About The Weather

When I woke up yesterday, Memeorandum was offering only one story-- out of scores-- that wasn't Kavanaugh-related, a Washington Post piece by Juliet Eilperin, Brady Dennis and Chris Mooney: Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100. "Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees by the end of this century." Earlier the NY Times had run a unintentionally related piece by Coral Davenport, E.P.A. to Eliminate Office That Advises Agency Chief on Science.

Among the many reasons for which a sane society would be clamoring for immediate impeachment of Trump is his regime's nonchalance-- at best-- towards climate change. Axios' recent reporting would have us believe there's little to worry about because Big Oil is taking up the slack: The oil industry takes on climate change despite Trump's rollback. So even if the Trump regime's ideological attitude is putting the planet at risk, "a tangible shift over the last two years is sharpening among the world’s biggest oil companies, including in America, to more readily acknowledge and address climate change. The trend, fueled by investor and lawsuit pressure, is underway regardless of, and partly in response to, President Trump’s retreat on the matter... Goldman Sachs’ co-head of global natural resources, Gonzalo Garcia, said in a presentation at a conference in Norway Wednesday that he’s "probably spent more time talking with oil company executives about the energy shift and renewables in the last two years than the previous 23 put together." Garcia says he predicts U.S. companies like Exxon and Chevron will invest in renewables like their counterparts in Europe.

A week earlier, the same reporter, Amy Harder, wrote that Some of America’s most powerful U.S.-based oil companies-- ExxonMobil, Chevron and Occidental Petroleum-- are joining a global consortium of oil and gas producers seeking to address climate change. "The companies," she wrote, "are the first U.S.-based members of the group, called the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative. This is one of the strongest signs yet of how America’s biggest oil companies, under pressure from investors and lawsuits, are joining most other U.S. corporations in working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions despite President Trump reversing America’s course on the matter." Exxon CEO Darren Woods: "It will take the collective efforts of many in the energy industry and society to develop scalable, affordable solutions that will be needed to address the risks of climate change."

CEOs of several major, publicly traded oil companies say they support carbon taxes and back a separate group writing a proposal for one. But the companies are not actively lobbying Congress to embrace the policy. That disconnect will grow harder to reconcile as their public commitments to address climate change, such as through groups like this, grow.

No doubt. Meanwhile, in the real world, the Weather Channel reported this week that NASA says that Climate Change Is Causing Earth to Wobble on Its Axis, NASA Says. No, really.

For the first time, scientists have identified why Earth wobbles as it spins.

The decrease in Greenland's ice mass is the main reason for the wobble, NASA says.

Changes in the Earth's wobble could impact the accuracy of satellite tools like GPS systems, according to NASA.

Climate change is impacting how Earth spins on its axis, NASA says. Over the past century, Earth’s axis-- the imaginary line that passes through the North and South Poles-- has drifted about 4 inches, and a decrease in Greenland's ice mass is the main contributor to the wobble, the space agency has announced.

As temperatures increased throughout the 20th century because of humans, Greenland's ice mass decreased.

"A total of about 7,500 gigatons-- the weight of more than 20 million Empire State Buildings-- of Greenland's ice melted into the ocean during this time period," NASA said in a press release. "This makes Greenland one of the top contributors of mass being transferred to the oceans, causing sea level to rise and, consequently, a drift in Earth's spin axis."

Trumpanzee Regime Admits Global Warming Is Real-- Does That Mean Fox News Loses Its Broadcast License?

Hear that report on Global Warming on NPR yesterday? Maybe the report from the Trumpanzee Regime is the real reason Congress' chief climate change denier, Lamar Smith, announced his retirement this week. Surprised Trump hasn't attacked his own government's report yet? Just wait. The executive summary starts ominously-- at least for Climate Change deniers: "The climate of the United States is strongly connected to the changing global climate." That's a pretty definitive first line.

Global annually averaged surface air temperature has increased by about 1.8°F (1.0°C) over the last 115 years (1901–2016). This period is now the warmest in the history of modern civilization. The last few years have also seen record-breaking, climate-related weather extremes, and the last three years have been the warmest years on record for the globe. These trends are expected to continue over climate timescales.

This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.

In addition to warming, many other aspects of global climate are changing, primarily in response to human activities. Thousands of studies conducted by researchers around the world have documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; diminishing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea levels; ocean acidification; and increasing atmospheric water vapor.

For example, global average sea level has risen by about 7–8 inches since 1900, with almost half (about 3 inches) of that rise occurring since 1993. Human-caused climate change has made a substantial contribution to this rise since 1900, contributing to a rate of rise that is greater than during any preceding century in at least 2,800 years. Global sea level rise has already affected the United States; the incidence of daily tidal flooding is accelerating in more than 25 Atlantic and Gulf Coast cities.

Global average sea levels are expected to continue to rise-- by at least several inches in the next 15 years and by 1–4 feet by 2100. A rise of as much as 8 feet by 2100 cannot be ruled out. Sea level rise will be higher than the global average on the East and Gulf Coasts of the United States.

Changes in the characteristics of extreme events are particularly important for human safety, infrastructure, agriculture, water quality and quantity, and natural ecosystems. Heavy rainfall is increasing in intensity and frequency across the United States and globally and is expected to continue to increase. The largest observed changes in the United States have occurred in the Northeast.

Heatwaves have become more frequent in the United States since the 1960s, while extreme cold temperatures and cold waves are less frequent. Recent record-setting hot years are projected to become common in the near future for the United States, as annual average temperatures continue to rise. Annual average temperature over the contiguous United States has increased by 1.8°F (1.0°C) for the period 1901–2016; over the next few decades (2021–2050), annual average temperatures are expected to rise by about 2.5°F for the United States, relative to the recent past (average from 1976–2005), under all plausible future climate scenarios.

The incidence of large forest fires in the western United States and Alaska has increased since the early 1980s and is projected to further increase in those regions as the climate changes, with profound changes to regional ecosystems.

Annual trends toward earlier spring melt and reduced snowpack are already affecting water resources in the western United States and these trends are expected to continue. Under higher scenarios, and assuming no change to current water resources management, chronic, long-duration hydrological drought is increasingly possible before the end of this century.

