Regional model CO2 rule on tap -- without Maryland
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or "RGGI," is a

cooperative effort by 9 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states to discuss the design of a regional cap-and-trade program initially covering carbon dioxide emissions from power plants in the region. In the future, RGGI may be extended to include other sources of greenhouse gas emissions, and greenhouse gases other than CO2.

Yesterday, RGGI announced that teams from seven of those nine states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Vermont) had completed drafting a detailed, 141 page "model rule" document outlining a regional gas emissions trading program, and intended to "form the basis of individual state regulatory and/or statutory proposals to implement the program." A press release by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation explains:

Beginning in 2009, emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants in the region will be capped at current levels approximately 121 million tons annually with this cap remaining in place until 2015. The states will then begin reducing emissions incrementally over a four-year period to achieve a 10 percent reduction by 2019. [...]

Under the cap-and-trade program, the states will issue one allowance, or permit, for each ton of CO2 emissions allowed by the cap. Each plant will be required to have enough allowances to cover its reported emissions. The plants may buy or sell allowances, but an individual plant's emissions cannot exceed the amount of allowances it possesses. The total amount of the allowances will be equal to the emissions cap for the seven-state region. [...]

The draft model rule also includes provisions to reward generators for emissions reductions undertaken prior to the start of the program in 2009, and would effectively create an incentive for generators to begin reducing carbon dioxide emissions as early as possible.

A minimum of 25 percent of a state's allowances will be dedicated to strategic energy or consumer benefit purposes, such as energy efficiency, new clean energy technologies and ratepayer rebates. A power plant could purchase these allowances for its own use. The funds generated from these sales will be used for beneficial energy programs. The draft model rule provides states with the flexibility to exceed the 25 percent minimum and discretion over the use of funds in selecting the most appropriate programmatic purposes for each state.

The program would begin in 2009 after being agreed to and enacted as state law by each participant. Apparently Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the two other RGGI states, had a number of objections to the model rule and are not part of the agreement at this point, although they can join in by 2008. The New York Sierra Club has called RGGI "the most important environmental initiative in America right now" :

The importance of RGGI cannot be overstated. Not only will curtailing CO2 emissions from the region's power plants be a very important step in reducing America's carbon emissions, but it also will serve as a platform and model for future programs - for example, one put forth by the federal government, if it ever gets its act together.

Needless to say, where even modestly forward-looking environmental programs are concerned, Maryland Governor Bob Ehrlich is nowhere to be found. That's earned him some criticism from Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan, who hopes to challenge Ehrlich for the governorship in November. Duncan can point to numerous initiatives his county (and mine) has undertaken for cleaner air and lower emissions, including buying wind power and purchasing natural gas powered buses. Last November he wrote Governor Ehrlich:

The Washington region suffers from some of the worst air pollution in the nation – and the failure to address this situation is impacting public health, our economy and the vitality of the Chesapeake Bay. [...]

I urge you to reconsider Maryland’s position and join RGGI as they develop a regional strategy for controlling greenhouse gas emissions. None of us will ever regret the steps we take today to mitigate the haunting prospects of global climate change or make the air we breathe safer for future generations.

Not enough Maryland state delegates appear to agree; a House bill (HB1031) introduced in February requiring Maryland participation in the RGGI was withdrawn on March 22. Whether this was because it seemed moot on the announcement of the model rule, or for other reasons, Ehrlich is clearly not the only Maryland politician unwilling to join the RGGI's concrete steps against global warming. It should be admitted that the program would also cost consumers some money -- but only about $20 per year per household, according to one study (via Environmental Economics blog).


=====
UPDATE, 4/1: Looks like RGGI language was included in a different bill. Clean air bill clears House committee, Pamela Wood, HometownAnnapolis.com, 3/30 --

Many of the requirements in the Healthy Air Act are similar to Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s proposed Maryland Clean Power Rule, which he can implement without legislative approval as early as this summer. [...]

