts because those "popular programs" he cites need to be "financed" and, like most progressives, Crowley is ideologically unable to believe that lower tax rates don't automatically lead to less revenue. Instead, the answer is always to tax the rich, regardless of the fact that higher taxes on anyone contributes to the overall image of RI being a high tax state. I don't think that Schweitzer's Montana lowered taxes only after they managed to attract business and workers. Instead, they had a business and worker friendly tax climate in place. Even the small step of holding the line on the state budget is too much for Crowley, who thinks we've already been down this path for too long.

Meanwhile, Rhode Island’s leadership seems intent on following the same path it has been on since the Lincoln Almond days. If Rhode Island is going to make progress, the economic populism energizing other parts of America needs to continue to bubble up from the bottom here at home.

Where Crowley sees "the same path", most of us would say that, finally--with this year's reduced state budget and holding the line on taxes--the Democrats in the General Assembly are going down a new path. Or at least they've stopped in their tracks.

But Crowley and his fellow progressives in the unions and advocacy groups have had a rough year and I suppose that losing one budget battle out of the last 30 or so is a major shock to the system when you've come to view increased spending on your favorite programs as a birthright. In reaction, according to Crowley, he and his progressive populists are channeling their inner Alinsky and taking it to the streets.

Sirota repeatedly refers to Alinsky’s admonition to young organizers to “start where the world is, not where [they] want it to be.” It is a cogent reminder for those of us engaged in the uprising here in Rhode Island, and I believe it truly is an uprising. Teachers are organizing against the economic chaos of our state’s refusal to enact a funding formula while passing the tax cap Paiva-Weed bill. Such non-traditional labor organizations as Jobs with Justice and Fuerza Laboral are linking with such community groups as DARE, and Immigrants United to engage in direct-action events.

Funny thing is, to most of us, "where the world is" in Rhode Island is a heavily taxed state with too much money going into government. This exacerbates the business unfriendly image of RI. Crowley's idea of an uprising, which includes calls for higher taxes on "the rich" and businesses for the sake of expanding government programs, is neither revolutionary nor different from what has been business as usual in Rhode Island for the past several years. And if the current Democratic leadership is so bad, why not promote the good-government/clean elections reform of doing away with the straight-party vote option?

Make no mistake, Crowley's goal is to re-brand boilerplate union- and community organizational tactics by calling it something else. (Sounds like someone has been reading their George Lakoff). Crowley's program is in the tradition of Saul Alinsky-style community organization, which urges the organizer to let people know just how bad they have it and then direct them to take action against those whom the organizer says is to blame. Cleverly, Crowley is trying to co-opt the anger and disgust felt by the average Rhode Islander towards our state government into his progressive brand of economic populism, heavy on the class-envy, hold the tax- and spending cuts please.

This is not to say that there aren’t legitimate reasons for a push back against real economic injustice. Our politicians have implemented policies and programs that have done well by the unions and advocacy groups and it is this undisciplined fiscal behavior that is the real economic injustice being perpetrated against tax-paying Rhode Islanders. It would be a shame if Rhode Islanders mistook Crowley's call to action as anything other than what it really is: an attempt to maintain the failed tax and spend policies that led Rhode Island down this path of fiscal ruin in the first place. Rhode Islanders should heed the spirit of Crowley’s call, but vote according to their own, not Crowley’s, self-interest.

Whitehouse Support FISA, More Liberal Philosophical Gymnastics To Follow

According to John Mulligan at the ProJo, it looks like Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse will follow the lead of fellow Democrats Jim Langevin, Barack Obama and Jack Reed and vote to approve the FISA bill (Andrew had more details and analysis of the bill here and here).

As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse has condemned the Bush administration in the harshest terms because, in his view, it has damaged civil liberties in the name of counterterrorism.

But Whitehouse is now considering backing President Bush on an overhaul of the nation’s intelligence rules that critics say would undercut the constitutional ban on unreasonable searches. Partly because his seat on the Intelligence Committee has shown him the value of warrantless wiretaps on suspected terrorists, Whitehouse says, he has already joined bipartisan majorities behind Mr. Bush on key surveillance questions.

“The more we know about what terrorists are saying to one another overseas, the better positioned we are to anticipate and defend against what they’re planning,” said Whitehouse, echoing the president’s argument that the law “will help our intelligence professionals learn our enemies’ plans for new attacks.”

Yeah, imagine that, the more you learn the facts and the actual dangers posed, the more inclined you are to support the programs best able to thwart an attack. The local progressi-sphere were all over Rep. Langevin (and still are) for his informed support of the new FISA bill. Meanwhile they continue to give Obama a pass for being politically astute and "moving to the center" and have stayed mum on Reed. Wonder what's in store for Whitehouse? We'll see. One final note: as far as I can tell, Rep. Langevin is pretty much right in line with the rest of the Rhode Island Congressional delegation on issue after issue. Except he's pro-life. Perhaps, in the eyes of many on the left, that's his unforgivable sin?

Langevin Takes the Progressive Heat over FISA, will Obama?

Apparently Congressman Langevin has voted in favor of FISA. Local progressives are apoplectic, throwing around the DINO label (what kind of Democrat is pro-life!). It also seems that the fact that Congressman Langevin is Chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee (Cybersecurity and Emerging Threats) is not so much indicative of his familiarity with the issue but rather leads to the suspicion that he is some sort of sleeper neocon Bushitlerian. Good times. However, I wonder if they are falling victim to partisan shortsightedness. What would the reaction be if it was a President Obama, not Bush, in office? Would the hysteria be quite as palpable...or would it be OK because, well, it would be Obama?

Then again, do they even know that Obama supports the same FISA compromise bill that Congressman Langevin just voted for?

Denial on da Banks of Da Pawtuxet

Based on David Scharfenberg's story in today's Projo, I have to conclude that Cranston City Councilwoman and possible Mayoral candidate Paula McFarland hasn't been paying much attention to her party's Presidential primary...

McFarland, who is finishing a fifth term on the council, said it is important for the party to settle on a candidate in the coming weeks and avoid a divisive primary.

And with three women weighing a run, she said, the party might have an easier time coming to a consensus.

