If you’ve watched any cable news show in the last year, chances are you’ve probably seen one or a thousand ads from the fossil fuel industry attacking regulations and/or trying to paint their products as necessary for prosperity. If nothing else, the sheer volume of prime-time advertisements makes one thing strikingly apparent: the fossil fuel industry has a LOT of money.

Recently, I saw yet another one of these ads–this one from a coal industry front group called “America’s Power”–and another thing struck me: They really think that with enough money, with enough serious looking actors, and enough repetition, they can make Americans believe (or forget) anything. My fear is that they may be right.

This short 30-second spot is a great example of the dirty energy industry’s strategy of deceit. Let’s take a look and then deconstruct it point by point:

Transcript:

We’re hearing a lot about fairness from this administration.

But is it fair for their EPA to increase what Americans pay for electricity, by imposing expensive new regulations on coal?

With all the pain at the pump, now is the time to act before those who can least afford it feel even greater pain, at the plug.

Coal: It’s affordable, abundant, and ours. Learn what you can do at AmericasPower.org.

[Clean Coal. Now is the time.]

“We’re hearing a lot about fairness from this administration.”

The sinister voice tells us that we’re hearing a lot about fairness from the administration, but we can tell from the sinister voice that we aren’t supposed to believe the administration really cares about fairness. No, it is much more, sinister than that. But just what is this administration up to? Let’s find out:

“But is it fair for their EPA to increase what Americans pay for electricity, by imposing expensive new regulations on coal?”

Well, yes, I’d say so. But of course this isn’t really what’s going on, and common sense tells us that the coal industry really doesn’t give a crap about how much Americans pay for energy. This is about their own self-interest, and nothing else.

But let’s talk about these regulations first and then we’ll get to the cost issue later. The ad mentions regulations, but doesn’t think it’s important to mention what these regulations are or why they were established in the first place. I suppose we are to believe the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) passed these regulations just because it’s evil and hates fairness. Turns out, that’s not the case at all. Let me fill in the gaps the ad so conveniently left blank.

There are two main regulations related to coal-fired power plants that the EPA has instituted in the last year: Power Plant Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and New Source Performance Standards (CO2 Limits). I’ll address each individually:

Power Plant Mercury and Air Toxics Standards — So what is this horrible fairness-crushing regulation all about? Let’s ask the Clean Air Council:

[T]he first national standard to reduce mercury and other toxic air pollution from power plants. The “Power Plant Mercury and Air Toxics Standards” will set new technology-based emissions limitation standards for toxic air pollutants such as mercury.

The proposed rule will prevent 91 percent of mercury emissions from power plants annually, reduce acid gas emissions from power plants by 91 percent, and reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from power plants by 55 percent. These reductions will lead to significant health benefits, including the prevention of up to 17,000 premature deaths, 11,000 heart attacks, and over 12,000 hospital and emergency room visits. According to Clean Air Council Executive Director Joseph O. Minott, “the EPA, through its proposed rulemaking, is taking a critical step towards protecting the health of millions of Americans.”

You know, it almost looks like the EPA imposed these regulations to save lives—thousands of lives every year—rather than out of boredom. How strange that the coal industry ad failed to mention the fact that the regulations they are whining about are regulations that keep them from inadvertently killing 17,000 people each year with toxic gases!

So back to fairness–does the coal industry think it is fair that those living around coal-fired power plants are forced to breathe in toxic air pollution? Does the coal industry think that 17,000 premature deaths, 11,000 heart attacks and over 12,000 hospital and emergency room visits, every single year, are fair? Apparently those costs of coal power are perfectly acceptable to the coal industry, so acceptable that they’ve created an ad campaign directed at fighting for the “right” to continue making people sick and dead.

New Source Performance Standards — These are the EPA’s new regulations seeking to limit the amount of CO2 coal-fired power plants are allowed to spew into our atmosphere with impunity. The idea behind them is simple: We are warming the planet with greenhouse gases, if we don’t reverse course soon we are in big trouble, so maybe we should start thinking about phasing out CO2 belching coal power. As someone who just suffered through a record-breaking heatwave in DC, followed by a historically nasty freak thunderstorm with hurricane force winds that uprooted a tree next door and left me without power for over three days, I think this sounds very reasonable. I’m sure those fleeing historic forest fires in Colorado also think it is high time the U.S. Government does something about limiting our country’s contributions to climate change.

So what does this fairness-killing regulation actually do? Turns out, not as much as you might think:

Any new plant built in the United States will have to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide per megawatt-hour. The vast majority of modern natural-gas plants meet that standard, so they should be fine. Conventional coal plants, however, average upward of 1,800 pounds per megawatt-hour. They’re not so fine.

