Friday, March 22, 2013

Discussion on Future Energy Mix at NARUC Celebrates Natural Gas and Coal, Doesn’t Mention Climate

By Adam James

The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners recently held a session titled “Getting It Right: Gas, coal, and the Future Generation Resources Mix.” In an embarrassingly one-sided panel discussion featuring David Carroll, President and CEO of the Gas Technology Institute and Mark McCollough, Executive Vice-President of Generation at American Electric Power, the verdict came in:

The future of the American generation mix should (prominently) feature natural gas and coal.

Put a pin in that for a second, and you may also be interested to note that the word “climate” did not come up once in the entire session.

Why is one of the most powerful groups of energy regulators in the United States having a conversation about the future of energy in American that doesn’t include consideration of climate change? This is by no means an unintelligent group. They are used to optimizing for economic and environmental concerns. They have a wide range of legal and regulatory experience, and access to the best scientific data available. They should be a high priority target for local environmental activists for education and influence. And yet….

In the generation game, it is a simple fact that if you don’t mention climate, renewables are just another special interest. Although they are rapidly reaching cost competitiveness (in fact, they are competing on an even footing in some markets), renewables have one crucial selling point: They are zero-carbon, and as a result, do not contribute to climate change.

Regulators will play a massive role in shaping the conditions under which new generation projects get built — and as two panelists emphatically noted, the risks associated with investing billions of dollars in projects that span 30 or more years are huge. They called for certainty about the policies that would govern these future projects. Regulators have a responsibility to get educated about the science of climate change, and create the appropriate disincentives for high-carbon generation. In other words, if costs really are going to be the bottom line, regulators should begin by translating the “externalities” from high carbon generation, that means gas and coal, into the cost analysis and decision making process around approving new plants. If climate change is never mentioned, though, and you write off the costs of pollution and climate change as non-factors, fossil fuels will continue to win the day.

This becomes incredibly important because, again as the speakers noted, utilities are making investments today that will guide decisions in 20 years. Allowing new fossil fuel generation to come online — whether because a natural gas supply glut has clouded their vision or because the costs are not appropriately integrated — forces us down one of two paths. The first path is utilizing high-carbon generation well into the future, exacerbating climate change and its impacts. The second is creating a pitched battle between the utilities who have sunk costs into these projects and the environmental advocates who are trying to take them offline. The losers in that fight will ultimately be ratepayers, who pay the costs of these generation projects over long periods of time.

The foxhole for these speakers, as would be expected, is reliability. Clean technology is great, they say, but it isn’t reliable enough to meet our needs. Furthermore, the customers foot the bill for those projects which are higher cost than fossil fuels.

A few notes here. First of all, NREL (and many others) have shown the grid can operate reliably on very high penetrations of renewables and other clean energy resources (such as biomass, hydropower, and geothermal). Second, customers also foot the bill for the health impacts of dirty air and will pay for the worsening impacts of climate change on their daily lives. Third, when customers cannot afford to pay those bills, they are covered by the taxpayer via higher healthcare costs or FEMA appropriations; a strategy that fuels the deficit. Finally, the risks associated with fossil fuel plants are actually shifted to the consumers in a way that they are not with renewables. This is because fuel costs (coal and gas) are variable and paid by the consumer, whereas the initial investment is fixed. Renewables are the opposite, fuel costs (wind and sun) are zero, whereas the initial investment is higher. This means that, as a consumer, you are assuming more risk in fossil fuel projects than renewables because you are at the beck and call of historically turbulent price fluctuations.

The speakers of course point to the higher costs associated with renewables, but forget that a transition to a clean energy economy would create millions of jobs and a higher quality of life for us and future generations.

In any case, NARUC can do much better. Educating our nations regulators about the real costs associated with the investments they are overseeing is a top priority in the absence of federal legislation. As Renewable Portfolio Standards have shown, states can lead on clean energy and drive actual transformation — even as the federal government falters. Regulators will be linchpins of the success or failure of initiatives at the state level to transition to a clean energy economy, and must rise to the occasion.

Adam James is a Special Assistant for Energy Policy at the Center for American Progress. You can follow him @adam_s_james or email him at ajames@americanprogress.org

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Obama Likely To Push Curbs On Carbon Pollution From Existing Power Plants In State Of The Union

The Wall Street Journal reports the President will continue his push on climate action in his State Of The Union address next week.

