Top lawmakers proposed a stopgap funding package on Monday night that would avert a government shutdown at the end of the week and set aside a major new round of emergency aid to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia.
With funding set to run out when a new fiscal year begins on Saturday, lawmakers are aiming to quickly move the legislation through both chambers in the coming days to keep the government funded through Dec. 16. But even as the final details of the package came together, it faced an increasing likelihood that it could not pass in its current form.
Most of the measures in the package, which would punt difficult negotiations over the dozen annual spending bills to after the November midterm elections, appeared to generate little opposition. It would provide just over $12 billion in military and economic aid to Ukraine, and ensure the federal government could quickly spend money on natural disaster recovery efforts, according to a summary from the Senate Appropriations Committee. It also notably sidestepped the Biden administration’s request for emergency funds to combat the coronavirus pandemic and monkeypox, given Republican opposition. …
What’s my plan for the next two years? I will be happy, healthy and successful. What will I do to achieve these things? What are you, a Marxist?
I’ve now summarized the essence of the Commitment to America announced by House Republicans last week. This “plan” was obviously meant to evoke Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract With America, which was followed by a Republican takeover of Congress.
But the Contract With America, love it or hate it — put me in the latter category — offered a fairly specific policy agenda, with a list of planned legislation. What Republicans have just released, by contrast, is mainly a list of good things they claim will happen, with barely a hint of how they propose to make them happen.
If you squint hard at the economics section of the Commitment to America, however, you can see the faint outlines of a familiar set of ideas — zombie Reaganomics. Which raises a question: Why are deregulation, benefit cuts and tax breaks for the rich still the ruling ideology of a party that now claims to stand for the working class? …
Before I get there, a couple of notes on what the economics portion of the commitment actually says.
First, it’s striking how many of the economic complaints are about things that are barely, if at all, affected by government policy, like the price of gas (which has come down a lot since its peak) and supply-chain disruptions (which have been diminishing).
Second, immediately after declaring that “we have a plan to fix the economy,” House Republicans say that they will “curb wasteful government spending.” As anyone who follows budget debates knows, that’s the ultimate weasel phrase. What spending are we talking about, specifically?
Bear in mind that the federal government is basically an insurance company with an army: The great bulk of spending is on health care, retirement and the military. You can’t meaningfully cut expenditure without attacking at least one of these. So which parts of that spending are wasteful?
Well, Senator Rick Scott, the chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has called for sunsetting all federal programs — including Social Security and Medicare — every five years, which would open the door to gutting America’s social safety net. Other Republicans have tried to distance themselves from that idea, although without removing Scott from his position. But again, what is this wasteful spending they propose to cut?
But back to the commitment. Its economic program, such as it is, calls for “pro-growth tax and deregulatory policies.” No specifics, but this is clearly a call for zombie Reaganomics. …
Why “zombie”? Because we now have four decades’ worth of experience showing that deregulation and tax cuts for the rich do not, in fact, produce higher wages and faster economic growth. So the idea that tax cuts are the secret of prosperity should be dead, yet somehow it’s still shambling along, eating Republican brains.
Of course, I’m just saying that because I’m a Marxist. (I’m not, but that’s what modern Republicans call anyone who supports progressive taxation and social insurance.) But for what it’s worth, financial markets share my skepticism. Look at what’s happening in Britain, where Prime Minister Liz Truss’s recent announcement of a Reaganite economic plan sent interest rates soaring and the pound plunging. …
… But a funny thing (or not so funny, if you’re British) happened over the past week, when Liz Truss, the new prime minister of the United Kingdom, announced a neo-Reaganite “fiscal event.” (She didn’t call it a proper budget, because that would have required issuing fiscal and economic projections, which probably would have been embarrassing.)
It was already clear that the Truss government was going to have to increase spending in the short run, to aid families hit with higher energy bills stemming from Vladimir Putin’s de facto natural gas embargo. Rather than raising taxes to help cover this expense, however, Truss’s chancellor of the Exchequer — basically her Treasury secretary — announced tax cuts, notably a big reduction in taxes on the highest earners. …
The International Monetary Fund is just one of the many voices that have criticized a plan to cut rates for high earners.
A stunning rebuke from the International Monetary Fund this week underscored one of the biggest risks of the new British government’s plan to slash taxes on high earners: It could exacerbate rapid inflation and destabilize markets at a precarious economic moment.
The alarm from economists, central bankers, investors and top U.S. officials centered on the likelihood that the tax cuts could stoke consumer demand by giving people more money to spend, pushing crushingly high prices even higher. That would put the British government in direct conflict with aggressive efforts of the central banks around the globe — and in the United Kingdom — that are raising interest rates in a bid to bring inflation under control.
Many economists say British officials are also ignoring the lessons of the most recent bout of tax cuts — those engineered in the United States by former President Donald J. Trump. Empirical research on the early results of those cuts suggests that they mostly helped the economy by temporarily increasing consumer demand, an outcome that could prove particularly damaging in the high-inflation environment that Britain and much of the world are experiencing.
