Fracking subsidies cut in budget deal

I read at Think Progress how the federal budget deal isn't great news for clean energy, but it does eliminate funding for a fossil fuel subsidy program, the Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Resources Research Program. None of the articles I read provided details so I did a little googling.

It turns out that a focus of this program, created by the Bush administration, is to promote fracking. It sought to advance extraction with new methods in new areas, including gas shales, and coalbed methane.  For examples, check here, here and here. It pays for research projects which allow the industry to increase their profits at taxpayer expense.

Woohoo! This won't stop fracking, but it's worth celebrating that the budget agreement would end a program that uses tax dollars to promote a highly destructive, controversial process.

Obama has repeatedly called for ending much bigger oil industry subsidies but it doesn't seem to get much press coverage in between all the ads for oil companies, cars, and gas stations. Go figure.

Rodney "Double Talk" Davis still pointing fingers in partisan constituent letter

Congressman Rodney Davis is already notorious for not taking a clear, solid stand on almost any issue. The government shutdown has pushed his double talk to absurd new levels.

A letter apparently sent from his Congressional office is making the rounds on facebook. The shutdown hasn't stopped Davis from using his government office to spread highly partisan talking points blaming Democrats for a manufactured crisis. The letter states no less than six times that Davis doesn't support a shutdown. He blames Obama and Congressional Democrats three times.

Unfortunately for Davis, TV commercials and some reporters are pointing out that he signed a letter with 80 other Republicans promising not to vote for any appropriation bills that include funding for Obamacare. The idea of being held accountable for his shutdown pledge must account for the sense of panic and desperation in his letter.


An underlined sentence claims, "I have supported and the House of Representatives has passed four bills to fully fund the federal government and I will continue to do so when presented with the opportunity."

But, that's not accurate, because none of those bills funded implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Whether Davis admits it or not, Obamacare is now part of the federal government. Nowhere in the letter does Davis pledge to vote for a clean bill without shutdown strings attached.

It's obvious when Davis speaks that he feels very passionately about stopping people from getting health insurance. He clearly believes this issue is important enough to force a government shutdown. Davis owes voters the respect of defending his signature on the shutdown letter instead of pointing the finger of blame at everyone else.

I was taught that an adult takes responsibility for their actions.

Illinois Congressional delegation gets greener while Aaron Schock ranks dirtiest

The League of Conservation Voters released their 2012 scorecard, and it shows that the Illinois Congressional delegation is much greener today than it was last year. Most of those who had the worst environmental voting records were defeated in the 2012 election. One exception, who scored lowest of them all, wants to run for Governor.

Notoriously anti-environment, anti-science Congressmen like Bobby Schilling, Joe Walsh, and Don Manzullo (who all scored 6%) were defeated in the recent election, thanks in part to newly drawn districts.

The lowest scoring Democrat was Jerry Costello, who retired. We can hope for a better record from his replacement, Democrat Bill Enyart, but his pandering to the coal industry is discouraging. You would think more Southern Illinois politicians would have noticed that a coal-based economy has never brought stable prosperity to the region before, and it isn't going to suddenly start working now.

Two members of the Illinois delegation scored 100%! Northside Chicago Congressman Mike Quigley and my favorite Senator, Dick Durbin.

One Congressman holds the dubious distinction of earning 3%, the lowest ranking in Illinois: Aaron Schock. That surprised me because he ran for Congress as a pro-environment moderate. I thought he might have a record similar to Republican Tim Johnson, who at least scored 60%. It takes effort to vote even wrose than a climate-change denying zealot like John Shimkus.

Campaign ads during his first race for Congress featured him in front of wind turbines promoting alternative energy. He gave lip service to clean energy, but voted for large coal and oil subsidies.

In his most environmental ad, he spoke about clean water, floodplain restoration, and promised to "keep fighting" for the Illinois River.



But, in the least session of Congress, Schock voted against most of the clean water bills tracked by the LCV scorecard. That includes voting against regulation of coal ash, which is a major pollution threat at several sites along the Illinois River.

He spoke about the need for more funding, but in 2011 he voted for H.R. 1, which LCV describes as "the greatest legislative assault ever on the environment and public health, including massive funding cuts and policy assaults on our air, water, wildlife, and wild places." On several other bills, he voted against funding and protection of wildlife, public lands, and clean water.

Schock may attempt a move back to the center if he follows through on his rumored run for Governor. When he speaks about environmental issues, he should be expected to answer for the outrageous bait-and-switch he pulled in his first run for Congress. Protecting rivers requires more than using them for a campaign photo-op.