The GOP-dominated House in particular is against passing any policies to curb greenhouse gas emissions. But even without Congress’s cooperation, the Executive Branch has a wide array of regulatory tools at its disposal to tackle the problem, particularly the Clean Air Act.

The President surprised almost everyone by devoting so much of his second inaugural address to climate, framing the issue in moral terms, “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” This raised expectations for the SOTU address.

Now the Wall Street Journal reports:

President Barack Obama in next week’s State of the Union speech will lay out a renewed effort to combat climate change that is expected to include using his authority to curb emissions from existing power plants, people who have talked to the administration about its plans said.

The Environmental Protection Agency has already proposed rules, set to be finalized this spring, to limit carbon pollution emitted from new power plants to 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour of electricity. This would make the construction of new coal-fired power plants effectively impossible.

Mr. Obama is likely to signal he wants to move beyond proposed Environmental Protection Agency rules on emissions from new power plants and tackle existing coal-fired plants, people familiar with the administration’s plans said….

“You will ultimately see a proposal from EPA to regulate existing power plants,” one person familiar with the matter said. “How he talks about it in the State of the Union could be anything from, ‘We’ve taken important steps and we need to take more,’ to ‘We need to make more [progress] and the next one on the chopping block is existing sources’” of carbon emissions.

No final decisions about what the president will propose next Tuesday appear to have been made.

President Obama has already committed to reducing carbon emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and the Energy Information Administration recently concluded we’re already at 9 percent below today. But further aggressive steps will be needed to prevent losing those gains and to close the rest of the gap.

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled the EPA would be required to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act if it found that those emissions endangered public health and the environment. The agency came to that exact conclusion in 2009 — indeed, they did so in 2008 under President Bush, but he blocked making the endangerment finding.

EPA scientists noted that the climate change associated with carbon emissions will, for instance, increase the dangers posed by extreme weather, such as drought and floods, will worsen air pollution, and will boost the frequency, intensity, and duration of heat waves, with all the attendant threats to the health and welfare of Americans.

That in turn led to the EPA’s proposal to regulate carbon pollution from new power plants, and during the comment period for the proposal the agency received more than 3 million comments in favor of reducing carbon pollution from both new and existing power plants — a record for an EPA rule proposal. But up until now, the EPA hasn’t moved to reduce emissions from power plants already in operation.

Other steps the Executive Branch could take unilaterally to protect the environment and public health include adopting the “Tier 3? standard the EPA is working on to further reduce smog, using public lands and waters to promote clean energy projects, establishing more stringent renewable energy standards for utilities, and nixing the Keystone XL pipeline.

According to a former administration official who spoke with the Wall Street Journal, the President has been “pushing the team to get very specific about how to achieve the goals he set on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.” Obama will deliver the State of the Union speech next Tuesday, February 12.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Statement from the President on the Departure of Subra Suresh

Statement from the President on the Departure of Subra Suresh | The White House Skip to main content | Skip to footer site map The White House. President Barack Obama The White House Emblem Get Email UpdatesContact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts 2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

2012: A Year in Photos

Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Executive Orders Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Legislation Pending Legislation Signed Legislation Vetoed Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Visitor Access Records Financial Disclosures 2012 Annual Report to Congress 2011 Annual Report to Congress 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff A Commitment to Transparency

Browse White House visitor logs

President Obama greets White House visitors

Issues Civil Rights It Gets Better Defense End of Iraq War Disabilities Economy Jobs Reform and Fiscal Responsibility Strengthening the Middle Class A Plan for Refinancing Support for Business Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Immigration Reform Taxes Tax Receipt The Buffett Rule Rural Urban Policy Veterans Joining Forces Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Creating Jobs Health Care Small Business PreK-12 Education Women Violence Prevention Now Is The Time

To do something about gun violence

Now Is The Time

7 Things You Need to Know

About the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

Explore the President's Plan

The Administration We the People

Create and Sign Petitions Now

We the People

President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet 2010 Video Reports White House Staff Chief of Staff Jack Lew Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Nabors Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco Counselor to the President Peter Rouse Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House White House On the Go