The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades will depend primarily on the amount of greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) emitted globally. Without major reductions in emissions, the increase in annual average global temperature relative to preindustrial times could reach 9°F (5°C) or more by the end of this century. With significant reductions in emissions, the increase in annual average global temperature could be limited to 3.6°F (2°C) or less.

The global atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has now passed 400 parts per million (ppm), a level that last occurred about 3 million years ago, when both global average temperature and sea level were significantly higher than today. Continued growth in CO2 emissions over this century and beyond would lead to an atmospheric concentration not experienced in tens to hundreds of millions of years. There is broad consensus that the further and the faster the Earth system is pushed towards warming, the greater the risk of unanticipated changes and impacts, some of which are potentially large and irreversible.

The observed increase in carbon emissions over the past 15–20 years has been consistent with higher emissions pathways. In 2014 and 2015, emission growth rates slowed as economic growth became less carbon-intensive. Even if this slowing trend continues, however, it is not yet at a rate that would limit global average temperature change to well below 3.6°F (2°C) above preindustrial levels.

Washington Post Climate expert Chris Mooney reported flatly that the government was unable to find any convincing alternative explanation for climate change. That took long enough. He also noted that the report calling human activity the dominant driver of global warming is at odds with White House decisions to withdraw from the Paris Accords, champion fossil fuels and reverse Obama-era climate policies.

To the surprise of some scientists, the White House did not seek to prevent the release of the government’s National Climate Assessment, which is mandated by law. The report affirms that climate change is driven almost entirely by human action, warns of potential sea-level rise as high as eight feet by the year 2100, and details climate-related damage across the United States that is already unfolding as a result of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming since 1900.

...The report’s release underscores the extent to which the machinery of the federal scientific establishment, operating in multiple agencies across the government, continues to grind on even as top administration officials have minimized or disparaged its findings. Federal scientists have continued to author papers and issue reports on climate change, for example, even as political appointees have altered the wording of news releases or blocked civil servants from speaking about their conclusions in public forums. The climate assessment process is dictated by a 1990 law that Democratic and Republican administrations have followed.

The White House on Friday sought to downplay the significance of the study and its findings... Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and President Trump have all questioned the extent of humans’ contribution to climate change. One of the EPA’s Web pages posted scientific conclusions similar to those in the new report until earlier this year, when Pruitt’s deputies ordered it removed.

Between Crackpot Republicans, Sold-Out Democrats And Lobbyists, Does Our Species Even Have A Chance?

This week Hart Research released polling on how millennials in battleground states feel about the climate-change debate. Short version: Bye-bye, Ron Johnson, Rob Portman and Pat Toomey. "[T]oday’s Millennials accept the established science around climate change and see it as a serious problem and a threat."

What is more, they are looking for a presidential candidate with a forward-looking vision to solving our country’s toughest economic problems--presenting clear potential for a candidate who has a bold plan around expanding clean, renewable energy to heighten their enthusiasm and capture their vote.

Our research indicates that large majorities of swing-state Millennials accept the science of climate change and recognize that it is a threat, with 78% saying it is a serious problem, including 92% of Democrats, 80% of independents, and a 59% majority of Republicans. Three-fifths (60%) of these young adults recognize that human activity is a major cause of the problem.

Millennials are looking for a bold solution to climate change and are solidly behind plans to expand clean energy in the United States. The overwhelming majority (73%) is favorable to setting a goal to power America with at least 50% clean energy by the year 2030 (including 52% who are very favorable). Furthermore, they see direct economic benefits to setting this goal. Sixty eight percent (68%) of Millennials believe that setting this clean energy goal would have a positive effect on America’s economy overall (only 10% think it would have a negative effect) and 68% say the same about jobs.

Creating jobs for the next century is a top priority for Millennials and offers a potential connection to expanding clean energy jobs. When presented with a list of various priorities a candidate for president might express, wants to make America a leader in creating jobs for the next century emerges as most important to these Millennials, with 82% saying this is very important to them personally (ratings of seven to 10 on a zero-to-10 scale). Millennials are also strongly supportive of proposals with an explicit connection to clean energy jobs. We found that expanding clean, renewable energy technology and creating more clean-energy jobs is an effective way to connect the problem of climate change with the more idealistic, optimistic goal of spurring the economy and creating good-paying jobs for the next generation of Americans. Expanding clean energy is seen as a multi- faceted solution: it will create jobs, grow our economy, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, while still addressing the problem of climate change. Participants throughout our focus groups also were able to envision a wide array of what “clean energy jobs” might look like-- from manual labor, to engineering and design, to sales and marketing-- indicating a belief that these jobs will benefit Americans across socioeconomic lines and be a driver of middle-class opportunity.

In fact, of several climate-related messages we tested, the idea that combating climate change will create the jobs of the future, spur innovation and investments in clean energy, and put young people to work in good-paying jobs tested among the top-tier, with two-thirds (66%) of Millennials in battleground states saying this was a strong reason (ratings of seven to 10 on a zero-to-10 scale) why climate should be an important issue in the upcoming presidential election. This includes large majorities of Democrats (79%) and independents (61%), as well as more than half (52%) of Republicans-- the only climate message to surpass the 50% threshold among the latter group. Even battleground Millennials who express only muted enthusiasm about the 2016 election respond very positively to this message: 59% of the least enthusiastic group say it is very important to them, as do 63% of those who are only fairly likely to vote next year-- the top-testing climate message for both of these groups.

...It is clear from our research not only that Millennials accept the science of climate change, but that a candidate who does not is at a disadvantage. We heard throughout our conversations with swing-state Millennials that climate denial is associated with stubborn or backward-looking thinking. And in our survey, 70% of Millennials say they would have major concerns (45% very major concerns) about a Republican candidate who disagrees with NASA, the US Military, and 97% of climate scientists that human activity is responsible for climate change, including 69% of independents and half (50%) of self-identified Republicans.