This effectively means, analysts agree, that it will be impossible to build any new coal-fired power plant in the United States that can’t capture and store its own carbon emissions. Right now, there are two carbon-capture projects in development, one out in West Virginia and one in Texas, but the technology is still costly and unproven. For the time being, then, this is a moratorium on all new coal plants.

Practically, though, that might not have a huge impact in the short term. The rule won’t affect existing power plants, and it won’t affect any coal-fired plants that are already permitted or set to begin construction within a year. According to a Department of Energy report (pdf), there are 24 such plants in the works. This rule would affect any future coal-fired plants — but right now there are hardly any such plants being planned in the United States. In recent years, utilities have been shifting away from coal on their own, largely due to other pollution regulations and the influx of cheap natural gas. The Energy Information Adminstration was already projecting that no coal plants would come online between 2017 and 2035.

So existing coal-fired power plants, or new plants that have already been approved, won’t be affected by this rule and can continue to spew heat-trapping greenhouse gases into our atmosphere without a care in the world (yay fairness!). The only thing that will change is that there will now be even less incentive to pursue new coal-fired power plants, which doesn’t do much more than underscore an existing trend away from coal.

So let’s talk about fairness again. Is it fair that until now coal-fired power plants have been allowed to contribute to global warming, without paying any costs for that environmental damage? In economics they call this a negative externality—a cost (either financial or in terms of some sort of damage) that innocent bystanders must pay for the actions of someone else (who gets away free and clear). To me, a negative externality seems like the exact opposite of fairness.

What this pro-coal ad campaign is all about is convincing the public, the innocent bystanders, that they should fight for the coal industry’s “right” to hurt them and not have to pay for it. The coal industry thinks it should be able to keep all the profit for itself, and pass on the harm—the premature deaths, the health problems, the hospital visits, the climate change—onto innocent bystanders. And what these regulations are all about is saying “enough is enough” and trying to limit the most egregious of these damages–to rein in the coal industry on behalf of the innocent bystanders.

And the thing is, the EPA isn’t even doing it that forcefully. With all the harm caused by dirty coal power, with all its costs to society, the deaths, the illness, the contributions to climate change, the EPA would be justified in shuttering every single coal power plant in the country and forcing the industry to pay reparations to those it hurt and to help clean up the environmental damage it caused. That would start to look like fairness, if that’s what we really care about here. That is all to say that the coal industry should quit whining about some light regulations when they should have to face much worse consequences.

“With all the pain at the pump, now is the time to act before those who can least afford it feel even greater pain, at the plug.”

Let’s ignore the fact that gas prices have been falling (and partially as a result of President Obama’s crackdown on oil speculation). Let’s also ignore the fact that the coal industry’s newfound concern for American wellbeing is transparently fake (I think we’ve already established that the coal industry doesn’t care what happens to the public). The fact is that the CO2 regulations won’t effect any existing power plants, so those standards will not raise energy prices for the public. The toxic pollution regulations, on the other hand, may result in higher electric bills. As David Roberts at Grist noted:

Every plant that’s out of compliance has to install the “maximum available control technology.” There is some flexibility — more than industry admits — but there’s no getting around the fact that this is going to be an expensive rule. It’s going to kick off a huge wave of coal-plant retirements and investments in pollution-control technology. That is, despite what conservatives say, a good thing, since the public-health benefits will be far greater than the costs. Every country on earth is modernizing its electric fleet. Even China’s ahead of us. These crappy old plants are an embarrassment and good riddance to them.

So as old, dirty coal-fired power plants are [finally] retired, electricity rates for some customers (in areas where coal power dominates) may indeed rise in the short-term. But as Roberts pointed out, the public health benefits will far outweigh the minor rise in utility costs. Simply put, the 17,000 premature deaths, 11,000 heart attacks, and over 12,000 hospital and emergency room visits are expensive to society, and when those bad things happen to people who are uninsured, this cost is passed on to taxpayers. Essentially the coal industry is narrowly defining “costs” here, and ignoring all those “hidden” external costs that they impose on the public. The fact is, at the end of the day these regulations save Americans money. Lots of money. From the Clean Air Council:

Factoring in both the public health and economic benefits, the EPA estimates that the proposed standards will provide $13 in benefits for every dollar allocated to power plant pollution reduction, reaching a potential level of over $140 billion annually. “It is clear that the benefits both from public health and economic perspectives far outweigh the costs of implementing these safeguards,” said Minott. “The Clean Air Council appreciates the efforts taken by the EPA in proposing standards to limit dangerous power plant pollution. We ask the EPA to continue fighting for the most effective standards which will protect the health of all Americans.”