"One of the things that women bring to the table –– we know we can set aside our ego for the benefit of the community," she said.

Scharfenberg is also reporting that State Rep. Peter Palumbo will announce tomorrow that he is not a candidate for Mayor of Cranston.

Denial on da Banks of Da Pawtuxet

Based on David Scharfenberg's story in today's Projo, I have to conclude that Cranston City Councilwoman and possible Mayoral candidate Paula McFarland hasn't been paying much attention to her party's Presidential primary...

McFarland, who is finishing a fifth term on the council, said it is important for the party to settle on a candidate in the coming weeks and avoid a divisive primary.

And with three women weighing a run, she said, the party might have an easier time coming to a consensus.

"One of the things that women bring to the table –– we know we can set aside our ego for the benefit of the community," she said.

Scharfenberg is also reporting that State Rep. Peter Palumbo will announce tomorrow that he is not a candidate for Mayor of Cranston.

Complicating World Views

Ya know, if the current resident of the Oval Office had talked about visiting all 57 States in America or had momentarily slipped up by complaining that we didn't have enough Arabic translators in non-Arabic speaking Afghanistan, I do believe the Daily Show and Colbert Report would have been all over it.

But when He Who Is Change does it? Nahhhhh. I mean, c'mon, he's a good guy and isn't the same kind of inherently evil, yet pathologically numb doofus that currently sits in the White House, right? Besides, you agree with The Prince. If you don't agree with someone, then it goes without saying that a simple difference of opinion ain't enough: they must also be evil and stupid and a poopy-pants. Right?

Some of the media elite have found that Karl Rove in his new role as a commentator is, to their apparent astonishment, a pretty good guy. Rove is now a FOX News contributor and also writes for the Wall Street Journal and Newsweek. The New York Times quotes Newsweek editor Jon Meacham as saying the former Bush political strategist is getting positive reviews from the staff.

The Times writes, "Mr. Meacham said Mr. Rove had been received surprisingly well in the magazines newsroom, where he has been a reliable colleague who files his articles on time and works diligently with fact checkers.

After one editor dealt with him, Mr. Meacham said, "The editor called me and said, 'This just complicated my world view. I may like Karl Rove.'"

Imagine that: you can disagree with someone and still think they're an OK person. Or, you can like someone and still call them out when they make mistakes. How very...nuanced.

Sheldon Whitehouse, Man of the People

Is this a sign that today's tough economic times are affecting even the ultra-rich liberal set?

That For Sale sign on the front lawn of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s Elmgrove Avenue house in Providence is not an optical illusion. The senator and his wife, Sandra, are selling the house and consolidating their family at their house on Carroll Avenue in Newport, which the Whitehouses have long used as a summer place. Daughter Molly Whitehouse is a student at Yale University and son Alexander Whitehouse is attending boarding school, so Sheldon and Sandra Whitehouse will be empty-nesters this fall. The family has not purchased a house in Washington, D.C.; Sheldon Whitehouse is still bunking in with an aunt who owns a house in the District of Columbia when the Senate is in session.

Tough times indeed!

OK, Stop the "Hate", But when does Free Speech become "Hate" Speech?

His appetite for late night weiners temporarily sated, State Sen. Juan Pichardo was one of those unveiling a "stop hate campaign" today:

Advocacy groups and legislators today announced a campaign against hate and hate speech in Rhode Island that will call on all Rhode Islanders to participate.

The initiative was prompted by a recent incident involving a Providence storeowner who demanded to see Social Security cards of two Spanish-speaking customers, then threatened to call immigration authorities after they did not.

State Sen. Juan Pichardo, one of the speakers today, said, “All this hate speech -- we need to stop this wave. It is not the America we pursue …”

Miguel Sanchez-Hartwein, executive director of the Center for Hispanic Policy and Advocacy, said the campaign will involve educational forums at universities, schools, businesses and other settings, and a petition that he asked all Rhode Islanders to sign.

Hm. On second thought, maybe I should retract the weiner crack...el hermano mayor está mirando.

Look, all kidding aside, of course we should respect other individuals and not "hate" them. I already said I think the proprietor of RI Refrigeration crossed the line, but being rude doesn't signify "hate." And political differences don't equal hate. Most people who disagree with Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton don't do so because he's an African-American or she's a woman. They disagree with their political philosophy, their ideas, not their color or plumbing.

Yet, a legitimate critique of current immigration policy is hyperbolized as anti-immigrant and racist by some who know better, but seek to gain partisan advantage. Thus does one person's free speech become classified by others as "hate speech" in a veiled attempt to short-circuit debate. I'm not saying all those involved with this campaign have ulterior motives based on a desire for power, political or other. But beware those who do.

At What Point...

... do they get tired of their own rhetoric? More importantly, at what point does everybody start to catch on?

I'm referring to the comments of Anne Nolan, president of Crossroads Rhode Island, with which Charles Bakst ended his column, yesterday:

I said Carcieri is well educated and asked Nolan what she thinks his problem is. She said, "I sometimes think that it's an easy target, to target people that don't have much of a voice."

Don't have much of a voice? These people have a megaphone. If they're poor, they attract advocates. If they're immigrants, they attract advocates. If they're Democrats, they attract advocates. If they're progressives, they attract advocates. They've got friends in the academy, in the churches, in the domineering party in our state government, and obviously, in the media.

One need look no farther than the headline just a few inches away from Bakst's photo in the paper:

Youth group seeks an apology

The Providence Youth Student Movement calls on Sue Carcieri to apologize for comments she made last month.

And where were those comments trumpeted, to start the calls from the "voiceless"? Why, in a Charles Bakst column. And they were in response to accusations of "racism" published in Karen Lee Ziner's coverage of a protest. If these kids are so voiceless, why does the governor's wife appear to be on the defensive?

Don't get me wrong (turning back to the housing issue); I'm thankful that there are people trying to help the poor to find housing and resources. I support them in that cause. But I can't see any other moral course than to oppose them as they — in a coordinated way — seek the easy target of the Rhode Island taxpayers.