Download our mobile apps

Download our mobile apps

2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

2012: A Year in Photos

Inside the White House Interactive Tour West Wing Tour Video Series Décor and Art Holidays Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows President’s Commission About the Fellowship Current Class Staff Bios News and Newsletters White House Internships About Program Presidential Department Descriptions Selection Process Internship Timeline & FAQs Tours & Events 2012 Easter Egg Roll Kitchen Garden Tours Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources /* Maximize height of menu features. */if(typeof(jQuery)!='undefined')jQuery.each($('#topnav'),function(i,v){var o=$(v),oh=o.height(),sh=o.siblings().height();if(oh HomeBriefing Room • Statements & Releases   The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release February 05, 2013 Statement from the President on the Departure of Subra Suresh

We have been very fortunate to have Subra Suresh guiding the National Science Foundation for the last two years. Subra has shown himself to be a consummate scientist and engineer - beholden to evidence and committed to upholding the highest scientific standards. He has also done his part to make sure the American people benefit from advances in technology, and opened up more opportunities for women, minorities, and other underrepresented groups. I am grateful for his service.

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

Blog posts on this issue February 06, 2013 5:46 PM ESTKeep Up to Date on President Obama's Immigration Proposal

Want to learn more about comprehensive immigration reform? Check out this new issue section.

February 06, 2013 5:24 PM ESTPresident Obama Names Sally Jewell to Lead the Department of the InteriorPresident Obama Names Sally Jewell to Lead the Department of the Interior

In his remarks at the White House, the President also highlighted the accomplishments of outgoing Interior Secretary Ken Salazar

February 06, 2013 12:36 PM ESTIn Munich, Vice President Biden Highlights Transatlantic Relationship with European AlliesIn Munich, Vice President Biden Highlights Transatlantic Relationship with European Allies

Vice President Biden travels to Europe to stress our strong cooperation with our allies there and highlighted our many joint accomplishments over the last four years.

view all related blog posts ul.related-content li.views-row img {float: left; padding: 5px 10px 0 0;}ul.related-content li.view-all {padding-bottom: 3em;} Stay ConnectedFacebookTwitterFlickrGoogle+YouTubeVimeoiTunesLinkedIn   Home The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Issues Civil Rights Defense Disabilities Economy Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Taxes Rural Urban Policy Veterans Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Women Violence Prevention The Administration President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House Inside the White House Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows White House Internships Tours & Events Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources The White House Emblem En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job

View the original article here

Wanted: Legitimate broker to reduce deficit

By Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) - 02/06/13 05:30 PM ET

Earlier this week, I proposed an amendment to the “Require a PLAN Act”, which attempts to blame President Obama for all of our fiscal woes. Judging by the language of this legislation, I’m convinced that House Republicans live in a world where our entire national debt suddenly appeared on January 21, 2009.
Let’s be clear, our debt was not created by the resident alone. While the president may be responsible for sending us a budget blueprint, it is ultimately Congress that holds the power of the purse. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are forgetting a key part of our job. The president does not pass budgets, nor does he appropriate funds. Congress does.

The amendment I proposed would have made a simple change to the Findings section of the bill to clarify that Congress has the constitutional responsibility to fund the federal government, not the president.
When it comes to addressing our deficit, the House majority has not served as a legitimate broker.
I can guarantee that when the majority introduces their budget this month, it will be so extreme that it has no chance of passing both Houses. This is because Republicans are more focused on passing budgets that message well than introducing a budget that both the House and Senate can agree to.  
These budgets don’t stand a chance of passing the Senate simply because the GOP refuse to compromise on anything. How many of their budgets end Medicare as we know it? What makes them think that the Senate would pass a budget that goes back on our promises?
The budgets passed by the House Republicans are less valuable than the paper they are written on. They do nothing to bring both sides of the aisle together and are a complete waste of time and taxpayers money.
The Republican Caucus seems to be able to come together for meaningless proposals, but they know that when it comes to sensible legislation, such as preventing us from going over the fiscal cliff or providing aid to Sandy victims, the 218th vote will have to come from a Democrat.
What this tells us is that the only thing allowing the House Republican Caucus to govern is the House Democratic Caucus.
Year after year, the House RepublicanlLeadership has chosen do anything within its power to discredit thepPresident instead of working to solve our nation’s challenges. Democrats are waiting for our friends on the other side of the aisle to begin operating in good faith. Only then will Congress finally be able move forward and properly conduct the American people’s business.
Takano represents California’s 41st Congressional District and serves on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee.
View Comments

View the original article here

Scott Brown in talks for job at Fox News

Former Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) is in negotiations with Fox News to become a contributor to the network, a spokesperson for the channel said Wednesday.