The coal and oil industry also loves to claim environmental regulations cost jobs (again, they like to pretend they just care so much about your welfare!), but the fact is that modernizing existing power plants and promoting clean energy alternatives actually creates jobs:

The proposed standards also include numerous economic benefits. The EPA estimates that the new standard will provide 31,000 short-term construction jobs and 9,000 permanent utility jobs. The new standard will also help avoid an estimated 850,000 missed work days.

“Coal: It’s affordable, abundant, and ours. Learn what you can do at AmericasPower.org.”

Yes, it’s somewhat cheap, but the costs were already rising long before the EPA stepped in (and the “cheap” argument only takes into account the monetary cost of digging it up and setting it on fire, and not the staggering environmental or public health costs). Yes, it’s relatively abundant (but that doesn’t mean it isn’t environmentally destructive to dig up, and evidence suggests that we’ve already passed peak production of coal in some areas). And yes, it’s “ours” (if by that you mean it is a natural resource collectively belonging to the American public—but of course so is clean air). But the coal industry ad left out one thing: It’s also dirty as hell, hurts all of us, and is clearly not the future of energy or anything else.

“Clean Coal”

The ad ends with the coal industry’s campaign tagline: “Clean Coal. Now is the time.” alongside an orange extension cord plugged neatly into a lump of black coal.

Little did I know that’s how we get power for coal! Here I thought it was a dirty process, one that started with blowing the tops off beautiful mountains, raining sediments and toxins down hillsides and into streams, and ended with the coal being burned in a power plant, releasing smoke, soot and toxic chemicals into the air (not to mention tons of CO2 that accelerates climate change).

I guess that isn’t the picture the coal industry is trying to paint about coal. Instead, we are to believe that coal is neat and tidy, like little natural batteries we can plug appliances into. Of course the ad isn’t literally suggesting that is the case, but that’s the subconscious image they are trying to hook the public with. This is about image association and obscuring the ugly reality of coal. They don’t want the public to associate coal with black soot, smoke stacks, and the black lung. The image they want to come to your mind when you hear the word coal is simply us getting power from a simple rock, next to their slogan in soothing blue and green type. How lovely.

I find it ironic that this ad ends with the coal industry wrapping itself with this “clean coal” slogan, when the entire ad was clearly fighting efforts to make coal cleaner. The whole point of these EPA regulations they are fighting is to make coal less dirty. The ad was nothing if not an acknowledgment that making an inherently filthy form of energy production clean would cost a lot of money (much more money than it is actually worth). The coal industry made it clear that they would prefer to keep their energy production dirty, because it would be “unfair” to make them spend more money to clean it up.

…Yet they end with “Clean Coal. Now is the time.”

If you are thinking that it sounds like they are blatantly contradicting themselves, in the span of 30 seconds, it’s because they are. They want you to think they are already producing this unicorn called “clean coal”, when in reality they know it’s a fantasy and just spent 30 seconds trying to convince you to tell the EPA to let them keep it dirty. The reality is that the falling prices of clean energy sources like solar and wind, and the availability of cheap natural gas, has not only doomed coal, it has made more expensive “clean coal” unrealistic. The coal industry wants you to believe they are clean now, but it’ll never happen:

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is still too expensive to be viable. And, to date, governments haven’t figured out how to nurture CCS the way they’ve helped solar or wind or biofuels get off the ground. Case in point: A new report from the Congressional Budget Office finds that Congress has authorized $6.9 billion for developing carbon capture since 2005 — but, so far, there’s little to show for it.

All summed up, this 30 second coal industry ad is a desperate attempt to hide the truth about coal-fired power. It tries to paint coal as a clean technology that is being threatened by an out of control EPA that just hates fairness. They want you to blindly accept their self-interested story, and never ask yourself what problems the EPA is trying to fix. They don’t want you to know about the 17,000 premature deaths, the 11,000 heart attacks, and the over 12,000 hospital and emergency room visits. They don’t want you to know that they are making profit, while they pass on all of the hidden external costs to you, the innocent bystander. They want you to think they are the victim. They want you to fight the EPA on their behalf, to fight for their “right” to hurt you, to actually fight against your own interests. They want to keep you in the dark. They want you to not know any better. They are counting on you not knowing any better. That’s what this ad is all about.

But now you know.

So the next time you turn on a cable news show, and inevitably see an ad from a dirty energy front group attacking the EPA and claiming they care so much about you, remember all the details they are hiding from you, and spread the word.

Note: Check out www.AmericasCoalPower.org, a parody site from the Natural Resources Defense Council and these ads parodying the coal industry’s “clean coal” scam:

Speaker John Boehner is having a heckuva time getting his very-right-wing caucus to support any debt ceiling increase that wasn’t written on a stone tablet by Ayn Rand herself. What is really striking about the process of trying to appeal to the Republican caucus, however, is what they actually view as “good” things and “bad” things.