Illinois' 13th district waits to find out who will represent them in Congress

I received David Gill's email ending his Congressional campaign. With less than 1% separating the two candidates, it's perfectly reasonable for everyone to make sure the person with the most votes won, even if that took a little time.

In a race this close, it's easy to look at one thing or another that might have changed the outcome, and many of those observations will be valid. For example, having a regional press that engaged in fact-checking the candidates may have had an impact. The most frequently mentioned factor is David Hartman's independent candidacy. I suspect most of his votes came from people who liked the idea of voting for someone with "independent" next to their name, even if they knew little or nothing about him. But, Hartman did sound much closer to Gill on the issues, so maybe that helped swing the election to Davis.

More importantly, Hartman's inclusion in the race allowed Rodney Davis to run an extremely negative campaign. It meant that Davis didn't need to worry about alienating independent voters and Democrats with negative attacks because he didn't need to win their votes. He didn't need to win them over to his views. He only needed to make Democratic-leaning voters so disgusted with the race, and raise negative perceptions of Gill enough, that they would vote for an anonymous, independent alternative instead. It was a smart strategy in a district where a majority don't agree with Davis' strongly conservative positions.

The Republican News-Gazette outlined the Davis campaign strategy in an early September editorial, in which they encouraged voters in Democratic Champaign county to vote for Hartman as a protest to negative campaigning. They must have guessed that things would get uglier. The editorial even echoed Davis' complaint that "the DCCC started it" with the George Ryan ads (which were 100% accurate). The News-Gazette strategy memo explains why most of the ugly attack ads came from the Davis camp. Davis had the most to gain and almost nothing to lose by going negative. Despite their early editorial for Hartman, the News-Gazette later endorsed Davis.

Now, we get to discover who we elected. Will it be the Rodney Davis who spoke to the media about bipartisanship and working together with Democrats? Or, will it be the Davis who gave a series of highly partisan speeches, with super-partisan John Shimkus in tow, to Republican crowds at private events, where he spoke proudly of how much work he does to build up the Republican party?

Will it be the Davis who said in Normal that he supports the wind energy tax credit, or will it be the Davis who said in Springfield that tax cuts to benefit clean energy companies are the first loopholes he would eliminate? Will it be the Davis who says reducing the debt is his top priority? Or, will it be the Davis who refused to name any specific tax increases or spending cuts he would support?

I suspect (and hope) that a Davis who resembles his mentor, John Shimkus, will have a very difficult time getting re-elected in this district. Maybe Davis will suppress his inner conservative in favor of representing the district. Off-year elections like 2014 favor Republicans. There won't be an Obama landslide again, so you never know.

Gill's email gave his take on which Rodney Davis the district will tolerate:

The incredibly close outcome of this congressional election, along with the re-election of President Obama and a Democratic Senate, have proven that knee-jerk conservative policies will not succeed in this country nor be accepted by most of the people in this district. It will require compromise and common sense solutions to govern this nation and to serve this region. I have faith that the people and the press in the 13th District will be watching closely. 

What everyone knows for sure is that a result this close means the race will be hotly contested again next time. Central Illinois went many years without a truly competitive Congressional contest. With a district drawn this evenly divided, we should start getting used to more political ads. Campaigning for the 2014 Congressional race should begin sometime shortly after this Thanksgiving. Enjoy!

Reviewing the latest IL-13 Congressional debate...IN SONG!

The Springfield debate for the Illinois 13th Congressional district race with David Gill, Rodney Davis, and John Hartman made songs pop up in my head left and right. So, I'm throwing some music into this post with song lyrics quoted by candidates.

Republican Rodney Davis made his usual opening statement, saying that:

• He's just a normal guy from Taylorville, not a Washington insider.
• He's the best qualified candidate because he knows how to get things done in Washington after working on Congressional staff for John Shimkus.

No one points out that those are two clearly opposite, contradictory statements. I kind of like it because it reminds me of the old SNL Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer skit where Phil Hartman acts like a dumb, confused cavemen, right before making an articulate, complicated legal argument.

Democrat David Gill began with his usual stuff about being an ER doctor and wanting to counter the corporate special interests who have too much power in Washington.

I groaned when the first question was the cliche complaint about negative campaigning, but overall, I think the organizers did a great job picking topics. Davis played the persecuted martyr routine pretty hard, even though a majority of the spending by outside groups is on ads attacking his opponent. As Davis whined about the negative attacks against him, I couldn't help but remember that "Dr. Radical" was making another appearance outside the debate. That's the childish costume character Republicans send to hang around outside Gill events.