Brown would be the second former legislator to join the network this year, alongside former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who debuted late last month. Brown, who lost his reelection bid to freshman Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), said last week that he would not seek the seat opened by former Sen. John Kerry's (D-Mass.) appointment as secretary of State.

At the time, Brown said he was not convinced another run for Congress was the best way to advocate for his policy goals.

“I was not at all certain that a third Senate campaign in less than four years, and the prospect of returning to a Congress even more partisan than the one I left, was really the best way for me to continue in public service at this time. And I know it’s not the only way for me to advance the ideals and causes that matter most to me," Brown said in a statement.

Earlier Wednesday, the former senator announced he was joining the board of directors of Kadant Inc., a paper company.

"I am honored to have the opportunity to contribute to Kadant and learn more about the challenges of an international business," Brown said in a statement. "Kadant has been on the forefront of designing and manufacturing equipment to recycle and produce paper for decades. I look forward to sharing my knowledge and experiences and contributing to the future direction and growth of this global leader."

View Comments

View the original article here

Indiana Lawmaker Proposes Unconstitutional Bill To Take Away Voting Rights From Out-Of-State College Students

In 1977, the Supreme Court upheld a decision holding that it is unconstitutional to treat college students any differently than other voters in terms of residency requirements to vote. Three and a half decades later, some Republican lawmakers are still trying to prevent college students from voting.

The latest instance is in Indiana, where a state lawmaker just introduced legislation that would prevent students from considering their campus address as their place of residency. Instead, the bill would only allow students to claim the address where they grew up.

The Indianapolis Star has more:

Under House Bill 1311, students who pay out-of-state tuition would not be able to vote in Indiana.

Rep. Peggy Mayfield, the Martinsville Republican who filed the bill, said she’s trying to resolve an issue about determining who is an Indiana resident.

“We’re having people who are not necessarily residents voting in our elections,” she said.

Indiana’s constitution only requires that a voter establish residency for 30 days prior to an election in order to be eligible. Passing a bill that would impose a unique requirement on college students clearly violates the constitutional protections affirmed in Symm v. United States.

Over the past few years, Republicans have made a habit of trying to disenfranchise college students. In Maine, then-Secretary of State Charlie Summers sent a threatening letter to hundreds of college students in 2011 implying that many of them were illegally registered to vote simply because they had grown up out of state. The same year, then-New Hampshire House Speaker William O’Brien tried to discourage students from casting a ballot because he feared they’d vote “liberal.”

One Indiana Republican is already speaking out against Mayfield’s bill. State Rep. Randy Truitt (R) opposed the measure on the grounds that it would depress turnout among students. “We worked so hard on making the students a part of our community,” Truitt said. “And whether they’re there for a short period of time or not, from my perspective, they’re part of our community, and I’m just not in favor of disenfranchising them.”

Indeed, young Americans already vote at lower rates than the rest of the electorate. Even if this bill weren’t unconstitutional, it’s primary effect would be to drive down turnout among students.


View the original article here

Now is the time to balance the budget

By Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) - 02/06/13 04:00 PM ET

Families across the United States have tightened their belts as a result of high unemployment and underemployment, a slow economic recovery and unprecedented uncertainty around their tax burden. What families do when faced with these challenges is set a budget and have a plan to deal with the uncertainty. With looming spending cuts from sequestration and major shortfalls predicted in our mandatory programs, President Obama and Senate Democrats still won’t tell Americans their plan to address these cuts or to control spending in a responsible way. It is time for our bloated government to scale back and stop spending money we don’t have. This should be a no-brainer, and the majority of Americans agree, but unfortunately it seems some government officials haven’t checked their messages.