Judging from the demands of congressional Republicans, these things are considered “good”:

• Defaulting on the nation’s debt obligations for the first time in history, tarnishing the nation’s credit rating and causing an unprecedented economic catastrophe. Or, if they can’t make that happen:
• Destroying (either all at once or in pieces) vital social programs like Social Security and Medicare that not only keep many Americans out of poverty, but also keep them alive.
• Large cutbacks in government spending which would certainly crash an already-stalling economic recovery (Great if you only care about making Obama look bad!).
• Cutting back pretty much any government program that doesn’t benefit rich people or corporations (this includes anything that helps/protects children, seniors, vets, the poor and the unemployed).
• More tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires and corporations, of course.

• Any suggestion that millionaires, billionaires or corporations should have to sacrifice anything to help balance the budget.
• Anything that could help/protect the aforementioned vulnerable groups (children, seniors, vets, the poor and the unemployed).

Yes, they wanted even more painful cuts to important programs, as one would expect, but beyond that there was one thing in particular in the bill that they could not stomach: A provision that would have actually helped … *gulp* … low-income … students! (the horror… the horror…)

I know what you are asking yourself–Why on earth would John Boehner do anything to try to help common people?!?

It appears as though the provision was added as a weak attempt to get Democrats to support the bill (which is something like putting lipstick on a three-week-old rotting pig carcass and trying to pass it off as your prom date). But they thought it might work, you see, because apparently Democrats think things like Pell Grants that help common people are good things! (I know what you are thinking, what suckers!)

Anyway, Tea Party Republicans weren’t going to stand for such benevolence (especially after they recently passed a budget that slashed Pell Grants and kicked 1.4 million would-be students out of the program, making attending college that much harder). No, naturally they were angry that they might actually have to vote for an otherwise delightfully terrible bill that had a small sliver of decency buried in it. Now who wouldn’t be upset by that?? (Answer: People with a conscience)

So for some time last night and this morning the GOP leadership was trying to figure out how to “sweeten the deal” for their right-wing caucus. An obvious way of achieving this would be eliminating the funding for Pell Grants (that help millions of low-income students attend college) because, honestly, what is sweeter than making sure young Americans can’t afford college?

Luckily for students there was another option. Speaker Boehner decided, graciously, to include a provision in the bill that would require Congress to print all bills on smurf hide, inked with unicorn tears, and the Tea Party Republicans rejoiced! (No, actually it was a requirement forcing Congress to pass a “Balanced Budget” amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which basically ensures that his bill stands a yeti’s chance in hell of passing the Senate)

So maybe, just maybe, Boehner has been able to make his bill horrible enough, destructive enough, and reckless enough, that he’ll be able to convince most of the GOP caucus to support it. Thankfully, for those still living in the real world, Boehner’s bill will die in the Senate, so all that will have been lost are a few crucial days that could have been spent crafting a bipartisan compromise, instead of playing in the land of make-believe with the Tea Party freshmen.

My real question is this: What kind of person do you have to be to see cutting funding that allows low-income students to attend college as “sweetening the deal”? What kind of person do you have to be to actually get angry at the thought of voting to support a popular program that helps kids have a shot at chasing the American Dream?

Probably the same type of person who would rather drive the US to default and crash the already-fragile economy to make sure the richest Americans and corporations don’t have to pay a penny extra to help the country. But low-income college students…the elderly…vets…the unemployed…the poor…well screwing them is considered a good thing, I guess.

Note: The Boehner plan also eliminates subsidized student loans for graduate and professional students, which is also a very bad policy if we put any value on American competitiveness and prosperity in the future. To be fair, Senator Reid’s debt ceiling bill would do the same thing, which shows that in this environment in which the narrative in Washington has been so thoroughly hijacked by the extreme right-wing, we are left with a choice between a disastrous plan and one that is simply really really awful. At this point, the best thing would be to simply (and quickly) pass a clean, unconditional increase in the debt limit (like we have always done in the past) so we can protect the economy and move on to real issues. You can demand that by clicking here.

How do you fire up a crowd of congressional Republicans to get them to blindly cast really really bad votes? Easy, just show them a clip from a violent movie! HELL YEAH!!

Last night the GOP did just that at their closed-door caucus meeting. The movie of choice was “The Town” starring Ben Affleck as a bank robber with Jeremy Renner as his psychotic, ultra-violent accomplice. The clip of choice was a scene in which Ben Affleck’s character asks Jeremy Renner’s character to help him beat some people senseless, no questions asked. Apparently the GOP identifies with this in some way.

Here’s the transcript. I’ve taken the liberty of filling in how I’m assuming Republicans are identifying with this situation:

Affleck/Cantor: I need your help. I can’t tell you what it is. You can never ask me about it later. And we’re gonna hurt some people.

Renner/GOP Caucus: Whose car are we gonna take?