The Koch brothers, specifically, are viewed by Millennials in a very unfavorable light, especially when attached to a short identifier explaining who they are. At the outset, Millennials view the Koch brothers negatively by 19 points (8% positive, 27% negative), and a 55% majority know who they are. And after reading a description of a hypothetical candidate who is backed by the Koch brothers, the big oil billionaires who have a long record of environmental violations, who, along with their network of wealthy conservatives, have pledged to spend almost a billion dollars on the presidential election, 72% of Millennials (including 74% of independents) say they would have major concerns about supporting that candidate, with 47% saying they would have very major concerns. What is more, 74% of Millennials would have major concerns about a candidate who has close ties to the oil industry and supports tax breaks for oil companies, including more than half (52%) of Republicans-- reflecting the broader distaste Millennials have for the industry.

Expanding clean energy is extremely popular among Millennials who are already active on energy and environmental issues, and they can thus can be used to serve as “boots on the ground” to stoke engagement among their age group. Among Millennials who demonstrated an interest in energy and the environment via their Facebook activity, a whopping 84% say that expanding renewables and creating clean-energy jobs is an extremely important priority for them (ratings of nine to 10 on a zero-to-10 scale)-- by far the top-testing issue among this group-- along with 71% of those respondents who have already interacted with NextGen Climate by pledging to become “climate action voters.” And when presented with a list of various issue positions a candidate might take and asked which two or three would be most important when casting their ballot, both groups of “activists” are most likely to choose expanding renewable energy-- edging out not only unrelated issues such as student debt and equal pay, but also reducing carbon pollution, having a strong environmental record, and making corporate polluters pay.

What got me going on this was some bad news from the California legislature, where Democrats are ostensibly in charge, but where lobbyists with fat wallets exercise huge clout-- clout they are using to gut the historic legislation progressives have been working on to combat climate change. SB350, which aimed for a 50% reduction in petroleum use by 2030 and already passed the state Senate, fell victim to lobbyists and the bribe-hungry legislators they control.

California Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, who authored the legislation, said Wednesday that a major lobbying campaign by the oil industry was largely to blame for the doubt that had emerged over the bill. “The fact that, despite overwhelming scientific opinion and statewide public support, we still weren’t able to overcome the silly-season scare tactics of an outside industry which has repeatedly opposed environmental progress and energy innovation-- means that there’s a temporary disconnect in our politics which needs to be overcome,” de León said.

The oil industry has poured money into a campaign against SB 350, calling the legislation the “California Gas Restriction Act of 2015″ and warning that it could lead to bans on SUVs.

SB 350 is “an attempt to essentially put oil companies out of business,” Tupper Hull, spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Association, said in August.

De León has maintained that none of the oil industry’s claims are true. Still, SB 350 had come up against a wall of moderate Democrats in recent weeks. In late August, about 20 Assembly Democrats met with Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, saying they were worried that SB 350 isn’t clear enough on how it will affect motorists. These Democratic holdouts could have meant the end for the bill during this legislative session.

Taking out the petroleum measure was meant to be a concession to these moderate Democrats-- and it seems to have worked, at least on one. Henry T. Perea, a moderate Democrat who had led the opposition to the petroleum measure, told the New York Times that he would now support SB 350.

“S.B. 350 will set California apart as a leader in climate change policy and will go a long way in reducing emissions in areas like the Central Valley that suffer from some of the worst air quality in the nation,” he said.

Gov. Jerry Brown also said Wednesday that he wouldn’t let the oil industry get in the way of his efforts to reduce greenhouse gases in California.

“Oil has won the skirmish, but they’ve lost the bigger battle,” he said. “Because I am more determined than ever to make our regulatory regime work for the people of California: cleaning up the air, reducing the petroleum and creating the green jobs that are going to put hundreds of thousands of people to work over the coming decades.”

SB 350 is expected to come to a vote before the end of the week. The bill is part of a larger climate package of 12 bills, some of which have already been voted on. SB 185, which prompted the state’s public employee investment funds to divest from coal, passed the Assembly last week, and is expected to be signed by the governor. Another bill, SB 32, which would have required the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, failed in the Assembly this week, though it may come up for another vote.

Meanwhile, reporter Chris Mooney, writing for the Washington Post, explained a new report from the Solar Energy Industries Association which shows American families and businesses aren't waiting for easily corrupted elected officials to get on the right path. The industry is hitting new growth levels this year.

Solar photovoltaic installations now exceed 20 gigawatts in capacity and could surpass an unprecedented 7 gigawatts this year alone across all segments. A gigawatt is equivalent to 1 billion watts and can power some 164,000 homes.

The second quarter of this year witnessed a new record-- a 70% year-over-year growth rate-- for residential solar installations. Last week when Obama was in Las Vegas to meet with the solar energy industry, he termed it "an age-old debate in America. It's a debate between the folks who say 'no, we can't,' and the folks who say, 'yes, we can.' "

The new GTM Research and Solar Energy Industries Association report suggests the "yes, we can" crowd is winning, finding that out of all new electricity installations in the U.S. in the first six months of this year, 40 percent were solar.

...U.S. solar photovoltaic is at 20 gigawatts of installed capacity now, and may add another 18 gigawatts by the end of next year. Overall, the growth boom is being fueled by a combination of declining costs, low interest rates, and a federal solar investment tax credit, the report suggests.

For comparison, according to the Department of Energy, the wind industry in the U.S. recently reached 66 gigawatts of installed capacity, with 13 more gigawatts expected to come online by the end of 2016. Overall, the U.S. had over 1000 gigawatts of electricity capacity installed as of the year 2012, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. So while still a minority of all electricity generation, wind and solar are, nonetheless, growing more and more significant on a national scale.

Still, there are storms ahead. The GTM Research and SEIA report points out that after 2016, if the solar investment tax credit is allowed to decline, the industry will face considerable uncertainty from 2017 to 2019 that could hampered growth. The situation is expected to then change again after 2020, as a key incentive program that’s part of the federal Clean Power Plan goes into effect, which will strongly favor solar and wind.

"If the solar investment tax credit is allowed to decline" means: if Republicans and Democratic sellouts run Congress, we're in big trouble. Which is all the more reason to elect progressives like the men and women Blue America has endorsed for Congress. All of our candidates are committed to seriously combatting global warming and fighting for rational environmental laws. No one gets on that list unless they are. Just yesterday our candidate in IL-08, just west of Chicago, state Senator Mike Noland, was rated a 100% Environmental Champion by the Illinois Environmental Council, one of only 16 state senators with that score. He's running against a crass corporate shill who will say anything and vote for whoever hands him the biggest... contribution.