Do Anything, Say Anything for Political "Victory"

Just weaving together a couple of threads....first:

[T]he Federal Election Commission handed Americans Coming Together the third-largest fine ever levied by the agency. The $775,000 fine against ACT followed an FEC investigation that found the group, which was organized for the 2004 campaign with substantial funding and active encouragement from Soros, spent $70 million of its $137 million budget on “clearly identified federal candidates in a manner that could only be paid for with federal funds.” ACT claimed it spent the money on voter registration drives. The FEC concluded ACT illegally spent the $70 million to support Democratic candidates. A $775,000 fine for a $70 million crime seems a mere pittance, but that’s an issue for another day.

In the second verdict, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now — better known as ACORN — agreed to pay a $25,000 fine to settle vote fraud charges brought by Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed. ACORN employees were supposed to help eligible voters fill out their registration cards, but instead were submitting cards with false names like that of former boxing champion Leon Spinks. Reed called ACORN’s actions “the largest case of voter registration fraud in the state’s history.” Again, the fine seems paltry given the seriousness of the crime, but at least ACORN, which has received much funding from Soros, was caught and made to pay something.

And second:

With its full-page “General Betray Us?” ad in the New York Times, MoveOn.org has once again put itself at the forefront of the antiwar movement. And if past patterns are any guide, a number of Democrats are embarrassed, and even angered, by MoveOn’s actions but are afraid to reveal the true extent of their feelings. MoveOn simply has too much fundraising clout — and a fear-inducing inclination to attack Democrats who stray from the MoveOn line — for many in the party to take it on.

And finally:

Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware on Jan. 18, 2007: “Mr. President, please change course. Listen to your generals. Listen to former generals. Listen to the Iraq Study Group.”

Bush changed course. Listened to the generals. Pushed for the Surge.

Biden on Sept. 9, 2007, on Gen. David Petraeus: “I really respect him, and I think he’s dead flat wrong.”

And on Bush: “This president has no plan — how to win and/or how to leave.”

Daily Show "Reports" on Cape Wind Opposition

Yeah, Jon Stewart has honed his knives at the expense of many a conservative...but here he takes a stab at some liberal hypocrites.

Via Watthead.

Obama Strikes Out on Softball Question about Hardball

I heard about this on the radio this morning, and blogger Extreme Mortman (h/t) also caught it:

Asked whether, if he were president now, he’d honor Barry Bonds in the White House, Obama said:

“First of all he’s still got to hit one more. .. He hasn’t done it yet, so we’ll answer the question when he does.”

Mere hours before Bonds hit his record-setting homerun, Obama hadn’t figured out his thoughts on whether he’s a hero or a villain? What difference would it have made before or after number 756? How would that additional homerun have affected Obama’s thoughts?

Baseball may seem trivial next to, say, bombing our allies in Pakistan — but the Barry Bonds story does present fascinating and profound social issues for America. Many Americans have strong opinions on him. Apparently Obama is not among them.

A strike out for the Senator.

Yes, a simple question that should get a simple answer, no? And now that Bonds has broken the record, what will Sen. Obama say? By now he should have had time to have focus-grouped the question to see what the "right" answer is.

Hide Your Wallets, D.C. Dems are Coming....

Republican Senator Mitch McConnell writes:

While most of the media were busy covering the latest developments on the Iraq funding bill or the bipartisan immigration proposal, congressional Democrats on Thursday quietly passed a budget creating the framework for the largest tax increases in American history...

Everyone takes a hit. Forty-five million working families with two children will see their taxes increase by nearly $3,000 annually. They’d see the current child tax credit cut in half — from $1,000 to $500. The standard deduction for married couples is also cut in half, from the current $3,400 to $1,700. The overall effect on married couples with children is obvious: Far from shifting the burden onto the wealthy, the Democratic budget drives up taxes on the average American family by more than 130 percent.

Seniors get hit hard too. Democrats like to crow that only the richest one percent of Americans benefit from the stimulative tax cuts Republicans passed in 2001 and 2003. What they rarely mention is how much seniors benefited from those cuts in the form of increased income as a result of lower taxes on dividends and capital gains. More than half of all seniors today claim income from these two sources, and the Democratic budget would lower the income of every one of them by reversing every one of those cuts.

Heritage also has some analysis on the Senate Budget--most of the tax increases are because the Senate is going to simply let the Bush tax cuts expire--and more here:

With federal spending surging above $24,000 per household per year, the incoming Democratic majority of Congress promised to restore fiscal responsibility in Washington. Instead of paring back the growth of government, however, Congress came to agreement in conference on a budget resolution that:

* Raises taxes by $721 billion over five years, and a projected $2.7 trillion over 10 years, or more than $2,000 per household;
* Includes 23 reserve funds that could be used to raise taxes by hundreds of billions more;
* Increases discretionary spending by nearly 9 percent in FY 2008 and does not terminate a single wasteful program;
* Completely ignores the impending explosion of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs; and
* Creates rules that bias the budget toward tax increases.
...

Congress’s budget resolution is consistent with the Democratic majority’s budget agenda so far. In just a few months in Washington, the Democratic Congress has tacked $21 billion in unrelated deficit spending onto the Iraq war emergency bill; passed a $7 billion farm bailout—without any offsets—that violates the majority’s own pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules by adding new mandatory spending;[1] and waived its own PAYGO rules in order to add new mandatory spending as part of a bill to expand the House of Representatives.[2] Coming on the heels of these initiatives, Congress’s irresponsible budget resolution is hardly a surprise.

President Bush has vowed to veto the Democratic budget.

Pelosi Bucks 185 Year Old House Rule, Stifles Debate

Yup, they sure are changing things down there in D.C. Drudge reports:

After losing a string of embarrassing votes on the House floor because of procedural maneuvering, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority.

The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit. This would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822.

In protest, the House Republicans are going to call procedural motions every half hour.

House Minority Whip John Boehner's reaction:

“This is an astonishing attempt by the majority leadership to duck accountability for tax-and-spend policies the American people do not want,” Boehner said. “The majority leadership is gutting House rules that have been in place for 185 years so they can raise taxes and increase government spending without a vote. House Republicans will use every tool available to fight this abuse of power.”