(He probably gets paid to do this)


(Group outside the debate protesting Davis' policies for the 1%)

Then the music started. Independent John Hartman brought up the Chuck Berry classic, No Particular Place to Go. I missed something he said but I think his point was about reducing pollution from cars. Hartman has a way of saying something you probably agree with that still leaves you scratching your head. Like the way he takes a good stand in favor of gay marriage, but with the oddly offensive comment that he can tell being gay isn't a choice by the way gay people talk with a lisp. OK then.



Chuck Berry was part of the high speed rail discussion, but not many songs have been written about trains. Kidding! I've been listening to this Old 97's album a lot lately.



Gill spoke in favor of building more mass transit and made the night's first mention of climate change. I thought Davis would talk more about working with local officials for corridor consolidation but he steered the conversation toward tax cuts. The biggest challenge for Springfield is that local leaders procrastinated a decision on where to route train traffic for so long that federal stimulus funding ran out. Calling for more tax cuts and less federal spending would seem to go against Springfield's need for more federal rail money, but no two contradictory ideas ever intersect in Rodney's America.

After all my griping about the State Journal-Register ignoring climate change in their political coverage, I have to give big props to Bernie Schoenburg for asking directly whether the candidates believe man-made pollution is causing the problem and how that influences their views on what action to take. I didn't expect that question to happen in a debate co-hosted by the Chamber of Commerce.

Once again, Rodney Davis dodged giving a direct answer, as he has many times during the campaign. He claims the debate is about how much man-made pollution is contributing to the problem. He, once again, didn't say where he stands in that debate, but it's not hard to figure out. Casting doubt about the scientific consensus is the strategy employed by oil interests like Exxon and the Koch brothers. They want the public to think there's still an unsettled debate within the scientific community. Both Exxon and Koch PAC gave the maximum allowable contributions to the Davis campaign, and he faithfully mimics their talking points.



Both David Gill and Hartman acknowledged the reality that the scientific community is nearly unanimous about the desperate need to reduce man-made climate change pollution. Both called out Davis for his misleading statement, and Davis, once again, failed to respond.

Getting back to gay marriage, Gill talked about his support by saying love is one thing there's never too much of in the world. And, just for a moment, I thought he might break out into the Burt Bacharach standard. I was sadly disappointed, but politicians singing is always a disaster.



The audience was pretty quiet but I heard a reaction to two statements. First, when Gill brought up that Davis was selected as a candidate by a handful of Republican Party leaders and that "we don't know what promises he made" to get the nomination during those closed-door meetings.

The biggest audience reaction of the night was to Rodney Davis claiming that he's the "only candidate on the stage" who will protect Social Security and Medicare. That was too much for people to take after Davis campaigning on repealing Obamacare, and introducing a plan that would essentially privatize Medicare. You could hear loud scoffing and laughter from the skeptical audience.

David Gill was aggressive. I think he did very well, but I'm obviously biased. I'll finish with one last song about the debate showdown. This one features a British band that used synthesizers, but before England jumped the shark with New Wave synth-pop.

John Boehner Champaign welcoming committee video and photos

Republican House Speaker John Boehner held a fundraiser in Champaign for Congressional candidate Rodney Davis. This would be the same Rodney Davis who frequently talks about the need for bipartisanship.

This would be the same John Boehner who pledged that the stimulus bill wouldn't get a single Republican vote. House Republican leaders adopted an obstructionist strategy during a time of national crisis for political gain, even before Obama introduced the stimulus bill. Shouldn't anyone who cares about bipartisanship distance themselves from a leading partisan obstructionist like Boehner, or at least condemn his actions?

For those who missed it like I did, here's news coverage of the fundraiser and protest.

Two videos of the protests are online. I laughed during the first one at the guy who thought he was going to shoo away the protesters off the sidewalk so easily.






Action Now tweeted a few photos.

The next big campaign event is tonight's 13th Congressional district debate in Springfield. I'll send tweets and blog afterward.

Congressional candidates Gill, Davis occupy same stage but different realities. IL-13

Democrat David Gill and Republican Rodney Davis shared the same stage for their debate tonight, but they're clearly not living in the same reality. Let's review a few issues.

Debt and Taxes

Rodney Davis started the debate by saying his top issue is cutting the national debt. His plan for doing so is to cut taxes. Seriously. He wants to reduce revenue to bring down the debt. He doesn't believe in that arithmetic thing Bill Clinton was talking about. 