Liz Truss, Britain’s new prime minister, has staked her fledgling government on a oversize, once-in-a-generation package of tax cuts and deregulation meant to energize the economy. It includes a cut in rates for the country’s lowest income tax bracket — and, in what was a surprise move, a five-percentage-point cut in the country’s top income tax rate, which applies to those earning more than 150,000 pounds, or about $164,000, a year. …
The International Monetary Fund responded to those proposals with the sort of pointed criticism it typically reserves for an emerging-market economy, not for the economy of one of the wealthiest nations in the world.
“Given elevated inflation pressures in many countries, including the U.K., we do not recommend large and untargeted fiscal packages at this juncture, as it is important that fiscal policy does not work at cross purposes to monetary policy,” the I.M.F. said in a news release on Tuesday.
The statement noted that the tax cuts would most likely increase economic inequality, and it urged the British government to “provide support that is more targeted and re-evaluate the tax measures, especially those that benefit high income earners.” …
(AP) — Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin has abandoned, for now, his push to speed up the permitting process for energy projects, easing the Senate’s path toward passing a stopgap spending bill that would keep the federal government running when the fiscal year ends at midnight Friday.
A procedural vote Tuesday advancing the funding bill succeeded easily, 72-23, after Democrats announced that the West Virginia senator’s proposal would be stripped from the final legislation. It was clear that, with Manchin’s plan included, Democrats were falling far short of the 60 votes needed to proceed, as most Republicans objected to it.
While lawmakers are again waiting to the final moments of the fiscal year to pass legislation keeping the government running, they are confident they will do so. Neither party is interested in a shutdown heading into the critical midterm elections Nov. 8 that will determine which party is in charge of the House and Senate.
In addition to government funding, the spending measure provides about $12.3 billion in assistance related to Ukraine, including training, equipment, weapons and direct financial support for the Ukraine government. The assistance would be on top of some $53 billion Congress has already approved through two previous bills. …
The measure excludes the White House call for spending $22 billion to respond to COVID-19, and $3.9 billion to fight against an outbreak of the monkeypox virus. Republican lawmakers were overwhelmingly opposed to the health funding. At least 10 Republican senators would have to support the measure to overcome procedural hurdles and advance in that chamber.
The most contentious piece of the legislation was Manchin’s plan to streamline the permitting process for energy projects and make it easier for a pipeline project in his home state and Virginia to proceed.
Manchin in a statement confirmed he had asked Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to remove the permitting language and said he was holding to his belief that “we should never come to the brink of a government shutdown over politics.” …
Both chambers of Congress must approve legislation by Friday, which is the end of the fiscal year, to prevent a partial government shutdown. It represents the last bit of unfinished business for lawmakers before the midterm elections in November. Lawmakers from both parties are eager to wrap up and spend time on the campaign trail, lowering the risk of a federal stoppage.
Manchin, who chairs the Senate Energy Committee, had secured a commitment from President Joe Biden and Democratic leaders to have a vote on the permitting package in return for his support of a landmark law to curb climate change. …
Defense officials responsible for purchasing weapons for more than 40 nations discussed how to ramp up production for a potentially yearslong war.
In a sign that the United States and its allies believe that the fighting in Ukraine will last years, military officials from more than 40 countries gathered at NATO’s headquarters in Brussels on Wednesday to discuss how their governments can ramp up production of arms and ammunition.
The meeting was held under the auspices of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, which the U.S. Defense Department created after Russia invaded the country in late February.
The top civilian and uniformed military leaders of member nations meet monthly to review Ukraine’s needs and requests, and their pledges of support. But on Wednesday, the government officials responsible for purchasing weapons — “national armaments directors,” as the Pentagon calls them — met as a group for the first time. William A. LaPlante, the Pentagon’s top acquisitions official, led the closed-door session.
After months of shipping billions of dollars’ worth of weapons to Ukraine, the donor countries now find that they need to make more munitions to continue the flow as winter approaches. But increasing production is not necessarily something that can happen overnight. …
More than 40 nations attended the group’s inaugural meeting at Ramstein Air Base in Germany on April 26, including all of the countries in NATO, several European nations that hope to join and eight so-called “major non-NATO allies” from Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the Pacific. Since then, a few countries from the Americas have also signed on. …
(AP) — The U.S. will provide an additional $1.1 billion in aid to Ukraine, with funding for about 18 more advanced rocket systems and other weapons to counter drones that Russia has been using against Ukrainian troops, the Biden administration announced Wednesday.
The latest package is being provided under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which funds contracts to purchase weapons and equipment. And it brings the total of U.S. aid to Ukraine to nearly $17 billion since the Biden administration took office. …
… The package includes funding for 18 of the High-Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, and ammunition for them, and 12 Titan systems, which are used to counter drones. Officials have said the HIMARS and other similar systems were key to Ukraine’s battle successes in recent weeks. And the Russians have been using Iranian-made drones to target Ukrainian forces, underscoring the need for more systems to counter that threat.