But one major difference remains: the governor's plan leaves out carbon dioxide.
The Healthy Air Act requires carbon dioxide reductions by having Maryland join a multistate program called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

Several lawmakers expressed concern that joining the greenhouse gas compact and requiring other expensive pollution controls could translate into higher electric bills for consumers. (emphasis added)

posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:32:00 AM -- |    

 
Proud of those chicks
...Dixie Chicks, that is. Click through, it's pretty good. Back story here and/or here, for those who don't know it. Long story short: on March 10, 2003, ten days before the invasion of Iraq, vocalist/guitarist Natalie Maines said this:

Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas.

...and the group endured an extremely nasty boycott including death threats and hate radio for her daring to do so. As Atrios writes:

That was it. That was all it took.
We were all Dixie Chicked then.

I can't in honesty proudly join the "we" part of that, but I wasn't one of the mob howling for their scalps either. Via Jim Henley, whose earlier observation on the story bears repeating:

The Dixie Chicks were not "censored." They were not arrested, denied work or killed by the government. But the freelance demonization campaign against them was nevertheless a fascist impulse in action.

posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:20:00 PM -- |    

 
So much for e-filing my 1040
"IRS plans to allow preparers to sell data," reports the Philadelphia Inquirer's Jeff Gelles :

The IRS is quietly moving to loosen the once-inviolable privacy of federal income-tax returns. If it succeeds, accountants and other tax-return preparers will be able to sell information from individual returns - or even entire returns - to marketers and data brokers.

The change is raising alarm among consumer and privacy-rights advocates. It was included in a set of proposed rules that the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Dec. 8 Federal Register, where the official notice labeled them 'not a significant regulatory action.'

(Via Kevin Drum) The extension means tax preparers would no longer be necessarily limited to contacting their clients for other financial products they or their "affiliated groups" provide. The sale of tax information to non-affiliated groups would require the signature of the client, but as PennPIRG's Beth McConnell points out, it's likely to be one of dozens a client hurries through at the tax preparer's office, unwilling to 'put anybody out' by lingering over a given item. I can see why H&R Block or Jackson Hewitt might think this a capital idea, but what public purpose is served by making the sale of tax return information possible?

Un-flipping-believable. Every time you turn around, you find some new underhanded, furtive scheme for invading your privacy by degrees. That's not how the IRS rule changers want us to see it, of course: they're doing it for our freedom. From page 11 of the proposed rule changes:

The currently-offered and affiliated-group rules restrict the ability of taxpayers to control and direct the use of their own tax return information as they see fit. The proposed regulations adopt an approach that ensures taxpayers are provided with a meaningful opportunity to consent to the use and disclosure of their tax return information. Accordingly, the proposed rules revoke the affiliated-group and currently-offered restrictions.(emphasis added)*

Personally, I think I shouldn't have to even consider such a stupid idea -- and wonder the next day whether the box I checked off in my usual last-minute fog of taxes meant "no, don't do it" or "sure, whatever, sell my tax returns to ChoicePoint." To say nothing of wondering whether some pimply faced TaxCut intern clicked "send" with the wrong batch of returns no matter what I chose. I suppose there may be some deluded, astroturf consumer group out there agitating for the right to have their tax information sold to the highest bidder. But not me, and I'll wager not most of us.

It's apparently too late to directly comment on this rule change, but the Inquirer actually gives you an address for sending your choicest remarks by snail-mail:

CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-137243-02)
Room 5203
Internal Revenue Service, Box 7604
Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044

I thought the geniuses at the IRS liked people to file their returns electronically. In my case, at least, they can kiss that goodbye, until I feel like this proposal is hanging from a tree, twisting in the wind, pecked by crows.