Later in the debate a student question raised the obvious. Are spending cuts alone, without a tax increase, enough to deal with the debt, and what specifically would you cut from the budget?

Davis again repeated the magical debt-reducing tax cut theory that worked so well for George W. Bush. He didn't name any specific spending cuts he would support. He told the university audience that his unspecified spending cuts would free up more money to spend on student financial aid for college.

In a single debate, Davis claimed that everyone will get tax cuts, that tax cuts will reduce the deficit, that only things you don't like will be cut from the budget, and all the spending you do like will still be increased. Also, everyone gets a unicorn that farts glitter.

David Gill said he supports ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but does not support any tax increase on the middle class. Unlike Davis, he named something specific he would cut. Gill thinks we should already be out of Afghanistan and that military spending can be cut as we withdrawal. 

Gill's plan of proposing specific cuts in a bloated part of the budget, and expiring the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy could be described as a reality-based strategy to cutting the debt. Counting on trickle-down tax cuts to magically grow the economy, as Davis suggests, is exactly how we got the debts of the Reagan and Bush years.

Energy and Climate Change

The moderators didn't bring up climate change, but David Gill did twice. First, he brought up the droughts that hit farmers hard this year and spoke about the need to keep things from getting even worse due to climate change. He later said he takes a science-based approach to the issue, and that it's a real problem we need to deal with. 

Gill says that if we're going to subsidize energy sources that it should be clean tech development rather than subsidies going to oil and dirty energy. He brought up the dirty industry dollars going to the Davis campaign several times, including donations from Exxon, Exelon, and the Koch brothers.

Davis debated both Gill and his own flip-flopping positions on energy. First, he said he opposed federal support to clean energy projects like Solyndra. When asked directly about the clean energy tax credit for wind, he said he supported it, even though he opposed them just last week. Later, he went back to attacking federal spending for clean energy yet again.

Davis flip-flopped three times in under an hour, and never said a word about climate change. He doesn't appear to believe in either science or arithmetic.

Health Care Choice

Rodney Davis repeatedly used the fear tactic of telling people that universal health care will result in the government dictating their choice of doctors and health care decisions. He believes a "market-based" insurance system will give people the freedom to choose their own doctors and health care options. It gets truly bizarre when Davis supports this argument by pointing to his own experience while being on a government, taxpayer-funded health care plan provided by his federal government job.

In contrast, Gill argues that, with his plan, government wouldn't get in the way of personal health care decisions. It's not a problem now with government plans like Medicare. He pointed out that it's the private insurance companies who restrict people to a primary care physician and limit health care decisions, not the government.

I've had health care decisions limited by my insurance company. They told me what doctors I could see and I had to wait for care until it was approved by insurance industry bureaucrats. That's the real world in my personal experience. Limiting patient choice is the core business model of the private HMO insurance system. That's the "market-based" system Davis would push us all into, where insurance companies increase their profits by denying people health care options. Once again, Davis appears to be living in a world of make believe.

Themes

Both candidates were polite, but they got in a couple of digs. Davis brought up Gill's previous runs for Congress and referred to him as a "career politician wannabe." Davis and the press have collective amnesia about Davis previously running and losing for office twice. He ran for State Representative and mayor of Taylorville.

Gill ended the debate quoting the line, "I'll stop telling the truth about you when you stop telling lies about me." Burn.

Gill's biggest theme of the debate was hammering away at the corporate influence in Washington corrupting democracy and working against the interests of the average person. Several times he spoke about the massive amounts of corporate special interest spending for his opponent. 

Davis kept going back to tax cuts and deregulation as the solution for all that ails, aka, "take two tax cuts and call me in the morning."

The moderators did a good job managing the debate. They simply talked over either candidate when they tried to go over time.

The debate showed two very different candidates with contrasting philosophies. It's refreshing to have an independent-minded Democrat in this race who isn't afraid to stand up for his principles.

Rodney Davis denies science behind climate change. Would kill green jobs in Illinois.

It finally happened! During an interview with the State Journal-Register editorial board, Rodney Davis was asked if he accepts the scientific consensus behind climate change.

The question came near the end of their interview with the three candidates in the 13th district Congressional race (at 53:00 in the video online). It was finally discussed after independent candidate John Hartman scolded the SJR editorial board for not asking about an issue as important as climate change. When asked if it's man-made, Hartman spoke about the broad scientific consensus that man-made pollution is driving the climate crisis.