Mainstream Conservatives And Teabaggers Live On Different Planets When It Comes To Science

It's poetry in motion

And now she's making love to me

The spheres're in commotion

The elements in harmony

She blinded me with science

"She blinded me with science!"

And hit me with technology

Although there are still fringe extremists and dyed-in-the-wool racists in Congress whining that it's time to shut down the government again, that the GOP-written report about Benghazi was a coverup, and that impeachment should be on the table, the Republican Establishment has ruled out doing anything more than humoring them-- if they can. Boehner doesn't have enough votes to keep the government open without help from Pelosi. And instead of impeaching Obama they're going for this cockamamie impeachment-lite strategy-- censuring him. It's just a way to placate the Hate Talk Radio zombies and the congressional tea baggers and gives all of them an opportunity to vent-- like 8 year olds... even if the constitutionality of the move is dubious and isn't likely to be taken up by the Senate, despite the increased number of fringe loons in that body starting next month. It would certainly be a tough vote for Obama-district House members and for Republicans in non-Confederate states who are up for reelection in 2016, particularly Mark Kirk (R-IL), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Ron Portman (R-OH), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Roy Blunt (R-MO) and could even be uncomfortably divisive for Marco Rubio (R-FL), Richard Burr (R-NC), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), maybe even McCain (R-AZ) if he makes it through a likely primary.

The problem for Republicans stems from a mindset of racism, anger, and frustration that is easily fed by ratings-hungry right-wing media and turned into an alternative view of reality. This week, Chris Mooney continued his fantastic work at the Washington Post, this time delineating how right-wing extremists-- he calls them Tea Partiers-- differ from more relatively mainstream Republican conservatives. The way the two factions look at basic science is just astounding and makes you worry that these people are allowed to vote on the future direction of the country.

[I]f a new study just out in the journal Environmental Politics is correct, the conflict between "Republicans" and the scientific community may really boil down to a conflict between scientists and today's so-called Tea Party. The paper suggests that on a large array of scientific topics, members of the Tea Party diverge markedly from more traditional members of the GOP.

"There are greater differences on environment and science questions between Tea Party supporters and non-Tea Party Republicans than there are between non-Tea Party Republicans and Independents," says sociologist Lawrence Hamilton of the University of New Hampshire, who co-authored the paper with his university colleague Kei Saito. "As far as I know, that hasn’t been found before, and we found that standing out in our data analysis."

The study unpacks responses from a series of science questions that have been asked of New Hampshire residents from 2010 to 2014 as part of the Granite State Poll (New Hampshire residents are not a perfect proxy for the U.S. as a whole, but they're "pretty close," according Hamilton).

The questions concerned anything from beliefs in evolution and the human causation of climate change to the following: "Would you say that you trust, don't trust, or are unsure about scientists as a source of information about environmental issues?" and "How much do you feel that you understand about the issue of global warming or climate change? Would you say a great deal, a moderate amount, only a little, or nothing at all?"

In the surveys, mainline Republicans were distinguished from Tea Party followers based on a simple question that asked whether they "support, oppose, or are neutral" about "the political movement known as the Tea Party." Republicans who answered "oppose" or "neutral" were considered non-Tea Party members of the GOP.

In a series of graphic depictions, he shows how the fanatics and the conservatives differ on one issue after another. The extremists are much less trusting of science and of anything demonized by hucksters and frauds like Limbaugh, Beck, James Inhofe, or the Fox "News" team. Example, when asked if they trust environmental scientists, 84% of Democrats, 64% of independents, 55% of traditional Republicans all say they do. But just 34% of the Tea Party fringe does. Another question was whether or not basic climate is changing and if human activity is responsible. Same pattern: 81% of Democrats, 60% of independents, 41% of traditional Republicans but only 23% of the Tea Party nuts answered in the affirmative.

The study also examined how beliefs change, across these four political groups, as people become higher in their levels of education-- from holding a high school diploma all the way up to holding a postgraduate degree. Fascinatingly, with increasing education, every group except Tea Party supporters becomes more accepting of the idea that climate change is happening now and mainly caused by humans. But Tea Party supporters move in the opposite direction.

So in sum, we have a picture of a Tea Party whose members are both more distrusting of scientists and what they have to say on major issues of scientific consensus, like evolution and climate change -- and also quite sure they're right in their beliefs, and unswayed even with higher levels of education.

In fairness, polling questions about "trust" in scientists have recently been problematized. "There's debate among researchers on the value of self-report 'trust in science' measures. There are a wide variety and none has been validated in any systematic way," says Yale opinion researcher Dan Kahan, who argues that he's not sure that measures of whether people "trust" scientists can be separated from their simple issue positions on scientific issues like climate change.

The University of New Hampshire's Hamilton agrees to some extent that "trust in scientists" and one's views of climate change are "wrapped up" with one another. But he adds, "I don’t think they’re the same thing. My thinking is that if you don’t like a solution, you’re going to reject that the problem exists, and in this case, that means finding reasons not to trust the scientists on the topic."

Issue of trust notwithstanding, though, it is at least clear that large majorities of Tea Party members do not believe what scientists say about climate change and evolution.

They believe Rush Limbaugh and Ted Cruz instead-- and they're the activist base of the party that is insisting on one of their own as the 2016 presidential nominee. No wonder Jeb Bush is gnashing his teeth so loudly.

Bush also offered some tough love to the incoming Republican majority in Congress that seemed aimed at heading off a showdown over the federal budget that could lead to a repeat of last year’s government shutdown.

Quit trying to “make a point,” Mr. Bush said, and forge compromises to pass legislation. Stop seeking to repeal the Affordable Care Act, he suggested, and offer alternative health-care proposals.

“We don’t have to make a point any more as Republicans,” he said. “We have to actually show that we can, in an adult-like way, we can govern, lead.”

Mr. Bush said he disagrees with President Barack Obama ’s decision to shield millions of illegal immigrants from deportation through executive action that bypasses Congress, but he cautioned Republicans to take the lead on the issue “rather than have their heads explode.”