Last November, House Democratic leaders promised the most open, ethical Congress in history:

“[W]e promised the American people that we would have the most honest and most open government and we will.” (Nancy Pelosi press stakeout, December 6, 2006)

“We intend to have a Rules Committee ... that gives opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability to be heard and considered on the floor of the House.” (Steny Hoyer in CongressDaily PM, December 5, 2006)

The rules House Democrats are seeking to change have not been changed since 1822.
Republicans have already achieved significant legislative successes on the House floor with 11 consecutive “motion-to-recommit” victories that exposed flaws and substantively improved weaknesses in underlying Democrat bills. But rather than living by the same rules which have guided the House of Representatives for 185 years, Democrats are proposing to change the rules in order to game the system and raise taxes and increase spending without a House vote. What are House Democrats afraid of?

Here's more about the Motion to Recommit.

New House Budget Means Higher Taxes

The Heritage Foundation has done an analysis of the new House Budget crafted by the Democratic majority in Washington and concluded that it means higher taxes across the board. Their reasoning:

The House leadership has proposed to increase spending over the next five years. Given the leader­ship's avowed commitment to paying for spending increases, tax revenues will have to rise. Which taxes will have to rise is unclear, as budget resolutions are notoriously short on details. However, the failure of House leaders to include any language addressing the expiring Bush tax cuts of 2001 through 2004 indicates that they could intend to end these tax cuts.[1] This, in turn, means that the House leadership could be allowing American taxpayers to assume a large and expensive tax increase upon the expiration of these tax cuts.

The House budget resolution has the potential to cost the average American taxpayer an additional $3,026 in taxes. In addition to the increased tax bur­den, Americans could also see their personal income decrease by an average of $502 dollars due to a weaker economy. Moreover, the budget resolution could dam­age employment growth, causing about one million fewer jobs to be created, and has the potential to damage economic output by over $100 billion nationally. The average cost of the House budget resolution to each congressional district amounts to the potential loss of 2,284 jobs that would have oth­erwise been created and a loss in economic output by an average $240 million.

The culprit for these negative impacts is higher taxes. Many economists believe that higher taxes, particularly on capital, cause the level of private investment to fall, thereby slowing productivity improvements and weakening the earning capac­ity of households. Wages and business earnings, which are closely tied to productivity, would fall as well.

Again, the budget resolution does not contain a detailed tax plan. However, the resolution also is silent on the most important tax policy change since 2001: the expiration of the tax law changes from 2001 through 2004 over the next four years. This paper presents estimates of the potential impact that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would have on Americans.[2]

Here's how--according to their calculations--Rhode Islanders would be affected:

Re: RI Future Hyperventilation

Give me a break.

I realize that progressives don't want to lose one of their weapons for public assassination, but must we continue pretending that anybody on either side of the aisle actually thinks being gay, of itself, is political poison — especially in Rhode Island? (Not so ironically, one suspects that those politicians who might actually suffer some loss of support for being homosexual — i.e., right wingers — would be somewhat less likely to fall under the protection of liberal outrage.)

I guess we should send out a memo that Rhode Island's leftists believe that every politician must have an official position on whether or not he or she is out. Then perhaps people who must be in the public spotlight for hours each day can at least be blamed for telling on-the-record secrets.

Re: RI Future Hyperventilation

Give me a break.

I realize that progressives don't want to lose one of their weapons for public assassination, but must we continue pretending that anybody on either side of the aisle actually thinks being gay, of itself, is political poison — especially in Rhode Island? (Not so ironically, one suspects that those politicians who might actually suffer some loss of support for being homosexual — i.e., right wingers — would be somewhat less likely to fall under the protection of liberal outrage.)

I guess we should send out a memo that Rhode Island's leftists believe that every politician must have an official position on whether or not he or she is out. Then perhaps people who must be in the public spotlight for hours each day can at least be blamed for telling on-the-record secrets.

Counterintuitive Consequence of the Day

Would passage of a new Equal Rights Amendment mean that Providence College could reinstate its baseball team? Ilya Somin of the Volokh Conspiracy thinks it’s a possibility…

As currently interpreted by courts and federal administrative agencies, [Federal law] essentially requires universities to have equal numbers of male and female sports teams, regardless of the amount of interest that male and female students have in athletics. This is a fairly obvious gender classification and one that probably won't survive strict scrutiny under the ERA.

Providence College eliminated baseball in 1999, after the NCAA determined that it had too many programs for male athletes. Here’s Reason Magazine describing the end of baseball at PC…

In the late '90s, Providence found itself in a familiar bind. Women accounted for 59 percent of its students, yet they were only 43 percent of student athletes. The school was facing a peer review by the NCAA, and it needed to show quick "progress" toward gender equity. Providence simply had too many male athletes, and the easiest course of action was to cut some men's programs to bring its numbers into line. In the fall of 1998, the administration announced that the 1999 season would be the last for the school's 78-year-old baseball team. After 2002, Providence would no longer support men's golf or tennis. Not one new women's team would be created, but the male-female ratio would still be greatly improved.

Because, after 35 years, we've waited long enough....

...the Democratic Party brings you (drumroll please).....................................

The Equal Rights Amendment!!!

Liberal Democrats in the Senate and House plan to resume "the fight for women's equality" on Tuesday, when they reintroduce the Women's Equality Amendment.

Sens. Ted Kennedy (Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (Calif.) and Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Jerrold Nadler, both of New York, plan to join Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, in making the Tuesday afternoon announcement...The proposed amendment would affect issues ranging from hiring and wages to restrictions on women serving in military combat units...

"It's been a long, hard fight for women's equality," Maloney said Monday at the Women's Equality Summit hosted by the National Council of Women's Organizations in Washington, D.C.

"We've achieved a lot for women -- even in my lifetime," she said. "But we have not done enough.

"There is still a great deal of discrimination out there," Maloney argued, citing income disparity between men and women, gender-based "discriminatory clubs" and "gender-based hate crimes."

"Discrimination is real; it's out there," Maloney said. "They are constantly trying to roll [women's rights] back.

"It's never going to go away until we pass the women's equality amendment," she said.

Actually, I guess the wait has been since 1923. Congrats to the 'Crats for bringing up this crucial and pressing issue.