=====
* "Currently offered" refers to other services currently offered by the tax preparer; "affiliated-group" refers to other groups affiliated with the tax preparer, "within the meaning of Section 1504." Time permitting, I'll find, link to and read that section in case it sheds a different light on this topic. posted by Thomas Nephew at 6:34:00 PM -- |    

 
Red Dawn, eh?
From the first post in Ben Domenech's new "I'm a wingnut AND I've infiltrated the MSM" blog Red America, unaccountably hosted by the Washington Post:

...for the MSM, Dan Rather is just another TV anchor, France is just another country and Red Dawn is just another cheesy throwaway Sunday afternoon movie.

Red Dawn... Red Dawn... isn't Red Dawn the one where an overseas superpower invades and occupies another country, and then faces endless resistance by locals armed with nothing but guns, bombs, and RPGs? Thought so.

And maybe I'm misunderstanding him, but I agree: France is a really great country, everyone should go visit sometime. Great food, great wine, great scenery, nice people, great health care -- what more could you want? Dan Rather -- now there's another story. Sorry, Ben, gotta disagree -- Rather may have had the stuff of greatness, but if he hadn't muffed that Texas National Guard story we might be talking President Kerry now. posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:19:00 PM -- |    

 
Senator Mikulski: If Clinton's Affair Deserved Censure, So Does Bush's Spying
A good point by Working Assets' ActForChange site:

Back in 1999, twenty-four Senators co-sponsored a resolution to censure President Clinton for his conduct during the Monica Lewinsky affair. Now, however, those very same twenty-four -- including Senator Mikulski of Maryland -- refuse to support Senator Feingold's motion to censure President Bush for his illegal wiretaps. A simple comparison of the two Presidents' conduct shows that position to be deeply hypocritical.

President Clinton engaged in an extramarital affair and then deceived the public -- and a grand jury -- about his conduct.

President Bush, on the other hand, has openly broken the law (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) and violated our Constitution (the Fourth Amendment, prohibiting warrantless searches). He lied to the public on several occasions about his warrantless wiretapping program. The program continues to this day, and may now include warrantless physical searches as well.

If you're from Maryland and agree with this, click here to send Senator Mikulski an e-mail, and/or call her at any of the following numbers:

Senator Barbara Mikulski
Phone: 202-224-4654
District Offices:
Annapolis: 410-263-1805
Baltimore: 410-962-4510
Greenbelt: 301-345-5517
Hagerstown: 301-797-2826
Salisbury: 410-546-7711

=====
EDIT, 3/23: Phone numbers (supplied by moveon.org) added. Senator Sarbanes can be reached at 202-224-4524.
UPDATE, 3/24: In Myth-making and Excuse-Making on the Feingold Resolution, Glenn Greenwald debunks the "investigation is needed" excuse -- not that I know Senator Mikulski has used that excuse -- and provides some good talking points should you decide to visit one of Senator Mikulski's offices.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:30:00 PM -- |    

 
Proposed Maryland law won't gamble with our ballots
In Bet on a Bet but Not on a Ballot," the Washington Post's Richard Morin writes:

"It's easier to rig an electronic voting machine than a Las Vegas slot machine, says University of Pennsylvania visiting professor Steve Freeman.

That's because Vegas slots are better monitored and regulated than America's voting machines, Freeman writes in a book out in July that argues, among other things, that President Bush may owe his last win to an unfair vote count."

(via Peripetia).

I've reproduced the information from an accompanying graphic comparing issues in slot and electronic voting machine regulation below -- but with one additional column: the "HB244/S713" column has my best guess about each of these issues in Maryland if the House version of that model voter-verification bill ("AN ACT concerning Election Law - Voting Systems - Voter-Verified Paper Records") is implemented.*