Jeb hasn't weighed in yet on the congressional Republicans newest scheme-- preventing President Obama from delivering the State of the Union address next month. What a party of repulsive racist pigs they are!

Keystone XL Pipeline Defeated By One Vote-- For Now

Chris Mooney has been doing some terrific reporting for the Washington Post, primarily on Science. Last week's look at the correlateions between a primitive or fundamental interpretation of Bronze Age religious traditions and a fear or misunderstanding of science is enlightening. He wanted to examine whether religious belief rather than political ideology, better explains why some people resist the science on issues like climate change, evolution, and stem cell research. The results varied but he concludes that "when people deny science, they do it because they think it conflicts with their personal identity. But many elements go into each of our identities, with both politics and religion constituting vital components for many people."

Predictably, Mooney wrote about the Keystone Pipeline fight just as the Senate began their debate yesterday. A party of ideological science deniers, House Republicans (with 31 Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party) passed the bill November 14. In an ill-conceived fool's errand to try to save Mary Landrieu's doomed political career (or ease her way into a cush job on K Street), Harry Reid allowed a vote in the Senate yesterday. Although there was a last minute rumor that Dick Durbin would be the 60th vote, McConnell and Landrieu only managed to come up with 59-- one short. The bill is dead... until the Republicans take over in January. Then it will pass an the Republicans and their Big Oil allies won't have the votes to overturn a presidential veto. 14 conservative Democrats crossed the aisle to help the Republicans destroy the planet. No profiles in courage in this lot:

• Michael Bennet (D-CO)

• Tom Carper (D-DE)
• Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
• Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
• Joe Manchin (D-WV)
• Mark Warner (D-VA)
• John Walsh (D-MT)
• Jon Tester (D-MT)
• Bob Casey (D-PA)
• Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
• Kay Hagan (D-NC)
• Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
• Mark Pryor (D-AR)
• Mark Begich (D-AK)

Filled with misinformation from from corporate media and the lack of any effective pushback from the Democrats, most Americans (65%)-- including even most Democrats-- support the Keystone XL Pipeline. Incongruously, the same survey finds that "when it comes to another issue making headlines-- a proposal to tighten greenhouse gas emissions from power plants-- the public favors stricter limits, by exactly the same margin as the Keystone pipeline (65% to 30%).

The bill, Mooney explains, "goes around a process typically handled by the executive branch. Indeed, the bill passed by the House does not merely take the process of deciding on the pipeline's approval out of the hands of the State Department. It also states that the State Department’s final supplemental environmental impact statement on Keystone “shall be considered to fully satisfy” the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and “any other provision of law that requires Federal agency consultation or review.”

"What this bill will do, if it ends up being enacted," says Zoldan, "is take the fact-finding process…away from an executive agency, and say that it’s automatically deemed to be in compliance with the law." This may be one reason why a spokesman for Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware recently said the senator would opposes the bill because "it’s not Congress’s job to issue construction permits."

Zoldan thinks that if the bill were indeed to become law (somehow surviving President Obama's presumed veto), environmentalists might have a good case for a lawsuit over it. More generally, he explains, Congress ought to pass laws that have a general nature, and then let the executive and the judiciary apply those laws to specific situations, individuals, or companies.

Another way of putting it? Congress really ought to have more respect for the categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Or, when making laws, make sure they apply to everyone-- or every company.

Vermont's two senators, Patrick Leahy (D) and Bernie Sanders, opposed the bill for more fundamental reasons. Leahy:

This pipeline is one of the most striking examples of how our unquenchable thirst for oil is destroying our environment. This destruction will continue until we move forward with the implementation of a comprehensive, national energy plan. The debate over the Keystone pipeline will not move us toward a sustainable energy future. Instead this pipeline ties us to an energy policy of the past, while simultaneously accelerating our impact on the climate. These tar sands require an energy-intensive process, rife with pollutions and harmful emissions, to get them out of the ground, extract them, and refine them.

We should not rubberstamp a project like this that poses such serious risks to the Nation’s and the world’s environment, and to our communities’ safety. I am astounded by the fact that in its first year of operation, the existing Keystone Pipeline-- which was billed as the safest pipeline in history when it was built in 2010-- has spilled 12 times in its first year of operation. That is more than any other pipeline in U.S. history.

These spills are even more worrisome because the tar sands oil is so hard to clean up after a spill. Just ask the communities along the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, where it has cost more than $1 billion-- so far-- to clean up a tar sands spill in 2010. Now, more than four years later, it is still a mess, and landowners continue to wait for help to restore property damaged by the spill and to rebuild the ravaged pipeline.

We do not need more empty assurances from the oil industry. Before the Valdez spill in Alaska, Exxon executives told us their oil tankers were safe.  We heard similar promises from BP, which insisted that it could handle an oil spill in a deep-water drilling operation. The images from both of those spills are still fresh in our memories.

Proponents argue that this pipeline will help our energy security here in the United States. But this tar sands oil is not headed to Americans’ gas stations to help lower the price of gas here at home. No, TransCanada is bypassing the refineries in the Midwest and heading straight for the coast so this oil can be used in export markets, pumped on ships headed for China. That may be good news for the Chinese, but it is the American people who are stuck with the safety risks, health challenges, future environmental disasters and the rapid acceleration of our contribution to climate change.

These facts are clear: The Keystone pipeline significantly worsens the problem of carbon pollution, and it is not in our national interest.

Do You Think Obama Has What It Takes To Save The World From Global Warming?

In an OpEd about executive action regarding immigration reform for USAToday, Bush former Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, urged Obama to act. And Gonzales makes the case that Obama has American constitutional precedent on his side.

Determining the limits of the president's inherent power to act in the absence of either an express constitutional or congressional grant of authority is one of the most difficult challenges in constitutional law. In part, this is because our courts have been inconsistent in defining the scope of the President's inherent authority.

Some constitutional scholars argue that the president has no inherent power since this would be inconsistent with the concept of a Constitution intended to create a federal government of limited power. Others believe in an expansive inherent power that allows the president to act as the public needs demand provided there are no express constitutional prohibitions. Still others believe, as I do, the scope of the president's inherent power lies somewhere along the spectrum between these two extremes.