Each year, the president is required by law to deliver his budget for the upcoming fiscal year to Congress the first Monday in February. But for the fourth time in five years this administration's budget is late. If the president can’t submit a budget to Congress on time, how can we take his claims of wanting to cut the deficit seriously? And Senate Democrats have not only failed to show how they would balance the budget, they’ve gone four years without passing any budget at all. Every family has to balance its budget, and every business must balance its books. Washington should be held to that same standard.
Yesterday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its budget and economic outlook report for the next decade. CBO predicts that economic growth will stay slow this year and that unemployment will remain above 7.5 percent. If CBO is right in its projection, 2014 will mark the sixth consecutive year that unemployment has exceeded 7.5 percent — the longest period of high unemployment in the last 70 years.
Also troubling, the CBO predicts that over 10 years, we will add nearly $7 trillion to the deficit. This is unsustainable, and the only way to prevent more trillion dollar deficits is to pass a responsible budget that cuts spending, balances our budget and puts our economy back on track.
Today, I will vote for the Require a Plan Act. This legislation, introduced by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), would require the White House to either produce a budget that balances within 10 years or provide a supplemental budget plan by April 1, 2013, that identifies which fiscal year they will achieve a balanced budget. The American people deserve an explanation of why Washington can’t stop wasting their hard-earned tax dollars, and I will continue to support measures to bring wasteful Washington spending under control, balance our budget and hold Washington accountable. Both parties are responsible for the mess we’re in, but it’s time to stop the blame game and step up to the plate. Our children and grandchildren are counting on us.

Roe is a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee.

View Comments

View the original article here

Michigan Governor Supports Extending Medicaid Coverage To Nearly Half A Million Low-Income Residents

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R)

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) is set to announce his support for Obamacare’s optional expansion of the Medicaid program at a press conference on Wednesday afternoon. The announcement, which comes a day before the governor will address his budget priorities for the upcoming legislative session, will make Snyder the sixth Republican leader to agree to the health law’s Medicaid expansion.

Implementing this aspect of President Obama’s health reform law will be particularly impactful in Michigan, where an estimated 470,000 uninsured residents will gain health coverage. The health policy groups that provided Snyder’s office with research about expanding Medicaid — including the fact that the state could save up to $1 billion over the next decade by accepting the federal funding to increase their Medicaid rolls — are welcoming the governor’s decision:

Snyder’s support for Medicaid expansion “really is a big deal,” said Marianne Udow-Phillips, director of the Ann Arbor-based Center for Healthcare Research & Transformation, which provided research to the governor’s office. CHRT concluded Michigan would save more than $1 billion in the next ten years as the federal government picks up the cost for health care for those who currently are not covered by insurance.

Moreover, most primary care doctors reported to CHRT that they are able to accept new patients who now would have insurance, she said.

What’s really powerful about this is that the governor did come at this from a very objective, analytical approach,” she said. “He looked at the facts, he pulled research from our center and … lots of people,” Udow-Phillips said. “I don’t want to say we’re surprised, but we’re very pleased that the facts did speak for themselves.”

The state’s Medicaid expansion will still have to be approved by Michigan’s legislature, where conservative opponents of Obamacare could present a roadblock. State-level resistance to health care reform has considerably slowed the implementation of the Affordable Care Act — but, as Snyder joins the growing list of Republican leaders who are conceding that implementing Obamacare makes sense for their constituents, the tide may be about to turn.


View the original article here

Bias against Palestinians on display at hearing

By Amb. Maen Rashid Areikat - 02/06/13 04:25 PM ET

In an unfortunately predictable manner, yet another congressional hearing held on 5 February 2013 entertained biased, misleading, and inaccurate statements about what is happening in Palestine. The hearing was titled “The Fatah-Hamas Reconciliation: Threatening Peace Prospects,” and yet no Palestinian representatives were invited. It is important to delineate several matters of concern.

First, Hamas has acknowledged that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) has the mandate to negotiate a final status agreement with Israel. Their only concern is that the final agreement be put to referendum.  Second, the reconciliation process is not complete. The PLO, chaired by President Mahmoud Abbas, has made it clear that any reconciliatory measures with Hamas must commit to garnering and sustaining the diplomatic efforts to reach a peace agreement with Israel, bearing in mind the PLO’s previous agreements and accords with Israel. Third, reconciliation efforts have been supported by many allies of the United States in the region, including Egypt and Jordan, the only two countries that ratified and continue to hold permanent peace agreements with Israel. Finally, the Israeli leadership itself has repeatedly remarked that it cannot pursue a peace agreement with a fragmented Palestinian government.