Zebra-crats: Simply Can't Change Their Stripes

Ed Morrissey commented (via email) to Glenn Reynolds:

Isn't it interesting that the Democrats -- who ran on an anti-corruption, anti-war platform -- now offer us a porked-up supplemental to fund the Iraq war?

And, also via Glenn, that noted conservative outlet USA Today joins in:

It's hard to say which is worse: leaders offering peanuts for a vote of this magnitude, or members allowing their votes to be bought for peanuts. These provisions demean a bill that, if enacted, would affect the lives of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the balance of power in the Middle East and America's long-term security.

The provisions also violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the new majority's promise to cut back on "earmarks" — provisions slipped into bills that direct your tax dollars to a specific locale or politically favored project.

Last January, as soon as Democrats took control of Congress, the House passed new rules designed to curb earmarks, which had exploded under years of Republican rule. Yet here they go again...

That last bit sounds sorta Reaganesque, dontcha think?

House Democrats: Pork is OK if it's Anti-War

It didn't take too long to renege on that promise now, did it (H/T).

House Democratic leaders are offering billions in federal funds for lawmakers' pet projects large and small to secure enough votes this week to pass an Iraq funding bill that would end the war next year.

So far, the projects -- which range from the reconstruction of New Orleans levees to the building of peanut storehouses in Georgia -- have had little impact on the tally. For a funding bill that establishes tough new readiness standards for deploying combat forces and sets an Aug. 31, 2008, deadline to bring the troops home, votes do not come cheap.

But at least a few Republicans and conservative Democrats who otherwise would vote "no" remain undecided, as they ponder whether they can leave on the table millions of dollars for constituents by opposing the $124 billion war funding bill due for a vote on Thursday...

"The war supplemental legislation voted out of the Appropriations Committee last week was an exercise in arrogance that demonstrated the utter contempt the majority has for the American people and their hard-earned tax dollars," fumed Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.). "We are at war with a ruthless global terrorist network, yet the appropriators allocated hundreds of millions in funds to gratuitous pork projects."

Even some Democrats say the issue of Iraq has become far too heated to be conducive to vote-buying.

"The profile and urgency of this Iraq vote really doesn't lend itself to these kinds of side deals," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.)...

House Democrats: they were against pork before they were for it? Or is this more likely evidence of the plain fact that, as Jonah Goldberg writes, "Democrats can betray their base too."

Immigration Debate To Heat up Locally

Ian Donnis at N4N:

It should make for riveting television when WPRO-AM talk-show host Dan Yorke and blogger-political activist Matt Jerzyk square off on immigration on 10 News Conference at 6:30 AM this Sunday. (A few disclosures: I'm a weekly guest on Yorke's show, and Jerzyk is an occasional Phoenix contributor.)

Jerzyk and Yorke have been engaged in a tiff since Jerzyk made a recent post responding to some of Yorke's assertions about the New Bedford immigration bust.

Considering how George W. Bush is in his second term, you have to laugh when conservatives blame liberals for shortcomings in the nation's immigration policy. That said, both immigrant advocates and immigration critics seem united in their belief that the staus quo leaves a lot to be desired. Since immigrants have long made for convenient scapegoats, the hard part is stimulating a dialogue that promotes light, rather than just heat (if not outright misinformation).

Should be interesting. One point though: I don't think many conservatives are blaming just liberals--President Bush has certainly gotten his fair share of criticism. Any conservative criticism of the actions of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation in the aftermath of the recent New Bedford raid is because they seem more concerned about playing up the plight of exploited illegal immigrants over an entirely legal (if somewhat mishandled) raid. As the ProJo editorializes, the law enforcement officers were simply doing there job--upholding the law. None of this means that conservatives are letting the President off the hook for his predisposition to amnesty.

Who Cares What the RI Legislature Thinks About Iraq?

Perhaps if House Democrats would refrain from debating utterly non-Rhode Island related "legislation" such as H 5340, a House Resolution "RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO OPPOSE PRESIDENT BUSH'S PLAN TO INCREASE US TROOPS IN IRAQ," then they wouldn't have to put the pedal to the metal in June. (Of course, that's assuming they don't like shoving all of the legislation down our throats with little chance for review). Besides, does it really matter what the Rhode Island Legislature has to say about Iraq? Well, for those who wake up every day and drink a tall glass of hubris (Reps. Crowley, McNamara, Naughton, Shanley, and Lewiss), I guess it does:

WHEREAS, The initial war plans for Iraq had a preliminary American invasion force of about 130,000 soldiers and Marines, which would drop to 30,000 to 50,000 by the end of 2003; and

WHEREAS, As of mid-November 2006, there were approximately 152,000 United States troops deployed to Iraq; and

WHEREAS, In his State of the Union Address, President Bush affirmed his commitment of more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq; and

WHEREAS, This policy of "escalation" is simply the wrong answer to the situation in Iraq at this time; now, therefore be it

RESOLVED, That this House of Representatives of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations hereby urges the United States Congress to oppose President Bush's plan to increase United States troops in Iraq; and be it further

RESOLVED, That this House urges the Congress to support a plan to redeploy American Troops currently serving in Iraq and seek a political resolution to the internal Iraq conflict; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the Secretary of State be and he hereby is authorized and directed to transmit duly certified copies of this resolution to the Rhode Island Congressional delegation.

Setting aside the total lack of perspective with regards to the first "WHEREAS" concerning initial troop estimates vs. reality (apparently, they've read somewhere that pre-conflict troop estimates are always accurate and never change as the situation changes.) And temporarily setting aside the aforementioned fact that it is a total waste of time. (Newsflash: no one gives a darn what the freakin' RI Legislature thinks about foreign affairs. Get over yourselves). The reality in Iraq is quickly bypassing their "RESOLVE"s, but they don't realize it because, like so many politicians, they have already made up their minds on Iraq--facts be damned--and are still sticking to the November 2006 script. What a wonderfully static way to look at the world.

The Mainstream Media has also been following the same template, which is why NBCs Brian Williams should be given credit for going to Iraq to see things for himself. And he's beginning to realize that the Conventional Wisdom in the U.S. doesn't reflect the reality in Iraq.

In an interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Williams observed:

Today, the message that we`re prepared to report tonight on "NBC Nightly News" is this kind of tale of two wars.