David Gill reinforced the position on his campaign website, saying, "It's not a question of belief, it's a question of what is. The science is extremely clear on this. It's very, very real and it's a grave threat. Irreversible damage is already taking place now. The failure of the Exxon-Mobil funded politicians in Washington D.C. to address it appropriately is perhaps the biggest mistake that we're making."

Gill didn't mention that his Republican opponent, Rodney Davis, already took the maximum allowable campaign contributions from Exxon and the Koch brothers PAC. Both Exxon and the Koch brothers funded deceptive propaganda campaigns to spread doubt about the science of climate change. Does Davis represent the views of his corporate sponsors who try to undermine science?

Davis claimed that, "I think we all agree that climate change is reality. There's a debate between how much of it is man-made and how much of it is due to natural causes."  He didn't say where he stands in that debate.

Once again, Davis dodged saying plainly what he believes about climate change science. Furthermore, his claim about the debate is misleading. There's broad scientific consensus that man-made pollutants are driving greenhouse gasses far beyond normal levels, causing the planetary emergency we face now.

After it became impossible to deny that climate change was already happening, the deniers switched to the "natural causes" argument in an attempt to cast doubt on the scientific consensus. Davis is repeating the misleading talking points used by the fossil fuel industry and their puppets like Glenn Beck, James Inhofe, and John Shimkus. He passed on the opportunity to distinguish himself from the anti-science conspiracy theorists who support his campaign.

Davis even brought out the old straw-man argument I often hear from coal industry spokesmen, that we can't power the country on wind and solar alone. Back on planet reality, no one is seriously proposing we try doing that in the near future. What people do propose is that we create jobs by quickly building a ton of new clean energy. Unfortunately, Davis made it clear in his interview that he opposes meaningful policies to expand wind and solar.

When pressed about what tax loopholes he would close, Davis said “I would like to take away the energy tax credit that gave us the Solyndras of the world.”

First of all, Solyndra made news because it defaulted on a Department of Energy loan guarantee, not because it received a tax credit. Second, Davis personally spoke in favor of a loan guarantee from the same Department of Energy program for a proposed coal plant in Taylorville that was five times bigger than Solyndra's loan.

What's even more baffling about his position is that the production tax credit for wind power is one of the few tax cuts proven to create jobs here in Illinois.

Five to ten thousand direct and indirect jobs are created from Illinois' wind-based maintenance, construction, and manufacturing sectors. The rapid expansion of wind power in Illinois is partly due to the production tax credit.

The tax credit is scheduled to expire soon. Wind power companies argue they need the certainty of knowing it will be extended before launching new projects. Ending the tax credit, as Davis suggests, would destroy construction and manufacturing jobs in Illinois.

Davis speaks frequently about cutting taxes to create jobs and the desire small businesses have for certainty. Extending the production tax credit does both of those things for the wind industry. It's exactly what Davis claims to support in principle, but for some reason, he flip-flops when it comes to wind power.

Ending the production tax credit is the one and only tax increase Rodney Davis claims to support. It takes a real zealot to put thousands of people out of work just to spite clean energy.

When asked if he would also cut tax subsidies to the oil industry, Davis retreated into his standard talking points, defended how the oil industry uses the money, and spoke about the need for more refineries. He never directly answered the question, but he made it clear that he supports oil subsidies.

Davis worries a cap-and-trade system would hurt the economy. He says nothing about the economic impact of more frequent extreme weather events like droughts, flooding, and wildfires that wreak havoc on communities. I didn't hear anyone claim the recent drought was good for Illinois agriculture or hope that we get many more years like it. Doing nothing about climate change will bring economic disaster, and in contrast, building new clean energy is the best jobs plan anyone has come up with.

Voters have a clear choice in this election. One candidate, David Gill, takes a rational approach that respects science. He sounds as though he understands that we must take bold action to reduce climate change pollutants. The other, Rodney Davis, mimics anti-science conspiracy theorists and would subsidize oil and coal while Rome burns.

Here's the full hour-long video of the candidate interview.

 

Let's review why John Shimkus makes national news. With memes!

Illinois Congressman John Shimkus is making national headlines again. Let's review what Shimkus has done in the past to earn national attention.


1) Saying carbon pollution is good because it's plant food.

2) Covering up the Foley Congressional page scandal.

3) Claiming the Bible denies climate change.

4) Walking out on President Obama during the State of the Union address.

And, now we can add to the list that a Shimkus staffer was arrested for allegedly assaulting Lindsay Lohan. The story in New York Daily News is pretty ugly.