Also in the package is funding for about 300 vehicles, dozens of trucks and trailers to transport heavy equipment, a variety of radars, communications and surveillance equipment, and other gear for soldiers. It also will include funding for equipment to detect explosives and for maintenance and training. …
Flaring, meant to burn off the planet-warming gas at industrial sites, doesn’t always work as intended, according to researchers.
The oil industry practice of burning unwanted methane is less effective than previously assumed, scientists said Thursday, resulting in new estimates for releases of the greenhouse gas in the United States that are about five times as high as earlier ones.
In a study of the three largest oil and gas basins in the United States, the researchers found that the practice, known as flaring, often doesn’t completely burn the methane, a potent heat-trapping gas that is often a byproduct of oil production. And in many cases, they discovered, flares are extinguished and not reignited, so all the methane escapes into the atmosphere.
Improving efficiency and ensuring that all flares remain lit would result in annual emissions reductions in the United States equal to taking nearly 3 million cars off the road each year, the scientists said.
“Flares have been kind of ‘out of sight, out of mind,’” said one of the researchers, Eric A. Kort, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Michigan. “But they actually matter more for climate than we realized.” …
“So if we clean up our act with these flares, we actually would have a much more positive climate impact than we would have realized initially,” Dr. Kort said.
Because methane is a stronger, though shorter-lived, greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, efforts to identify and reduce methane emissions have intensified in recent years.
Methane is the primary component of natural gas, also known as fossil gas, which can leak into the atmosphere from wells, pipelines and other infrastructure, and is also deliberately released for maintenance or other reasons.
But vast amounts are flared.
Gas that is flared is often produced with oil at wells around the world, or at other industry facilities. There may not be a pipeline or other means to market it economically, and because it is flammable, it poses safety issues. In such cases, the gas is sent through a vertical pipe with an igniter at the top, and burned.
The International Energy Agency estimated that worldwide in 2021, more than 140 million cubic meters of methane was burned in this way, equal to the amount imported that year by Germany, France and the Netherlands.
If the combustion is efficient, almost all of the methane is destroyed, converted into carbon dioxide, which has less of an immediate climate impact. The Environmental Protection Agency, in studies conducted in the 1980s, calculated that flares destroyed 98 percent of the methane sent through them.
But the new research found that flaring was actually far less effective, especially when unlit flares were taken into account. Emissions from improper flaring accounted for as much as 10 percent of all methane emissions in the oil and gas industry, the scientists said. The findings were published in the journal Science. …
Methane has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over the first 20 years after it reaches the atmosphere. Even though CO2 has a longer-lasting effect, methane sets the pace for warming in the near term. At least 25% of today’s global warming is driven by methane from human actions.
Déjà vu all over again?
Lawmakers Propose Measure to Avert Government Shutdown This Week
NY Times – Sep 27
ibid
Why Zombie Reaganomics Still Rules the GOP.
NY Times – Paul Krugman – Sep 26
Britain’s Gamble on Tax Cuts Has Economists Warning of Past Mistakes
NY Times – Sep 29
Manchin ends pipeline push, easing path for spending bill
Boston Globe – Sep 27
How it’s going in United Europe. (Facilitated by the US.)
Meeting in Brussels Signifies a Turning Point for Allies Arming Ukraine
NY Times – Sep 28
US announces $1.1 billion more in military aid for Ukraine
Boston Globe – Sep 28
It actually makes me pretty angry to read this.
Methane Might Be a Bigger Climate Problem Than Thought, Study Finds
NY Times – Sep 29
Because methane is a stronger, though shorter-lived, greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, efforts to identify and reduce methane emissions have intensified in recent years.
Methane is the primary component of natural gas, also known as fossil gas, which can leak into the atmosphere from wells, pipelines and other infrastructure, and is also deliberately released for maintenance or other reasons.
But vast amounts are flared.
Gas that is flared is often produced with oil at wells around the world, or at other industry facilities. There may not be a pipeline or other means to market it economically, and because it is flammable, it poses safety issues. In such cases, the gas is sent through a vertical pipe with an igniter at the top, and burned.
The International Energy Agency estimated that worldwide in 2021, more than 140 million cubic meters of methane was burned in this way, equal to the amount imported that year by Germany, France and the Netherlands.
If the combustion is efficient, almost all of the methane is destroyed, converted into carbon dioxide, which has less of an immediate climate impact. The Environmental Protection Agency, in studies conducted in the 1980s, calculated that flares destroyed 98 percent of the methane sent through them.
But the new research found that flaring was actually far less effective, especially when unlit flares were taken into account. Emissions from improper flaring accounted for as much as 10 percent of all methane emissions in the oil and gas industry, the scientists said. The findings were published in the journal Science. …
Methane has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over the first 20 years after it reaches the atmosphere. Even though CO2 has a longer-lasting effect, methane sets the pace for warming in the near term. At least 25% of today’s global warming is driven by methane from human actions.
Cutting methane emissions …
(Of course, much of that is from bovine flatulence, which no one is ever going to do anything about, alas.)