If you want to know what this clip is really about you can watch the rest of the scene here, in which the duo dons masks, breaks into a house, and violently assaults two people (warning, this clip contains violent imagery and adult language).

Let me say, I’m just so comforted by the fact that this is how the party that controls the House of Representatives views their responsibility to the country. I’m sure the fact that this is how they are engaging in the debt ceiling showdown (which they orchestrated) is great news for the country. We are in great hands.

Basically, the GOP leadership’s plea to their caucus is this:

Don’t ask questions, don’t pay attention to what we are asking you to vote for or what it would do to the country, just vote for it because we are telling you to. Oh ya, this is going to hurt a lot of Americans. Are you ok with that? Great. Thanks buddy.

The result? Well according to The Washington Post, Tea Party favorite Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) was so moved by the clip he stood up and exclaimed, “I’m ready to drive the car!”

Yes, that actually happened.

Great. Well at least we don’t have to wonder anymore if Republicans know they are going to hurt a lot of people. Allen West apparently has no problem inflicting some serious pain on the country by forcing the first-ever default on the country’s debt, and all indications are that the rest of their caucus is also very comfortable with hostage-taking (only, with the GOP, the hostage is the US economy, not a bank employee like in the movie).

Oh, and funny thing, in the Washington Post article, the “And we’re gonna hurt some people” line was conspicuously left out of the quote. I wonder why The Washington Post felt it was necessary to leave out the most shocking line from the GOP’s little pep rally clip. No big deal that congressional Republicans are getting fired up to take a recklessly disastrous vote by watching a scene that glorifies hurting people (again, watch the full clip to see where that scene was going). That’s not at all interesting, apparently. That must be why The Washington Post quoted the entire clip except the line about how people were going to be hurt by what was about to go down.

Damn that “liberal media bias!”

The Town actually is a pretty good movie, if you are looking for something to watch–It just isn’t a very good template for how to responsibly govern a country. I wish congressional Republicans could understand the difference.

Update: Apparently I’m not the only one who sees something a little Freudian in the GOP’s choice of a pep rally clip. Senator Chuck Schumer reacts:

Update 2 (7/28): The violent pep rally rhetoric continues. From a speech given during this morning’s caucus meeting:

“Put on your helmet, buckle your chinstrap, and knock the shit out of ‘em.”

Who elected these people?

I thought my outrage meter was about pegged today after learning that coal companies are essentially bribing schools to lie to children about fossil fuels (e.g. “Our world is deficient in carbon dioxide, and a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is very beneficial.” –WHAT?!?). That is, until I read this:

Bad news for Americans who eat food

Budget cuts proposed by House Republicans to the Food and Drug Administration would undermine the agency’s ability to carry out a historic food-safety law passed by Congress just five months ago, food safety advocates say. […]

Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee approved the cuts yesterday, which are severe enough to prevent the FDA from implementing the new [food safety] law. Erik Olson, director of food and consumer product safety programs at the Pew Health Group, part of a coalition of public health advocates and food makers, said this week, “These cuts could seriously harm our ability to protect the food supply.”

It shouldn’t surprise me that Republicans are once again trying to use the budgetary process to destroy laws that they can’t reverse democratically, nevertheless, I find myself amazed, again. Let’s ignore, for a moment, the fact that these cuts don’t even make sense in the context of pure deficit reduction arithmetic (as the article accurately points out). We are talking about preventing food poisoning here. After years of stories about Americans getting sick from eating dangerous foods like lettuce and peanut butter, how in the hell can a political party fight common-sense measures to improve food safety??

(Fun Fact: Foodborne diseases cause approximately 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations ($$$), and 5,000 deaths in the United States each year.)

It is also worth noting that we aren’t just talking about food safety compromised by giant factory farms hell-bent on cutting every regulatory and moral corner to squeeze additional profits from their fetid poo-swamps/outbreak incubators; we are also talking about food safety in terms of national security. It has been long understood that our water and food systems (the basic necessities for life, mind you) are extremely vulnerable to terrorist attacks. The fact that we haven’t had a terrorist attack on our food or water supplies yet suggests that either al-Qaeda hasn’t had the resources to launch such an attack, or they know as little about food safety as congressional Republicans.

So why, given all of this, are Republicans trying to cut the budget of the FDA, which would prevent it from being able to improve its protection of the American food supply? Why are they actually trying to reduce the FDA’s already insufficient funding below toxic lettuce levels? Are they simply not smart enough to understand how government, budgets and regulations work? Or do they just love food poisoning?

I don’t really know the answer to that question–maybe it’s a little from Column A and a little from Column B. Or maybe it has something to do with Column $$$:

Meet GOP Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), the chairman of the committee trying to cripple the FDA.