I`m fresh from, you know, weeks of putting together "NBC Nightly News" and televising this debate in Washington, a lot of members of Congress saying we should be out now.

And today, we literally airlift into a place like Ramadi, where they are so proud of the latest city block they say they have been able to "peacify." They have been able to forge an agreement with the local religious leaders and knock al Qaeda one city block further away from the center of town.

They are so involved in the battle. Many, many soldiers told me today the local people are so worried they`re going to leave cities like Ramadi and Hit. That`s the war they know.

And they say very politely, they can talk all they want in D.C.; we`ve got to enforce the policy, the job we`re here to do.

And, according to Williams, the effect is already being felt:

Well, I`ll tell you. It`s in its early stages and with - if you mention the so-called surge, you have to talk about it in tandem with this new policy of these small outposts, these - what they are really is glorified police stations.

We saw it today in Ramadi. There is patently no way a few weeks ago we could have stood outside an armored vehicle and had a conversation as we did today in Ramadi.

They have changed policy there. The war has changed.

Is it better? That`ll be for other people to judge. But it is already being felt here, that is, the increase in troops. The first ones are already here.

There`s a huge field behind us they are clearing for the 3rd Infantry, for their next tour of duty here. And so, we`ll have to wait and see. It`s on a continuum.

But, again, the combination, with this change in policy - getting out, decentralizing, going into the neighborhoods, grabbing a toehold, telling the enemy we`re here, start talking to the locals - that is having an obvious and palpable effect.

Williams, who was touring Iraq with Lieutenant General Ray Odierno, also offered this report (link is to MSNBC video, transcript from here. All via A Second Hand Conjecture):

“This is what the General heard today about how warmly the locals now view the Americans.”

U.S. Army Colonel John Charlton: "They do not want us to leave. They want to see the police come through.”

U. S. Army Lt. Colonel Charles Ferry: “The people here are very glad to see us. They are very hesitant still because they're not sure if we're going to stay. They want us to stay.”

Voice of Odierno?: “That's the issue.”

Ferry: “That's the whole deal. If we stay down here and to keep beating down the insurgents."

Brian Williams, to one or more of the officers: “You just said, 'They don't want us to leave.' That's the tenth time today I've heard that. I've got to go back to the States and do a newscast that every night has another politician or 12 of them saying, 'We have got to get out of that godforsaken place.'”

Odierno: "They can talk about policy, okay, and that's what they have to do back there. My mission right now is to provide protection for the Iraqi people so this government can grow."

NBC correspondent Richard Engel also added:

Some say they [insurgents] are just waiting to see how long the U.S. will stay and how long this surge will continue. It was obvious, the U.S. announced the surge, they said where the U.S. troops were going and the militia decided they fought the U.S. two-and-a-half years ago, didn't have a lot of success. They decided this time they're going to wait it out, see if political pressure in the U.S. can help them win this time.

Williams wrapped up the report:

Brian Williams: “And General, you and I heard sentiments we don't often hear today, the U.S. commanders quoting the Iraqis: 'please don't leave us.' And a lot of the U.S. fighters there today said they didn't want to leave this fight, they are dedicated to it.”

Retired General Wayne Downing: “Brian, every single one of them, I ran into a lot of officers and NCOs that I served with -- every soldier that I ran across today I asked him: 'How do you feel about what's going on, what do you know about what is going on back in the states?' And without exception -- this was spontaneous, especially when you start talking to PFCs and Spec 4s, they're going to tell you the truth, no party line. Very proud of what they're doing. Very, very dedicated. Many of these guys, Brian, are back here on their second and third tours. These are one-year tours. Extremely well trained and very professional.”

It's amazing how the story changes when the media actually makes an effort, isn't it? Does it sound to you like the President's plan isn't working? As I said, reality is eclipsing the November 2006 template, but the Democrats in the RI House are too fixated on making rhetorical political hay to realize it. And their meaningless and ideologically self-indulgent resolution runs contra to what the troops on the ground believe. Finally, as they get their jones by "taking a stand," they lose valuable time that should be spent addressing the very real fiscal crisis that is facing our state.

In Allentown, Not So Crazy About Card Checks

Well we're waiting here in Allentown
For the Pennsylvania we never found
For the promises our teachers gave
If we worked hard
If we behaved

So the graduations hang on the wall
But they never really helped us at all
No they never taught us what was real
Iron and coal
Chromium Steel

And we're waiting here in Allentown
But they've taken all the coal from the ground
And the union people crawled away.

So goes a portion of Billy Joel's '80s hit "Allentown", a working man's song about how life was changing in a union town. With the news that the House of Representatives has passed the "Employee Free Choice Act", which really seeks to strip away the right of workers to vote up or down on unionization via secret ballot and requires a so-called "card check," Joel's song came to mind. For the heck of it, I thought that, instead of me rehashing (and here and here) why this was so wrong, it might be worth finding out what the local newspaper of a union town--like Allentown--had to say. The Morning Call of Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley is the Allentown hometown newspaper. After editorializing that "[i]t was a cynical and misleading vote, one that was more about politics than it was about helping workers," the paper explains:

Union leaders say employer intimidation contributes to this decline. They cite statistics that workers who try to organize fellow employees stand a one-in-five chance of losing their jobs. They complain about employers hiring consultants who specialize in pressuring workers into not supporting unions. It happens.

However, the solution this legislation proposes would replace one form of coercion with another. In doing so, it does away with one of democracy's most hallowed tools to preserve freedom of choice — the secret ballot. In its place, it would allow unions to organize workplace simply by getting a majority of employees to sign authorization cards — the so-called card check. In place of a boss leaning on a worker not to vote for the union, it puts face-to-face peer pressure from a labor organizer to unionize. Pressure can work both ways, and without the protection of privacy, workers could subject themselves to harassment, or worse, from just another source. It happens.

This isn't the way to make the workplace fair. The National Labor Relations Act already makes it illegal for employers to bully their workers into not supporting unions. There are legitimate questions about whether the act's enforcement provisions are adequate to protect workers' rights. In fact, the Employee Free Choice Act would give the National Labor Relations Board more power to penalize employers when they fire workers for trying to organize — something that gets to the heart of labor's concern. Paired with a secret ballot, it would allow workers to vote according to who they think made the better case — labor or management.