	Las Vegas slots	Electronic voting machines	E-voting under Maryland HB244/S713
Software	State of Nevada has access to all software. Illegal to use software that is not on file.	Software is a trade secret.	9-109.C: Software and hardware in voting system, aggregation, and tabulation certified 30 days prior to election.
Spot-Checking	State gaming inspectors show up unannounced at casinos to compare chips with those on file. If there is a discrepancy, the machine is shut down and investigated.	No checks are required. Election officials have no chip to compare with the one found in the machine.	9-109.C, above: all hardware certified. 9-110. 5% random audit of precincts, but after election.
Background Scrutiny	Manufacturers subjected to background checks. Employees are investigated for criminal records.	Citizens have no way of knowing, for example, whether programmers have been convicted of fraud.	No specific provisions.
Equipment Certification	By a public agency at arm's length from manufacturers. Public questions invited.	By for-profit companies chosen and paid by the manufacturers. No public information on how the testing is done.	9-109.C: equipment certification by State Board of Elections. 9-111: Public demonstration of equipment checks.
Handling Disputes	Casino must contact the Gaming Control Board, which has investigators on call round the clock. They can open up machines to inspect internal mechanisms and records of recent gambling outcomes.	In most cases, a voter's only recourse is to call a number at the board of elections that may or may not work to lodge a complaint that may or may not be investigated.	9-107.D: Before voter-verified paper record is preserved, the voter has the opportunity to correct errors by voting system, and the ability to correct the paper record.

I think the upshot is that Maryland will be substantially better off if the HB244/S713 voter-verification bill is passed, but that some important details remain to be spelled out, for example with software certification. It's also true that in focusing on post-balloting audits, the bill makes no provision for advance background checks of manufacturers and their employees, and doesn't specifically mandate advance spot-checks of working machines using state-owned"comparison chips" -- perhaps an improvement worth working for in the future.

But these caveats seem more than outweighed by the provisions for auditing election returns and a public, transparent hardware and software certification process. At any rate, this law would be a great first step, and could be improved if necessary.

HB244 passed by an overwhelming 137-0 vote earlier this month. Now the e-voting watchdog organization TrueVoteMD.org is asking Marylanders to write their state senators and ask them to support the Senate version of this bill. Let them know you're paying attention, and that you know this bill will address many of the problems with electronic voting.


=====
* If the current version of the bill is passed and funded, the 2006 elections will be held with optical scan voting machines, and the "voter verification/paper trail" issue is moot, although the optical scan tabulation of votes would still need to be certified and audited.
EDIT, 6/29: frame and rules (i.e., lines) added for table. posted by Thomas Nephew at 6:33:00 PM -- |    

 
The Constitution -- you're either for it or against it

This is smart for the Democratic Party. It is going straight at a strength of president Bush. You don't get into politics only to play at issues where you already have public opinion on your side. He's trying to change public opinion. I disagree with it, and I hope he doesn't succeed, but he's making the case that it's illegal, he's going to have editorial pages backing him up, and the Republicans are just whining that "oooh he's just trying to censure the president." They aren't making a substantive defense of the program.*

-- Bill Kristol on FOX News Sunday, March 19

If Kristol's trying to peddle some snake oil to gullible Democrats, that "just whining" line goes way beyond the call of duty. For an example of some really good whining, listen to Brit Hume in the same segment -- then sign Feingold's online citizen censure statement here.

Everybody wants things "framed" for the 2006 elections. How's this: the Constitution of the United States of America -- are you for it, or are you against it? Do you stand in its defense with Al Gore and Russ Feingold, or do you support bottom dwellers like Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Yoo in tearing it down, trivializing its meaning, and disgracing the country as they do so?

I don't mean what Justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito et al may eventually torture out of the plain words of the Constitution, settled law, and explicit statutes; I'm talking about what you know the Constitution, the rule of law, and your country ought to be. Kristol is only partly right; it's not so much that fighting back is "smart" for the Democratic Party -- with 90% of the current and prospective leadership, who cares -- it's that it's essential for the country.

I look at a pitiful abdication of responsibility like the DeWine/ Hagel/ Snowe/ Graham "Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006" -- summarily making the illegal both legal and unaccountable -- and I have the choice of either despairing at what my country has come to, or seeing it as evidence of their weakness, not mine. To draft such a pathetic, craven, even babbling** piece of legislation can hardly mean anything else. It's an easy choice: we're right, they're wrong, we stand for something, they'll go for anything.