Rep. Kingston has pocketed $377,558 over his career from the “Crop Production & Basic Processing” industry (read: agribusiness, the people who have a vested interest in keeping consumer protectors out of their poo-swamps), making it his 2nd largest financial backer.

And what industry is Rep. Kingston’s #1 financial backer? The health care industry. Hmmm…. So food poisoning is responsible for 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the U.S. each year, and Rep. Kingston, the man with the purse power, is getting tractorloads of cash from the industry that produces the tainted food and the industry that rakes in the money mopping up the results? Now that’s just poetic.

Vomit, Baby, Vomit! That’s E. coli conservatism for you.

“There is only one person who should lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and that is the brilliant advocate who championed it, the remarkable administrator who has helped get it off the ground, and the middle class champion who will make it work – Elizabeth Warren.”

—Robert L. Borosage, Co-director, Campaign for America’s Future

That is a statement that even Republicans couldn’t argue with–with the small exception that Republicans view these as negative qualifications. The rest stands, however, because no one is arguing that Elizabeth Warren shouldn’t be appointed director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) because she isn’t the best person for the job. No, the opposition to her comes from the exact opposite position:

Republicans oppose Elizabeth Warren because she is too good at her job.

Since when is being too good at your job–too qualified, too committed–a bad thing? Well if you are a conservative, bankrolled by Wall Street and beholden to their interests, these are all bad qualities because what you really want is to destroy all financial regulation.

The CFPB was a key part of the 2010 Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that sought to rebuild the regulatory framework established as a response to the Great Depression that had been slowly dismantled by conservatives over the years. All honest observers, even many prominent conservatives, have acknowledged the role of financial deregulation in contributing to the financial collapse and subsequent recession. Wall Street reform and the CFPB were an attempt to make sure such an economy-devastating collapse never happened again. Wall Street had to be reined in. No more playing roulette in the Wall Street casino with the US economy. What could be more sensible than that?

Jump back to now–the CFPB has been without a director at the helm since it was established, and it is legally mandated to fill that position by July. During this time, Elizabeth Warren has proven “her value as an advocate and as an administrator” while setting up the “only financial bureau dedicated to the protection of consumers.” Meanwhile, Wall Street lobbyists and the best minority party they can buy have been hard at work trying to cripple the bureau, to make sure the financial sector remains the dangerous and lawless Wild West that made a handful of people incredibly rich while it wrecked the economy for the rest of us. In short, they want to make sure there is no sheriff in town.

Of course we have a sheriff, ready and waiting, and she just happens to be incredibly qualified and dedicated. She set up the bureau and she has persevered in the face of intense resistance from the Right. She is great at her job. She is fearless.

That has the outlaws (and their henchmen) terrified.

Thus we have Tuesday’s Republican-led House Oversight Committee hearing entitled “Who’s Watching the Watchmen?,” which will again put Warren in the interrogation seat. (Note the irony that after the greatest financial meltdown since the Great Depression, Republicans are more concerned with who is watching the sheriff than who is watching the outlaws who collapsed the system. Talk about distorted priorities.)

In case you were wondering how a committee could be so focused on shackling the sheriff while ignoring the outlaws, you need only look at who is running the show: Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC). One has ample reason to question the motives of Warren’s inquisitor. Even before McHenry convened the hearing to question Warren about the CFPB he had already co-sponsored a bill that seeks to eliminate her position entirely! (Talk about a rough crowd.) So Mr. McHenry is already coming into this hearing with a clear agenda, one that includes hog-tying the sheriff and shipping her off on the first train out of town–but why? For whose benefit? What’s the motive? Well, let’s just look at Rep. McHenry’s top campaign funders in 2010 (show me the money!):

#1: Wells Fargo – $15,550
#3: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu – $11,500
#5: American Bankers Association – $10,000
#5: Bank of America – $10,000
#5: Ernst & Young – $10,000
#5: PricewaterhouseCoopers – $10,000
#5: Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America – $10,000
#5: American Society of Anesthesiologists – $10,000 (seems relevant, since you’d have to be sedated to not see the quid pro quo going on here)

Well it looks like McHenry has a posse of his own! And I see a trend: McHenry’s financial backers read like a laundry list of people who have a vested interest in seeing the sheriff run out of town (and the police station burnt to the ground). Perhaps there might be a connection between what the outlaws want and committee’s agenda? Hmm..

Political puppetry aside, it is also important to note that the CFPB isn’t some all-powerful agency that is single-handedly restructuring the entire financial sector. It is simply one modest and sensible part of a larger set of reforms that were viewed by many as too moderate too begin with. We are talking about making credit lenders more accountable for their practices–cutting down on the fine print, outrageous fees and other abuses that have turned all too many Americans households into money farms for large banks. You can’t get less controversial than that.