What is clear, however, is that the courts have generally been inclined to defer to the executive's discretion in executing the law based upon competing priorities and budgetary constraints. Furthermore, often the courts refuse to even hear cases that present a political question. Thus, disputes over allocation of power between the elected branches are frequently resolved in the public arena, not the courts.

I don't want to offend anyone's sensibilities here but there's another issue, even more urgent, crying out for Obama's executive authority… and I suspect Alberto Gonzales wouldn't be as likely to write an OpEd on that one: Global Warming. It's the single most important issue facing the U.S.-- and mankind-- and Congress won't do a think.

Wait, wait. I was wrong. Congress did do a thing; on July 10, by a vote of 229-188 they officially denied the Global Warming exists. Mainstream conservative Chris Gibson was the only Republican to vote against the lunatic fringe amendment by coal industry whore David McKinley (R-WV); 5 right-wing Blue Dogs from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party crossed the aisle in the other direction and voted with the Republicans burying their collective head in the sand… as the rising tide nips at their heals. Even Florida Republicans with the districts most likely to be uninhabitable within our lifetimes-- like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, David Jolly, Curt Clawson, Vern Buchanan, Dennis Ross and Mario Diaz-Balart-- voted against dealing with climate change reality. Something tells me none of them would change their mind even if they read the alarming piece about the rapid rise in Arctic temperatures and weather patterns. Scientists are warning about heat waves in the U.S. and flooding in Europe.

Temperatures in the Arctic have risen twice as fast as the rest of the world since 2000, and this could have triggered changes to global wind patterns, which have brought extreme weather to lower latitudes, the researchers said.

A study has found that the number of extreme weather events, such as heatwaves, floods and droughts, has almost doubled over the same period and that this increase can be linked with unusual wind patterns in the upper atmosphere, influenced by warmer Arctic temperatures.

The researchers believe that the loss of sea ice in the Arctic may be contributing to the appearance of wide north-south swings in the high-altitude winds flowing globally west to east around the polar region, which can become stuck and amplified in a quasi-stationary pattern known as a "standing wave."

When this high-altitude westerly airstream swings north it sweeps warm air from the tropics over Europe, Russia or North America, and when it swings south it sucks in frigid air from the Arctic. Each weather pattern can last for several weeks, causing extreme heat, cold, drought or flood.

This week, in his defense of climate scientist Michael Mann by an array of right-wing nuts, Paul Krugman reminds his readers that "if climate change doesn’t scare you, and our failure to act doesn’t inspire despair, you’re not paying attention. And the great sin of the climate deniers is their role in delaying action, quite possibly until it’s too late." Yesterday, writing for Mother Jones Chris Mooney asserts that since "roughly 1991" Republicans have basically been hating the environment-- and not passively. There's been a lot of water under the bridge since Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

So what happened to the GOP, from the time of Nixon to the present, to turn an environmental leader into an environmental retrograde? According to a new study in the journal Social Science Research, the key change actually began around the year 1991-- when the Soviet Union fell. "The conservative movement replaced the 'Red Scare' with a new 'Green Scare' and became increasingly hostile to environmental protection at that time," argues sociologist Aaron McCright of Michigan State University and two colleagues.

…There has been a great deal of research on why American politics have become so polarized (on all issues, not just environmental ones), and theories to explain the trend abound. For instance, one major factor is clearly "party sorting"-- the idea that conservatives have moved more into the GOP over time, even as liberals have, at least to some extent, coalesced in the Democratic Party. So, the Republicans answering a General Social Survey question about the environment in 1996 or so simply were not the same bunch of people who were answering it in 1974.

One intriguing related hypothesis posits that the right wing has become more unwilling to compromise in general because it has become more psychologically authoritarian-- closed-minded, prone to black-and-white thinking. That's not a pattern that would uniquely affect environmental issues, though. If anything, it would be felt most strongly on the topics that authoritarians most care about: crime, national defense, religion in public life, and matters of that ilk.

Whatever the cause, the consequence is clear: We can't get anything done in a bipartisan way on the environment any longer. "The situation," conclude the authors, "does not bode well for our nation's ability to deal effectively with the wide range of environmental problems-- from local toxics to global climate change-- we currently face."

And that's why we need a strong president who's willing to put the nation's well-being front and center, rather than political calculations. Is Obama that kind of president? I still want to believe it but so far, I'd put my money on electing strong Climate Change activist-types like Shenna Bellows and Brain Schatz to the Senate and Paul Clements and Ted Lieu to the House in November. I would expect every candidate to expected my vote or my support to be able to say what Ted Lieu posted on his website when he launched his campaign for Congress: "Climate change is the single greatest threat to California, our nation's future and our environment. As a member of Congress, I will champion legislation to reduce carbon pollution in the U.S." Lieu wrote co-authored AB 32 which created a statewide greenhouse gas limit that would reduce emission by 25% by 2020. He also wrote AB 236 which prioritized the purchase of fuel-efficient state fleet cars and required alternative fuel capable vehicles to actually use alternative fuels.

Are Self-Entitled Politicians With Too Much Money Endangering The Rest Of Us?

Monday we did two posts about the problem climate deniers pose for normal people-- the first one here and the other one here. In both posts, we looked specifically at the Florida congressmembers whose districts are likely to sink under the waves and who are still denying climate change science to please the Cheney types and their donors (while betraying their constituents). Most of them are Republicans, of course-- crooks and idiots like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mario Diaz-Balart, Dennis Ross, Vern Buchanan, Bill Posey-- but there are two Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- New Dems Joe Garcia and, much worse, Patrick Murphy-- who have been working hand-in-first with their Republican colleagues to undermine progress in dealing with Global Warming.

Last week, Chris Mooney, writing in Mother Jones, reported on an interesting analysis of a study by Jeremiah Bohr in the journal Climate Change, pointing to the problem from a different perspective: wealthy Republicans are the worst climate deniers. Mooney rues a phenomenon he calls the "smart idiot" effect and another, related one he called the "rich idiot: effect. He writes that "Apparently being highly informed or capable interacts with preexisting political biases to make those on the right more likely to be wrong than they would be if they had less education or knowledge… The study finds that among Republicans, as levels of income increase, so does their likelihood of 'dismissing the dangers associated with climate change.' But among Democrats and independents, there is little or no change in climate views as levels of income increase or decrease."