I don't want to sell Joe Walsh short, but I think Shimkus wins the title of most embarrassing Congressman in Illinois.

And whatever else people say about her, I thought Lindsay Lohan was great in Machete. I love that movie.

A hidden Obama success story: weatherization and energy efficiency

I sometimes hear people say they wish Barack Obama had created more New Deal style programs to create jobs like the WPA or CCC. It would be even better if he did it to build clean energy projects and deal with climate change.

I often think, that's a great idea! I liked it even better the first time when it was called the federal stimulus bill! Then I try to remember not to be such a sarcastic jerk and politely point out that Obama funded a lot of projects like that when he decided to make energy the main focus of the stimulus bill. Many forget or never knew.

Part of the trouble is that Obama didn't advertise stimulus jobs with catchy acronyms like CCC or WPA. Sure, there were signs at some public works projects but it wasn't mandatory. The vast majority of jobs saved or created by stimulus funding didn't arrive with a sign to let people know where the money came from.

For example, energy efficiency and weatherization funding. I learned at Climate Progress that, after getting $5 billion in the stimulus bill, the Weatherization Assistance Program has weatherized 1 million homes as of September 27, 2012. Woohoo!

The program is a triple win. It creates jobs, helps deal with climate change by lowering energy use, and lowers monthly utility bills. The post at Climate Progress points out that "state governments have been using a network of over 1,000 local agencies and more than 4,000 private contractors while employing an average of more than 12,000 workers per quarter to perform weatherization services across the country."

The Weatherization Assistance Program not only created jobs desperately needed in the construction industry, it also provided a boost for American manufacturing and small businesses. More than 89 percent of the materials used in home retrofits are made right here in America. In all cases, except refrigerators (which are 62.3 percent domestically produced), retrofitting homes exceeded the national average for domestic share of all manufactured products used in the United States of 76.5 percent. Recovery Act funding went through these channels to stimulate local economies, employ thousands, and create demand for American-made supplies. 

I'm sure workers in some of the factories making those materials know they won new orders because of the weatherization program. But, I wonder how many people are aware that a factory in their town was able to stay open or hire new employees because of orders generated by the program. Not many, I bet.

Consider how it was implemented in my community as a typical example. Federal money was given to the states and passed down to agencies with weatherization programs. It allowed Sangamon County to dramatically expand their program during a time of major budget cuts. I'll be cynical and assume that the heavily Republican Sangamon county government probably operated by their usual buddy system and hired contractors they knew.

Neither Republican county leaders nor the friends they hire to do the work will go out of their way to credit Obama. In fact, many of them are the sort of people who nod their head when a politician says "government doesn't create jobs," even if they've spent most of their lives working for the government.

One might read in the newspaper or on the county website that the program was expanded thanks to stimulus funds, but there's nothing obvious to point that out when the work is being done. No one from the federal CCC or WPA came to work on their house. A contractor sent by the county did. It's likely that many program participants are unaware or quickly forget about the connection to federal stimulus funding.

The $25 Billion of energy efficiency spending in the stimulus bill included much more than weatherization. Using another local example, Springfield's public utility did very well applying for stimulus funds, getting awards for a number of popular new and expanded programs.

The utility isn't shy about saying they received funding from the awkwardly named American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. But, there's no particular reason to mention ARRA to every single person when work is being done and rebates are being distributed.

From a governing standpoint, it may have been more effective to distribute funding through existing agencies and non-profits rather than creating a new federal bureaucracy.

From a political standpoint, it was a huge failure not to brand the stimulus with a catchy name that would be mentioned every time a job is saved or created. That allows Republicans to call the stimulus a failure and continue repeating the delusion that government doesn't create jobs. It also allows Green Party cynics to make their own delusional claim that Obama is no better than Bush on energy issues.

This is more important than Democrats taking credit for a hugely successful program that every single Republican in Congress voted against. Obama just made the largest investment in clean energy and efficiency projects in American history, by far. But, every expert I've read believes we must do much, much more.

There's no path to dealing with climate change that doesn't include dramatically reducing the amount of energy we waste. It's important to brag about the success of these programs because they need to happen again in Obama's second term.

Rodney Davis supports Bush economic policies on steroids and radical deregulation.

Rodney Davis released an economic plan today and (big surprise!) he thinks we should go back to the George W. Bush policies of more tax cuts and deregulation. Didn't that work so well last time?! He calls his plan "back on track" and it certainly would get us back to the Bush policies that lead to the economic collapse.