Nevertheless, the sheriff is going to be put on trail, to be berated and heckled in the town square, again. This has become a bit of a theme for the Republican-led House Oversight Committee–attack the humble defender of the middle class while pretending that the financial crisis never happened. This game is no secret either. After her first appearance before the tribunal congressional hearing (entitled “Oversight of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau”–notice the consistent hang up on horribly misplaced priorities), Joe Nocera identified the true agenda of the committee in The New York Times:

And thus the real purpose of the hearing: to allow the Republicans who now run the House to box Ms. Warren about the ears. The big banks loathe Ms. Warren, who has made a career out of pointing out all the ways they gouge financial consumers — and whose primary goal is to make such gouging more difficult. So, naturally, the Republicans loathe her too. That she might someday run this bureau terrifies the banks. So, naturally, it terrifies the Republicans.

You can be certain that Tuesday’s hearing will be no different.

Lest I give the impression that this is all about Elizabeth Warren, it should be pointed out that the Senate Republicans have vowed to filibuster any nominee to head the CFPB until the majority concedes to their demands to gut the fledgling bureau. They may be terrified by the prospect of a strong, competent leader like Warren running the CFPB, but that doesn’t mean they would be satisfied with a weak leader either. No, the whole bureau must fall to their quest to erase financial reform and keep the Wild West of Wall Street alive and well (until the next completely preventable meltdown).

So the agency needs a leader to be truly effective, however Republicans refuse to allow any leader until the bureau is made completely ineffective. What’s a president to do? That much is simple:

The president should stand up to this outrageous extortion. He has the power to make a recess appointment when the Senate goes out of session at the end of this month. He should use that power to appoint Elizabeth Warren, a true champion of working families to head up the agency. It is time to act.

President Obama must stand up to the right-wing obstructionists and make the case for Elizabeth Warren and financial reform. Then, after Republicans again declare they don’t care about protecting the country from another financial meltdown and recession, President Obama should use his constitutionally authorized authority to use a recess appointment to make Elizabeth Warren the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. We need it. She deserves it. President Obama can do it. Outlaws be damned. Sign the petition to the President calling for a recess appointment for Elizabeth Warren.

♦ ♦ ♦

Update #2: The hearing is scheduled to begin at 1:15pm today (Tuesday). Streaming video should be available on the committee website. As you watch the hearing, see if you can guess which members of Congress have pocketed wagon-fulls of cash from the banking industry. @OurFuturedotorg will also be live tweeting the hearing.

Update #3 (2:40pm): Wow, that hearing got nasty. It was clear from the very beginning that Rep. Henry wanted to attack Elizabeth Warren & the CFPB (his campaign contributions preordained that), but it got so bad that Rep. Yarmuth actually had to apologize to Warren for the rude and disrespectful behavior of the chair (Rep. Henry) and his snarky comments. After watching that circus it is even more clear just how much Republicans fear Elizabeth Warren and financial reform.

Kudos to Rep. Maloney for pointing out that the title of the GOP’s hearing should have actually been “Let’s Pretend the Financial Crisis Never Happened.”

April 4 marks the anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, murdered in 1968 while fighting for the rights of striking Memphis sanitation workers. This event is brilliantly chronicled in the acclaimed documentary, At the River I Stand. This year’s anniversary will be marked by protests and events nationwide in support of unions and workers’ rights. Join in the events by visiting www.we-r-1.org.

“The struggle and triumph of dignity over injustice is the luminous tapestry of all great social movements. At the River I Stand is an inspiring visual testament and a call to witness to every viewer.”

—Gerald McEntee, President, AFSCME

Watch the full documentary below:

The legendary documentary “At the River I Stand,” which chronicles the 1968 AFSCME sanitation workers’ strike in Memphis and the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., will be available for free online streaming during the coming week thanks to California Newsreel, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and Campaign for America’s Future. Schools, unions, religious organizations and community groups are encouraged to stream the video for We Are One events during the week of April 4. More than 900 events are now scheduled in all 50 states and several foreign countries.

“At the River I Stand” traces the tumultuous events that unfolded over two fateful months in 1968. It began as a local strike by AFSCME sanitation workers for human dignity and a living wage. The strike eventually captured national attention and drew Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to Memphis, along with the assassin who would kill him. It was a turning point in the Civil Rights Movement and the national struggle for racial and economic justice.

The film was awarded the 1994 Erik Barnouw Award for Best Documentary by the Organization of American Historians. It was produced by David Appleby, Allison Graham and Steven Ross. California Newsreel has been a leading producer and distributor of social issue films since the 1960s.

This 58-minute documentary brings into sharp relief issues that are urgent today as politicians across the country seek to eliminate the right of collective bargaining for public employees. “At the River I Stand” examines the connection between economic and civil rights, debates over strategies for change and the fight for dignity for public employees and all working people.