[T]he survey asked the following: "In general, do you think that a rise in the world's temperature caused by climate change is extremely dangerous for the environment, very dangerous, somewhat dangerous, not very dangerous, or not dangerous at all for the environment?"

Bohr looked specifically at those individuals who chose the "not very dangerous" or "not dangerous at all" options. And he found that at the lowest income level, the probability that a Republican would give one of these dismissive answers was only 17.7 percent. But at the highest income level, it was 51.2 percent. Here's a visualization of the chief finding, showing how the likelihood of a Republican giving one of these answers changes in relation to wealth:

This therefore leads to a surprising conclusion: "At the bottom quintile of income, Republicans are not significantly different from either Independents or Democrats" with respect to their denial of climate risks, the study reports. It's only as income increases that Republicans become so much more likely to be deniers.

So why does this occur? There are several possibilities discussed in the paper.

The first is that income is actually a proxy for something else: Namely, being politically aware. It's possible that being wealthy is related to paying more attention to politics and your political party, and people who do so would be more aware of what those who agree with them on other issues actually think about global warming. (The study controlled for another possible influencing factor, education.)

The other possibility, though, is that climate denial is a defense of economic interests. "Among individuals with conservative political orientations, there is a correlation between occupying advantageous positions within industrial economic systems and an unwillingness to acknowledge the risks associated with climate change," Bohr writes. "Perhaps to validate their economic interests, these individuals are more likely to process information on climate science through political filters that result in denying the risks produced by climate change."

There are way too many millionaires and multimillionaires in Congress to adequately represent the country or their districts. Both corrupt Beltway parties recruit them as a matter of course. Sunday, Roll Call's Emily Cahn looked at some especially unsavory new ones recruited for November: Maine GOP extremist Bruce Poliquin, crooked Minnesota businessman Stewart Mills, and South Jersey sleaze bag Tom MacArthur. (Richer than any of them is DCCC mystery meat candidate Sean Eldridge (who married well.) She reported that "Middle class people do not begrudge people who make money. As long as they’re honest and hard working, everyone aspires to be that guy or that woman," said Democratic pollster John Anzalone of wealthy candidates. "It’s when you either are screwing someone else or taking advantage of someone else, or once you get there are taking care of the rich rather than the middle class." Anzalone's firm works for Blue Dogs and New Dems and is very much a part of the infrastructure of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

Eldridge has faced relentless attacks on his personal fortune from the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Dubbing him “$ean Eldridge,” the NRCC called out the candidate for carpetbagging into the Hudson Valley district, buying a $2 million home there, and investing some of his immense wealth in banks, oil and tobacco companies he criticizes on the trail.

MacArthur also took flack for how he earned his millions in an ugly GOP primary to succeed retiring Rep. Jon Runyan, R-N.J. MacArthur’s primary opponent, former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan, said insurance adjusters affiliated with MacArthur made families “jump through hoops” to receive insurance money after their homes and properties were destroyed from a natural disaster.

It’s an attack line that Belgard has already started to use against MacArthur in the general election. In this south New Jersey district, many of the voters faced similar battles with insurance companies after their homes were decimated by Superstorm Sandy in 2012.

“He got rich by helping insurance companies shortchange the victims of hurricanes and wildfires-- no one should expect him to start standing up for the middle class now that he’s running for Congress,” Belgard’s campaign manager Hannah Ledford said in a statement.

Nolan began criticizing Mills’ wealth-- derived from his family’s popular chain of sport and farming equipment stores peppered through the Midwest-- calling him a “one percenter” who is “personally offended … that the rich should pay more taxes.” It’s an attack that could work in this district, where the median household income is $46,692-- the lowest of the Gopher State’s eight House districts-- according to the most recent U.S. Census.

Poliquin also faced attacks on his wealth in a Republican primary from his opponent, former state Sen. Kevin Raye. Raye labeled Poliquin as a self-funding Wall Street hedge fund manager who could not relate to working-class Mainers.

Cain [a new Dem herself with Wall Street sympathies] has yet to use that attack line against Poliquin now that the race has moved on the to general election.

...And all four of the candidates are already trying to inoculate themselves from attacks on their affluence either by telling rags-to-riches success stories, describing themselves as job creators, or touting their philanthropic endeavors.

In his first ad for the general election contest, MacArthur’s family and friends in the community describe him as a man who ascended from middle-class roots to be a successful businessman who gives back to his community.

A report in the NY Times horrified Democrats when Eldridge whined that he understands how working people live because both his parents were mere doctors. Cahn writes that "it’s hard for these same candidates to run from their wealth-- especially when they put some of their own funds into their campaigns." MacArthur has already spent more than $2 million from his own pocket on his race, making him vulnerable to criticism he is trying to buy the seat. MacArthur is a Climate Change denier and can be expected, if he beats Belgard, to vote with his party against virtually all measures to address the problem. Eldridge has put nearly a million dollars of his own funds into his race already, but he's presumably more environmentally-sensitive. It's worth noting that his opponent, Chris Gibson, has the best voting record on Climate Change of any Republican in the House-- and better than several conservative Democrats.



The newest Member of Congress, teabagger Curt Clawson, who just replaced Republican cocaine dealer and ex-Hate Talk Radio host Trey Radel, is an especially shady character who spent $3,699,679 on his special election, $3,653,076 (92%) of which came from his own pocketbook. Clawson is an especially vile self-promoter who once spent $2,000,000 advertising a challenge to President Obama in a game of basketball. His district, FL-19, stretches along the Gulf Coast from Boca Grande and Fort Meyers in the north, through Naples and down to Collier-Seminole State Park and Marco Island in the south. It's just a matter of time-- probably within out lifetimes-- that every inch of FL-19 will be uninhabitable and soon afterwards will disappear under the waves. Clawson wants to abolish the EPA and dismisses Global Warming and Climate Change entirely. He is the poster boy for Mooney's post and Bohr's study. One of his first acts in Congress, last week, was to vote for an amendment by the coal industry's David McKinley (R-WV) "to prohibit use of funds to design, implement, administer or carry out specified assessments regarding climate change."