Contact your representatives; ask them to draft resolutions of inquiry demanding more information about warrantless surveillance, about torture, about fixing intelligence to justify a war. Educate yourself and others about the Downing Street memos, about impeachment, about Abu Ghraib. Demand answers and strategies from those seeking your support for political office.

I'll take a little more time for the next couple of posts. Back in a few days.


=====
* Transcribed remarks by/via digby, whose comments are worth reading, as usual. A video clip of the segment can be viewed via Crooks and Liars.
** For example: Sec. 4(a)(1) DETERMINATION OF CONTINUATION -- Upon completion of the review of the Terrorist Surveillance Program by the Attorney General under subsection (a), the President shall determine the following:
(A) Whether the Terrorist Surveillance Program remains necessary to protect the United States, its citizens, [&c...]
(B) Whether to continue the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

(emphases added) If something "remains necessary" ...would anyone not continue it? This seems like freshman all-nighter stuff; get the word count up, put in lots of subheadings, give the Idiot King two pronouncements to make instead of one. For closer analyses of the bill, see Balkinization or Glenn Greenwald. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:10:00 AM -- |    

 
Fair Share-type bill advances in Minnesota
The Minneapolis Star Tribune's Mark Brunswick reported last Monday ("Senate unit approves 'Wal-Mart' health care bill"):

A bill that would require the state's largest employers to pay health care insurance costs for their workers -- commonly known as 'the Wal-Mart bill' -- passed a Senate committee on Monday, amid concerns from groups such as the Chamber of Commerce that it would stifle job growth and do nothing to address skyrocketing health care costs.

The bill would cover only the handful of Minnesota firms with 10,000 or more employees. It would require those companies to spend on health benefits an amount equal to 8 percent of the wages it pays to its lower paid workers, or pay the difference to a state fund.

The measure, SF2672, is described prosaically and accurately as "Large employer health cost payments" by the Minnesota Senate web site. As the article points out, the provisions mirror those of the "Fair Share" bill passed recently in Maryland. Principal sponsor State Senator Becky Lourey testified that she is trying to "stop the cost shifting to the public programs."

Ms. Lourey is also running for governor of Minnesota, although a February Rasmussen Report poll implies that she trails at least two other Democrats (State Senator Steve Kelly and Attorney General Mike Hatch) in the race to oppose Republican governor Tim Pawlenty.

Unfortunately, her "large employer health cost payments" measure also seems to face an uphill battle. The Star Tribune article says the Minnesota bill "faces an uncertain future. A similar measure failed in a House committee last week." posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:07:00 AM -- |    

 
Impeachment comments
I've spent most of my blog writing time this weekend in the comments section of last Monday's post "A good start, " discussing my take on a recent Harold Meyerson op-ed ("Impeachment Imprudence") with Gary Farber ("Amygdala").

There appears to be a simple misunderstanding muddying the argument -- I didn't make it clear enough often enough that I'm not advocating impeachment right now so much as advocating impeachment as a campaign issue right now. Meyerson (somewhat surprisingly) favors neither; I'd say Farber is in between, but closer to Meyerson's outlook than mine.

Despite the misunderstanding, the discussion may be worth a look. Farber is skeptical, I answer as best as I can, with some good points by each of us. At any rate, that's all I've got right now.



=====
UPDATE, 5/20: discussion here of Senator Durbin's FOX News interview with Chris Wallace. Summing up, I see the glass half-empty, Farber says Durbin's remarks are just fine.
EDIT, 5/20: Technorati "impeach" mentions chart added. The mid-December spike corresponds to the 12/16/05 New York Times Risen/Lichtblau article first reporting warrantless surveillance by the Bush administration. An earlier September 2005 spike is probably related to Hurricane Katrina. posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:47:00 PM -- |