Davis thinks we should extend the Bush tax cuts for millionaires instead of using that money to balance the budget. He also repeated one of my favorite talk-radio cliches in his press release when he said, "government doesn’t create jobs."

He claimed government doesn't create jobs at a press conference in Edwardsville, where the top employer is big government state school Southern Illinois University. He's running in the Illinois 13th Congressional district where the top employers are the State of Illinois, Illinois public universities like SIUE, UIUC, ISU, and UIS. The next top employers include public K-12 schools, and hospitals, which are heavily dependent on government funding from Medicare and Medicaid.

Does Davis have no f*ing idea where most of the people in this district work for a living?! And, oh yeah, Davis also spent his entire adult life working in government jobs. Who created his jobs working for George Ryan and John Shimkus? The tooth fairy?

Davis also came out in support of the REINS Act. This would allow Congress to approve or repeal "any regulation that has $100 million economic impact or greater." That number is small enough that it would apply to any significant regulation on large corporations. It's being pushed heavily by the Koch-funded Heritage Foundation.

Regulation would be taken away from professionals trained to understand the industry they oversee and placed instead in the hands of a Congress that's taking campaign contributions from corporate special interests.

Workplace safety, clean water, clean air, consumer protection, child labor. Say goodbye! All could be weakened or repealed as soon as a regulated special interest bribes Congress with enough campaign contributions.

It's a recipe for taking us back to a pre-Roosevelt economic policy. I mean Teddy Roosevelt, not Franklin.

Davis' campaign likes to throw the word "radical" around a lot when talking about his opponent, David Gill. But, Davis just released the most radical, extremist position I've seen this election season. It's pretty clear now why he took so long to tell people where he stands on the issues.

Nasty attack site complains about negative campaigning. Order a Dr. Radical.

I've heard that Republicans have a guy following around Democratic Congressional candidate David Gill in surgical scrubs and calling himself "Dr. Radical." The Illinois Republican Party (where Gill's opponent, Rodney Davis, used to be Executive Director) has a website to match, complete with a cartoonishly bad photoshop job of Gill putting on a surgical glove, as if he's about to perform a colonoscopy.

The website is mostly full of gross distortions about Gill wanting to end Medicare, when the reality is that he would essentially extend it to everyone. But, the best part is when this sophomoric, ugly campaign site accuses David Gill of "not running a positive campaign." Seriously!



This made me laugh for a good ten minutes. Isn't that the perfect conservative talk-radio style attack? The site is saying, "We expect you to run a positive campaign while we call you childish names and lie about your platform." It reminds me of Mitt Romney's recent whining that Obama is running a negative campaign after Romney spent the past year lying about Obama's record. Davis and Romney want everyone else to follow the rules they ignore.

It's standard operating procedure for talk radio conservatives to accuse Democrats of anything shameful that Republicans are in the process of doing. My favorite was during the Mark Foley Congressional page scandal when Fox News kept bringing up a similar 30 year old scandal involving a Democrat. Was that supposed to be an excuse for Foley?

Another example is when you have a candidate, like Rodney Davis, who wants to put everyone's health care in the hands of the private insurance industry, which obviously wouldn't include a public program like Medicare. Falsely accusing Gill of wanting to end Medicare is a tactic to blur the distinction between the two candidates. Now, reporters who want to seem balanced will write headlines like "both campaigns accuse the other of attacking Medicare" and the issue is successfully obfuscated. The tactic usually works.

I'm not sure how effective this attack will be. Dr. Radical sounds more like a cool comic book character. Are people really scared of the word radical anymore?

When discussing this with a friend, we had the thought that "Dr. Radical" sounds more like a mixed drink. Which begs the question, what ingredients would make up a Dr. Radical?

I'm guessing it would have to include my favorite soda, Dr. Pepper. I remember finding out in the Ken Burns Prohibition documentary that some people got around the law by obtaining a prescription for supposed medicinal use of alcohol. Also, it was common for doctors to use whiskey for treating various ailments during the Civil War.

When General U.S. Grant was accused of being a drunkard, Lincoln famously asked the accuser to find out what brand of whiskey Grant drinks and send a barrel to the other generals. Legend has it that Grant preferred Old Crow whiskey. Coincidentally, Grant sided with the "Radical Republicans" during his Presidency. Being "radical" in those days meant you had crazy ideas like smashing KKK terrorism and guaranteeing the right to vote regardless of race. As the saying goes, conservatism is the worship of dead radicals.