Contrary to the statements made at the hearing, the above four points are sufficient proof of Palestinians’ commitment to reaching a just and lasting peace with Israel. The PLO has renounced violence, recognized Israel’s right to exist, and has engaged itself in a lengthy negotiation process for over two decades only to be met by Israeli breaches of signed agreements, continued violations of basic human rights, and a relentless campaign of settlement building and other facts on the ground that undermine the possibility of a two-state solution. Yet, in spite of the grim situation, the Palestinian leadership invited members of the new Knesset to have conversations with them on the political process.

This begs the question: why was a hearing held with such an alarming degree of misinformation? The answer is the absence of engagement and dialogue. Unfortunately it has become a habit of congressional hearings on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to dismiss the Palestinian perspective entirely. Who benefits from such a misguided approach? It should be no surprise that dismissing the Palestinian view is a disservice to the American constituent, and runs contrary to the principles and purposes upon which the idea of “impartial” hearings is founded.

Secretary of State John Kerry is expected to visit Israeli and Palestinian leaders soon, to be followed by a visit by President Obama in the spring. While we await these visits with cautious optimism, one cannot deny that the continued dismissal of Palestinian perspective at the halls of Congress undermines the credibility of American efforts and threatens the United States’ geostrategic interest in reaching a just and lasting peace
between the Israelis and Palestinians.

We will have our differences; but that is more the reason to engage in direct and earnest dialogue. Without a comprehensive and representative outlook at the situation there can be no hope for sound policymaking. Absenting the Palestinian perspective or even using secondary or tertiary sources rather than directly using Palestinian voices defies reason. For our part, The General Delegation of the PLO to the United States is willing and ready to engage members of Congress in serious and constructive conversations in order to create a better understanding of Palestinian positions as well as the situation in our region. Only then would congressional hearings on Palestine be impartial.

Ambassador Maen Rashid Areikat Chief Representative of the General Delegation of the PLO to the U.S.

View Comments

View the original article here

GOP Senate Leader Endorses National Union-Busting Law

Michigan workers protest "right-to-work" in December

Republicans across the country have pushed a variety of anti-union laws in the last two years, with the most heinous coming in the form of so-called “right-to-work” laws that effectively bust unions and their ability to collectively bargain for wages and benefits. Both Michigan and Indiana, traditional union states, passed such laws last year, and now, the push is moving to the federal level.

Republicans typically voice concern about federal intrusion on states’ rights and the government’s intervention in agreements between employers and their workers. But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has apparently cast those concerns aside, as he announced today his support for a national “right-to-work” legislation introduced by fellow Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R):

“As working class Americans continue to face daunting challenges to provide for their families, I believe the federal government has an obligation to ensure every American has the right to choose whether they want to spend part of their paycheck to support a union. The right to work should not be negotiable but unfortunately there are still twenty-six states across the country that turn a blind eye towards forced union membership. It is long past time that the federal government remedy this problem. If states like Michigan, with its proud tradition of organized labor, can look their problems in the face and address them by passing meaningful Right to Work legislation, then it is high time for the federal government to act. I proudly support the National Right to Work Act and will work with my friend Sen. Rand Paul to do all I can to ensure it receives a vote.

It’s worth noting that Kentucky, the state both McConnell and Paul claim to represent, does not have a right-to-work law on its books. And though just 10.3 percent of the state’s workers are unionized, unions in Kentucky have played a big role in protecting workers in the state’s factories and coal mines, and national unions have made strong pushes for better mine safety laws that both McConnell and Paul have opposed.

But the effects of a national “right-to-work” law wouldn’t be limited to Kentucky. Such laws cost workers, union and non-union, $1,500 a year, according to the Economic Policy Institute, and its research “shows that there is no relationship between right-to-work laws and state unemployment rates, state per capita income, or state job growth.” Decreases in union membership that result from such laws have a negative impact on middle-class workers, and if “benefits coverage in non-right-to-work states were lowered to the levels of states with these laws, 2 million fewer workers would receive health insurance and 3.8 million fewer workers would receive pensions nationwide,” according to the Center for American Progress’ David Madland and Karla Walter.

Further, McConnell is wrong that a national “right-to-work” law would finally ensure that “every American has the right to choose whether they want to spend part of their paycheck to support a union.” Workers, of course, already have that choice, since none is forced to join a unionized workforce. “Right-to-work” simply undermines the central point of unionization by creating a free-loader problem that allows workers to directly benefit from union membership without paying dues to support the actual union.


View the original article here