Also worth noting, the Republican dubbed "the worst enemy of the planet earth" by the L.A. Times, Energy and Commerce Committee chair, Fred Upton (R-MI), is an hereditary multimillionaire who was lucky enough to have been born into the family that started, many generations ago, Whirlpool. Upton makes a point of bottling up and destroying every single Climate Change bill that comes through the system.

Have The Republicans Finally Managed To Tank Economic Growth?

Tuesday we looked at how David Cameron's Conservative government has used an Austerity agenda to steer the U.K. into a crippling triple-dip recession. The next day the Commerce Department surprised everyone by projecting that this nation's GDP shrank by 0.1 percent in the last quarter of 2012. The White House blamed the obstructionist Republicans for pushing the same Austerity agenda that has crippled the British economy-- not to mention the economies of Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland and Portugal, all of which have cut back on government spending in the face of economic slowdowns. The game the congressional Republicans are playing with sequestration-- coupled with the lay-offs to the public sectors in the states they control-- are exacerbating economic uncertainty and have stopped growth dead in its tracks.

Worse yet, the GOP is heartened by the slowdown report and are doubling down on their push for Austerity and sequestration. Paul Ryan, who just a few months ago was warning shrilly that sequestration would be catastrophic for the economy, was publicly embracing it on Meet the Press Sunday. The GOP insistence that it is their job to bring pain to regular American working families is nothing short of insane.

Ryan’s comments reinforced House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) insistence that the sequester would be the biggest point of leverage for Republicans to extract the cuts that they want. And at least rhetorically speaking, other House GOP members have stepped into line. “I’m pretty sure it is going to happen now, and I would really like to see us fix the [continuing resolution]  problem,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) told Politico last week. “I guess the feeling is until everybody feels enough pain, we’re not going to do the things that we really need to do. And that scares me.”

Economists are urging Boehner, McConnell, Cantor and Ryan to stop sabotaging the economy and to stop pushing sequestration as a threat to get their way on wrecking Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and other programs that help working families.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said Wednesday's report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis was further proof that implementing "big austerity measures now will hurt the recovery." But the ranking member of the House Budget Committee added that the findings may not be enough to persuade lawmakers to replace the looming sequester, or a decade's worth of automatic cuts to defense and domestic spending.

"The question is how far over the ledge do we go before people take action," Van Hollen said in an interview. He said he hoped sequestration wouldn't be triggered. "But that may be required to bring some sense to the process. If you look at this report, there is no doubt that the spending slowdown contributed to the contraction and that was before the sequester. That was just in anticipation to the sequester."

...As it stands now, the modified sequestration will cut discretionary defense spending by 7.3 percent and discretionary non-defense spending by 5.1 percent this year, along with a 2 percent cut to Medicare. The non-defense cuts will land on housing assistance and community development programs, education grants to states and many federal agencies. Some initiatives are exempt, including Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps and children's health insurance.

Republicans, initially, were far more alarmed with the prospects of sequestration than Democrats, arguing that it would dramatically gut the country's military. GOP leadership moved over the summer to swap the more than $500 billion in defense cuts with savings from the federal workforce and reduced spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps, among other things.

"House Republicans twice last year passed legislation to replace the sequester with changes to entitlement programs-- the major driver of our deficit; rather than opposing our efforts, President Obama should join us," Rory Cooper, a spokesman for House Minority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), said in an email.

Recently, House Republicans' mindset has changed. Upset over deals that raised both tax rates and the debt ceiling, they began looking at sequestration as bankable spending cuts. The approach is driven, in part, out of the belief that the White House will eventually cut a deal favorable to the GOP (administration aides have been privately warning about the economic ripple effects of the sequester being triggered). But it has also caused concern among the party's defense hawks.

Chris Mooney has interviewed Paul Krugman for his podcast, Point of Inquiry and elicited an explanation of just how wrong the Austerity pushers have it. As Mooney writes, "Krugman's latest book, End This Depression Now!, makes a strong case that the current focus on cutting budget deficits is misplaced. An economic crisis like this, with lingering high unemployment, demands a big infusion of government stimulus, argues Krugman. In contrast, cutting spending or imposing austerity only worsens things-- just as we've seen of late across Europe. How sure is Krugman about all of this? And how do we know that he's right, and his very, very-sure-of-themselves opponents are actually dead wrong?

Mooney focuses on science so he framed the discussion around what counts as science in economics-- and conversely, what counts as pseudoscience. He asked, how about the idea that cutting taxes increases revenue to the government? Krugman's response: "That's pure crank….nobody believes that, except the entire Republican party."

And what about the idea that the 2009 stimulus bill failed to create any jobs? "That's a very marginal position," said Krugman. A few economists have supported it, he explained, but the majority of experts in the field think the stimulus, although not necessarily strong enough, do think it had a substantial effect.

Krugman's central point is that Keynesianism is well established in economic science, meaning that under the present, depressed economic conditions, the US government needs to spend to stimulate the economy. By contrast, cutting spending, or imposing austerity, is a terrible blow to a struggling economy. "We've had incredible, teeth rattling austerity in Greece and Ireland," Krugman explained on the show, "and the evidence is in. Every place that has imposed austerity has seen a really sharp economic downturn."

So, we asked, if Keynesianism thinking is the key to fixing our present economic woes, then why won't people listen? Why are we currently so obsessed with deficits?

Krugman's answer was twofold: People make up their minds about economics based on heuristics and shortcuts-- for instance, the misleading metaphor that likens government finances to the budget of an individual family-- and Keynesianism can be complex and counterintuitive. It also runs up against the popular notion that the government shouldn't lean on the scales, because a fair system is one in which people get ahead or fall behind based on their own merits, without external help. As Krugman explained, that's not actually how it works at all-- you can fail in this world for reasons that are totally beyond your control:

The economy is an interactive system. Money flows in a circle. My spending is your income, your spending is my income. And that means that your destiny has a lot to do with what other people are doing. You can lose your job, you can be in big trouble, not because you did something wrong, but because there's not enough spending and the economy is depressed.