The union bosses and their Democratic friends have sought to use legitimate concerns about the shortcomings of the NLRB as an opportunity to strengthen their control over the rank and file--both current and prospective. As the Call's editorial staff wrote, this was indeed "cynical and misleading." And entirely unsurprising.

Union Intimidation Tactics: An Extreme Example

So far, I've posted on how the Democrats in the House have attempted to remove the ability of workers to vote via a secret ballot if they want to unionize and how most workers dislike union card checks, which is the "approved alternative" of the House Democrats and their Labor Boss buddies. One area of contention seems to be over just who, exactly, intimidates workers more: unions or companies. As my last post indicated, it seems that most of the company-sponsored intimidation is anecdotal. Additionally, according to the poll I cited, "[o]ver 92 percent of union objections to employer misconduct during organizing elections in 2005 were either withdrawn or, upon investigation by the NLRB, dismissed."

Now, an Anchor Rising reader has emailed me some documents that provide an example of the types of intimidation tactics in which one particular union engaged during an organizing campaign. According to this source:

[T]he attached is quite “interesting” regarding the lengths to which union organizers will go.

It is an employee bulletin board notice that the National Labor Relations Board ordered posted at the trucking company Overnite Transportation facilities. The Teamsters agreed to this as part of a stipulated agreement (also attached) settling charges against the Teamsters, which at the time were attempting to organize Overnite.

By no means is this Teamster activity representative of union pressure during organizing drives, but “less extreme” union pressure certainly is: from fraud (telling employees that signing the card is only so that the union can mail information to the employee’s house) to nagging (many employees sign the cards simply to get the pro-union employees to stop bothering them) to subtle intimidation (groups showing up at employee’s houses seeking signed cards) to more shall we say “unsubtle” intimidation.

Here is a PDF detailing the settlement and here is a PDF containing the actual posting. Here's a sample of some of that "unsubtle" intimidation, which was subsequently prohibited in the postings:

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS POSTED PURSUANT TO A SETTLEMENT STIPULATION APPROVED BY A REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

WE WILL NOT brandish or carry any weapon of any kind, including, but not limited to, guns, knives, slingshots, rocks, ball bearings, liquid-filled balloons or other projectiles, sledge hammers, bricks, sticks, or two by fours at or near any picket line, handbilling effort, rally or in any vehicle engaged in ambulatory picketing of any Overnite vehicle or following the private vehicle of any Overnite employee.

WE WILL NOT use or threaten to use a weapon of any kind, including but not limited to guns, knives, slingshots, rocks, ball bearings, liquid-filled balloons or other projectiles, picket signs, sticks, sledge hammers, bricks, hot coffee, bottles, two by fours, lit cigarettes, eggs, or bags or balloons filled with excrement against any non-striking Overnite employee or security guard in the presence any Overnite employee.

WE WILL NOT damage, threaten to damage or attempt to damage any vehicle or equipment owned or operated by Overnite, its employees or security guards, by any means or manner, including but not limited by slingshots, rocks, ball bearings, liquid-filled balloons or other projectiles, knives, picket signs, sticks, sledge hammers, bricks, bottles, two by fours, eggs, or paint, or by tearing off mirrors, windshield wipers or antennas, or breaking windows.

WE WILL NOT disable or attempt to disable vehicles owned or operated by Overnite, by any means or manner, including but not limited to disconnecting or otherwise severing air brake lines, padlocking doors, spraying substances in or otherwise jamming locks, stealing keys, puncturing radiators, cutting hoses or door cables, flattening tires or throwing, placing or otherwise spreading any nails, screws, star nails, jack rocks or similar devices capable of puncturing tires on any road surface.

WE WILL NOT endanger or impede the progress of or harass any non-striking employee or any employee of a neutral person doing business with Overnite, while he or she is operating a company vehicle or his or her own personal vehicle, by forcing or attempting to force him or her off the road, blocking, delaying or limiting his or her access to or passage on any road, swerving toward, driving recklessly near, tailgating or braking abruptly in front of him or her, impeding his or her progress by speeding up and slowing down, driving at speeds below the legal minimums while in front of him or her.

WE WILL NOT endanger or impede the progress of or harass any non-striking employee or any employee of a neutral person doing business with Overnite, while he or she is operating a company vehicle or his or her own personal vehicle, by jumping on vehicles, by attempting to open the doors of vehicles, by throwing paint on windshields, by using mirrors, laser pointers, spot lights or flash photography in the eyes of drivers, or by obstructing the view of drivers by holding picket signs over the windshields of vehicles.

That's just Page 1. To re-emphasize what the e-mailer wrote: by no means is this typical union behavior. But it is a documented example of how far some union's will go to organize a workplace. And it's exhibit "1A" of why secret ballots need to be maintained. And don't forget, secret ballots also protect the worker from their employer, too. I simply fail to see how removing such a fundamental right as the secret ballot can help workers.

Workers Don't Like Card Checks

In the comments section of my recent post on the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act", MRH contends:

This isn't as black and white an issue as you're making it seem. I'm sympathetic to the argument that, in general, secret ballots are a good thing. However, in practice the kind of secret balloting used to certify a union takes months or years to complete, during which time management has significant time and opportunity to intimidate workers against joining the unions.

Under a card check system, a union can be certified much, much quicker.

From everything I understand, management intimidation is far, far more prevalent than union intimidation, so that's why most labor advocates are in favor of this.

Commenter Tom W. offers a fine riposte (so read it!), but perhaps this poll (thanks Andrew) will also help MRH make up his mind. Here's the conclusion (follow the link for more detail):

Labor activists argue that card check is needed to protect workers' free choice as to whether to join a union. But workers themselves disagree. Overwhelming majorities of both union and non-union workers oppose the card-check system. Contrary to anecdotal stories of employer abuses, most union members believe the current election system is fair. Workers do not want the government to force them to reveal their choices to anyone and want the right to keep their votes private. Unrepresentative anecdotes from labor activists are not enough to counter the fact that workers choose private-ballot organizing elections, not card check.