A favorite pastime of post-election analysts and pundits is to parse, re-parse, and re-re-parse exit polls and other data to draw out interesting demographic and historical notes. One such data point struck me in particular:

Who’s to blame for the economy? Bankers (34%), Bush (29%), Obama (24%). Of those who blame bankers, Republicans hold an 11 point advantage.

Wait, I must have copied that wrong, let me try that again:

Who’s to blame for the economy? Bankers (34%), Bush (29%), Obama (24%). Of those who blame bankers, Republicans hold an 11 point advantage.

Sorry, maybe I’m not wearing my contacts…I could have sworn…

Who’s to blame for the economy? Bankers (34%), Bush (29%), Obama (24%). Of those who blame bankers, Republicans hold an 11 point advantage.

Really??

So let me get this straight: the voters who are the most upset with Wall Street, who put the most direct blame on bankers for causing the recession and wrecking the economy, voted more for the party that held the White House when the Wall Street bailout was signed into law (hint: it wasn’t Obama) and that almost unanimously opposed even the most modest reforms to hold Wall Street accountable and make it so the bankers can’t wreck the economy again.

They are mad at Wall Street, yet turned around and handed Wall Street’s Puppet Party control of the House? Seriously?

How exactly does one reconcile voting pro-Wall Street while simultaneously believing that Wall Street nearly destroyed the economy? How does anyone who acknowledges the role Wall Street (and thus financial deregulation) played in the economic collapse turn around and vote for the same people who fought hard for the conditions that led to the collapse?–Unless, of course, they like recessions and want more of them.

I guess ignorance really is bliss, at least for the ignorant, until it turns around and screws us all equally. Their inability to inform themselves or connect even the most basic of dots hurts us all.

And the fact that Republican voters are so confused about the cause of the economic collapse, who protects those at fault, and who saved us from the brink of depression, doesn’t point to much of a mandate for the Republican Party. If soon-to-be Majority Leader John Boehner (pronounced BAY-ner) were to declare that he had just been given a mandate to demolish Smurf Village and forcibly relocate its inhabitants to Candy Land, it would be about as reality-based as the claim America just signed on to his pro-Wall Street, anti-Middle Class agenda.

It took less than two short years for a majority of Americans to forget the tragedy that was the Bush years. Exactly how bad do conservatives have to wreck this country before Americans’ attention will hold for more than an election cycle?

One of the milestones of child development is the formation of the concept of objects. Prior to six months of age, infants can’t wrap their minds around the idea of objects as separate, enduring entities. As soon as an object passes out of view, it no longer exists. It is forgotten by the infant and they look for something else to occupy their attention. This is something that dogs are able to do, yet many American voters still seem to have a hard time with, despite the eighteen year minimum age requirement for voting. Connecting dots, understanding elementary causal relationships, and having a memory that outlasts a season of Dancing with the Stars–if more Americans had those skills nailed down the election results last night would have looked very different.

Did you hear the big news? Yesterday on his show, Rush Limbaugh vowed that he would leave the country if health care reform passes!

LIMBAUGH: I’ll just tell you this, if this passes and it’s five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented — I am leaving the country. I’ll go to Costa Rica.

As if we needed any more reason to want health care reform passed as soon as humanly possible!

And sure, why wouldn’t Rush Limbaugh want to move to Costa Rica? They have a higher life expectancy than we do, and they don’t spend nearly as much on health care as we do. Of course that might be because they already have a public health care system:

Costa Ricans are proud of their nation’s achievements in the field of health care. Their up-to-date, affordable, state-run “cradle to grave” health care system reaches all levels of society by offering the same medical treatment to the poor as those with greater resources. Hospitals, clinics and complete medical services are available in all major cities and some small towns. More than 90 percent of the population is covered by the Social Security System.

Many international medical authorities rate Costa Rica as having one of the best low-cost medical care systems in the world, when preventive and curative medicines are considered. The United Nations consistently ranks Costa Rica’s public health system as the best in Latin America and one of the top 20 in the world.

It is no wonder a large number of foreigners are attracted to Costa Rica because of its affordable health care. In the United States, for example, millions of people do not have health insurance because it is prohibitively expensive. For this reason, Costa Rica attracts many retirees from North America. It doesn’t matter if you are a legal resident or a traveler. Everyone is entitled to emergency care at a government hospital.

I hope the fact that Costa Rica has a health care system much more liberal than what Congress is trying to pass—and thus what he is fleeing—doesn’t keep him from carrying out his promise. Let’s all help Rush pack his bags by demanding that Congress passes health care reform NOW!

And Rush, please, no trigger. We’d rather you leave the day President Obama signs health care reform. Don’t make us suffer you for another five years. Do us all a huge favor and just start packing now. We’ll help.