So, clearly, a Dr. Radical drink would mix Dr. Pepper and Old Crow whiskey. If anyone decides to try one let me know if it's any good.

And if you want to show Rodney Davis that negative campaigning backfires then you might donate to David Gill.

Remember when Bobby Schilling was a Tea Partier?

I have to give credit to Illinois Congressman Bobby Schilling and his campaign team. They've put in a great effort to transform his image from an ultra-conservative Tea Party Congressman to a sensible moderate. I've noticed the change of tone in his public statements and facebook page, where he often posts about bipartisanship.

Of course, even the most bitterly partisan Republican members of Congress are touting bipartisanship this election season, as if they hadn't spent the last two years making the defeat of Barack Obama their #1 priority over helping the economy recover. Schilling is running in a newly drawn Democratic-leaning district against Cheri Bustos.

Reading news about the campaign reminded me of a forum I attended last year with the old, unreformed Schilling. Back then, he still opposed high speed rail, and even the extension of Amtrak service to the Quad Cities. 

When I spoke with Schilling afterward he denied the scientific consensus behind climate change. Then he suggested that he has a lower carbon footprint than me because he uses E-85 ethanol. I'm glad he's thinking about that, but, well, I don't think he knows how much I've done to lower my carbon footprint. When I brought up deadly pollution from coal plants he brought up cow farts. Seriously. You can read more at my blog post about the forum.

It's hard for me to understand what motivates grown adults like Schilling to deny the overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are contributing to climate change and that we must take immediate action. Is it ideological zealotry? A willingness to serve the coal and oil industry against the public interest? Or, do they know better but are afraid to anger the talk-radio Republican base? Whatever the reason, one of the top election issues this year is whether we'll have an anti-science Congress, or one that chooses to live in the reality-based community.

Rodney Davis has more trouble answering questions again, and again, and...

A pattern is emerging in Rodney Davis' campaign for Congress (IL-13). He's trying to run without answering tough questions or taking clear stands on controversial issues. He mostly attends private Republican events and has so far avoided public forums where he would have to answer difficult questions.

When a reporter asked about his previous support for the Ryan budget he said he supported some parts but not others. But, he wouldn't say which parts. When asked if he supported the parts that cut Medicare he "didn't want to get boxed in" by taking a position.

Then he scurried away when I asked him about climate change during a press conference about flooding. How does someone rationalize holding a press conference about flooding along the Mississippi and NOT talk about climate change?

When people posted dozens of questions on his campaign page asking for his position on climate change his campaign ignored them and deleted every single question, no matter how politely worded. During a press conference on energy policy (held at a gas station outside the district) he still managed to avoid explaining whether he shares the anti-science, conspiratorial views of his former boss, John Shimkus.

Back in June he walked away from a voter who asked if he supports the Ryan budget and ignored a group who asked if he would support a minimum wage increase. This Tuesday, Action Now gathered outside Davis' $250 a plate fundraiser at the Illini Country Club. They asked, once again, why Davis is holding private events outside the district instead of answering tough questions.

Action Now has an online petition asking Davis to hold a town hall meeting in Springfield. It makes the modest request that Davis:

• Run a clean, transparent campaign. As working parents who hold one, two and sometimes three jobs, we cannot easily attend events if we are given only 24 hours notice. We need adequate, advance notice before a meeting is held.

• Answer our questions. We deserve to know where Davis stands on issues that affect us, including the creation of good jobs, stopping cuts to vital services and ensuring the top 1% pay their fair share.

I won't hold my breath, but accepting their petition would show that Davis is willing to appear to groups other than the Republican party faithful.

Davis isn't the first candidate to try getting elected by ducking controversial issues. Many consultants will advise that it's a smart strategy. Sometimes it works. Usually, a candidate isn't shy about where they stand if their views are in line with the district they're running in. What it suggests is that Davis holds extremist views similar to those of his former boss, John Shimkus, and he knows that isn't the kind of Congressman most voters in Illinois' 13th district are looking for.

Then again, he might just be auditioning for a part in the traveling production of Monty Phyton's Spamalot.

Beating a dead dancing horse

I was thinking of finishing off a post I started about Mitt Romney's Manifest Destiny foreign policy views and how those views are likely influenced by Mormon beliefs about America being a kind of promised land. But, why bother? I never thought Romney had much of a chance and things keep getting worse for him.

The only question now is how much of Congress will be filled with obstructionists who would rather sabotage the economy than vote for anything proposed by Barack Obama. I'll be focusing on down-ballot races.