There's more, and none of it indicates that the majority of union workers want to have the "Free Choice" of publicly proclaiming their personal decisions on union-related issues.

Here are some of the numbers taken from the poll:

- According to a Zogby poll, 71 percent of union members believe that the current private-ballot process is fair, versus only 13 percent who disagree. Fully 78 percent of union members favor keeping the current system in place over replacing it with one that provides less privacy.

- Over 92 percent of union objections to employer misconduct during organizing elections in 2005 were either withdrawn or, upon investigation by the NLRB, dismissed.

- The government found substantiated evidence of employer abuses in less than 1 out of every 200 elections held.

- By more than a 3 to 1 margin, non-union workers say that they do not want to belong to a labor union.

- Fully 89 percent of Americans believe that a worker's ultimate choice should be kept private and not made public information...

- A recent McLaughlin poll indicates that 79 percent of Americans oppose card check legislation that would end private-ballot elections. About 66 percent of union members agree and think that companies should never be allowed to skip private-ballot elections before they recognize a union.

Democrats and Labor Leaders Quash Workers' Rights

According to GOP Minority Whip John Boehner:

Under the guise of “protecting” workers, a bill by House Democrats would strip American workers of the right to choose -- freely and anonymously -- whether to unionize. The misleadingly titled Employee Free Choice Act offers neither freedom nor choice, and will leave workers open to ugly union harassment, intimidation, and pressure that still persist today. The San Francisco Examiner called it “exquisitely Orwellian… anti-freedom, anti-democracy"...

The remarkable thing about the Employee Free Choice Act is the enormous amount of power over the lives of Americans it gives to Big Labor. No other group has the authority to simply draw up a few signatures in order to force others to start paying them money. But that is exactly what Democrats are giving their union buddies. By stripping workers of their right to a private ballot election, Democrats are raiding the wallets of and stripping away fundamental rights from American workers.

Boehner also offers up this useful analogy:

[I}magine it is November 2008 and community leaders all across America decide not to hold elections. Instead of heading into a voting booth like you always have, you’re told to show up at town hall and declare publicly -- in front of your neighbors and community leaders -- for whom and what you’re voting.

Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? Well this is exactly what House Democrats are proposing for your workplace. Workers will no longer be able to express their wishes privately; their “votes” will be public for everyone -- union organizers, employers, co-workers -- to see.

Is this the progressives' idea of protecting workers' rights? They feel comfortable excoriating corporate fat-cats for initimidating workers who want to organize, but shouldn't they and the Democrats they support be intellectually honest enough to recognize that union bosses can be just as intimidating? Not just CEO's pull down six figures, my friends. Or do they just like to pay lip service to worker rights and think that passing "labor" laws are enough maintain their street cred of "fighting for the little guy"?

Currently, Anchor Rising is running an advertisement for a "virtual" March on Washington sponsored by The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which "co-chairs the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, an organization that represents employers, workers, and activists who want to safeguard the protections of the secret ballot in workplaces throughout America."

We strenuously oppose H.R. 800, the “Employee Free Choice Act” and the unions who want Congress to legislate the end of secret ballot union elections and the safeguards they afford to working families.

Congress has begun working on this legislation and may vote on it as soon as the week of February 26.

Join a crowd of thousands without leaving your computer by writing a letter to your members of Congress and designing a “virtual you” to place on the Mall.

If you think that workers should have the right to a secret ballot, pay them a visit.

Do Aldroids Dream of Inconvenient Hypocrisy?

Ya know, do they really have to make it so easy? (via Instapundit):

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

Aw, c'mon Drew? Al just has to use all o' that energy in his great, big mansion so he can power the global media campaign that is spreading the Truth to all of us poor, working- and middle- class, ignorant rubes? Dontcha see? And that's why he uses a private jet, too: so he can spread the word to the masses faster than he could by riding a bike! Really! Honest!

(h/t Philip K. Dick)

UPDATE: Al Gore has responded:

Vice President Gore’s office told ThinkProgress:

1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.

Ed Morrissey has a few cogent points to make about Mr. Gore's rebuttal:

Interesting that he doesn't dispute the numbers; he just tries a little misdirection instead.

First, the solar panels and the compact fluorescent light bulbs will certainly make a difference -- but the TCPR report looks at his electricity bill, which still indicates (a) a high level of usage, and (b) an increase since the movie's release. Solar panels generate electricity at the location, which should then decrease the amount of power he's buying from the utility. If it's still going up, there seems to be a serious management problem somewhere.

Second, as I mentioned above, purchasing offsets only means that Gore doesn't want to make the same kind of sacrifices that he's asking other families to make. He's using a modern form of indulgences in order to avoid doing the penance that global-warming activism demands of others. It means that the very rich can continue to suck up energy and raise the price and the demand for electricity and natural gas, while families struggle with their energy costs and face increasing government regulation and taxation. It's a regressive plan that Gore's supporters would decry if the same kind of scheme were applied to a national sales tax, for instance.

And basically, it doesn't address the issue of hypocrisy. If Gore and his family continue to increase their consumption of commercial energy with all of the resources they have at hand, then they have no business lecturing the rest of us on conservation and down-scaling our own use.

Glenn Reynolds is also skeptical on the carbon offsets idea. Again: it sure is nice that the wealthy do-gooders can afford unburden their enviro-consciousness without having to actually alter their actions, isn't it? How convenient.

Summing Up Differing Approaches to Poverty

Nathan Smith at TCS daily offers this contrast between how President Bush and Sen. Jim Webb view the poverty question:

President Bush has proposed an array of policies that confront different aspects of real deprivation as experienced by the poor here and abroad: bad education, lack of legal status and fear of deportation, lack of health care and disease. Of course, also critical to poverty alleviation is the ongoing success of the US economy, which, as the president mentioned, has created 7.2 million jobs since the beginning of the current expansion. Jobs are both the best way out of poverty and, as presidential aspirant John Edwards has said, a source of "dignity and self-respect." By calling for a balanced budget in five years, without raising taxes, President Bush made a bid to preserve a business climate in which prosperity will continue.

While the president is interested in dealing with specific aspects of poverty and deprivation, he is not interested in the position of poor people