CORY GARDNER, ONE REALLY BAD EGG IN THE LVC'S DIRTY DOZEN 24APR14

SEN MARK UDALL D CO has been endorsed by the LVC / League of Conservation voters for reelection. His challenger, rep cory gardner r tb CO, is the kind of congressman who has been paid for by the koch brothers and the big oil and gas lobbies. He is not representing the best interest of the people of Colorado as a representative in congress, instead he kow-tows to the demands of the corporate interest as payback for the $450,000+ he has already received from them. These are the same corporations and politicians who have weakened the EPA and state environmental regulatory agencies so that environmental disasters like the chemical spill in the Kanawah River and the coal ash spill in the Dan River were made not only possible but likely. cory gardner will do nothing to prevent a similar environmental disaster from occurring in your community. If you can please make a donation to LVC's Action Fund (no amount is too small, I donated $5.00) to provide the financial support Sen Mark Udall and those like him the means to defeat the koch brothers and the the big oil and gas industries. 

Cory Gardner "Wrong Way" Ad

 Since we named climate change-denying Senate candidate Cory Gardner to the Dirty Dozen last week -- and LCV launched a TV ad highlighting his ties with Big Oil -- he has come back with a fierce attack on us and Senator Mark Udall. Gardner called us an “extreme organization” and issued a challenge to Senator Udall to return the campaign contributions we’ve given to him because they have “rewarded him for his unwavering loyalty” to his commitment to conservation. (Uh yeah, we know he’s been loyal -- Senator Udall has a 97% lifetime environmental score!)

Clearly we’ve made Congressman Gardner nervous and he thinks that attacking Senator Udall’s amazing record of standing up for our environment will win him points. Let’s show him he’s wrong -- that Senator Udall’s support for our environment will help him win the support of Colorado voters, and that Congressman Gardner’s history of denying climate change science, siding with oil companies, and voting against our environment will be his undoing.

BIG NEWS: We’re going all in to defeat climate change denier Cory Gardner in his race challenging our ally Senator Mark Udall in Colorado. But the race is already really close! Donate to LCV Action Fund to help win this critical race >>  The race between our ally Senator Mark Udall and climate change denier Cory Gardner is way too close and the Koch brothers are already pouring money into Colorado. Donate to LCV Action Fund now to help us go ALL IN on this race >> What’s that we hear? A climate change denier is challenging one of our biggest allies in the Senate? And the race is already within just a few points? We are so IN! We’ve just added Congressman Cory Gardner to the Dirty Dozen -- that means we’re going to take on this polluter-funded Senate candidate and we’re not going to stop until he’s defeated. We’re putting everything we’ve got into this race to make sure that this climate change denier can’t even get close to unseating our ally Senator Mark Udall in his reelection campaign. It’s not going to be easy -- early polling shows that the race is neck-and-neck. When it’s this close this early, the only way to win is to start working immediately, but we need your help to do that. Early support is what wins elections. Contribute to LCV Action Fund now to make sure our ally Senator Mark Udall can defeat climate change denier Cory Gardner >> We can’t wait to act on this. The Koch brothers certainly aren’t. Their front group, Freedom Partners, has just dumped $1.1 million into TV ads in Colorado and Iowa. Gardner has gotten more than $450,000 in contributions from the oil and gas industry. And it’s clear as day why they’re so invested in this race. Gardner has repeatedly sided with Big Oil by voting against eliminating billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded subsidies to the nation’s most profitable oil companies. He even signed a pledge on tax policy that would protect these billions in Big Oil handouts! And Gardner isn’t just an ally of the dirty energy industry when it comes to subsidies. He has also repeatedly denied the overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are the driving force behind climate change. His atrocious voting record across the board on the environment has earned him a pitiful 9% lifetime score on our National Environmental Scorecard. Make a gift now to help us defeat him >> Can you imagine what damage it would do if this climate change denier unseated Senator Mark Udall, who has earned an amazing 97% lifetime environmental score? We CANNOT lose this race. We HAVE to get boots on the ground now to get the word out about Cory Gardner’s extreme positions -- but it takes resources to make sure we can knock on enough doors, make enough phone calls, and get neighbors talking to neighbors so we can turn out an environmental majority this election. The sooner you give to LCV Action Fund, the faster we can employ the grassroots tactics necessary to extend Senator Udall’s lead over climate change denier Cory Gardner. Donate now >> Our Dirty Dozen program targets candidates for Congress -- regardless of party affiliation -- who consistently side against the environment and are running in races in which LCV has a serious chance to affect the outcome. Last cycle, we defeated 11 of the 12 candidates on the Dirty Dozen. I know we can have that same success this year. But with races starting out as close as this one, we will have to fight tooth and nail to come out on top. So thanks for chipping in today to make sure we can start our first Senate Dirty Dozen campaign off strong. Best, Gene Karpinski President LCV Action Fund Paid for by League of Conservation Voters Action Fund, www.lcvactionfund.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

1920 L Street, NW Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
202-785-8683

Throw Big Oil off the fiscal cliff 5DEZ12

BIG oil did their best to buy this election, they threw away millions of dollars trying to buy a government that would protect their corporate welfare. They lost. NOW is the time, with the fiscal cliff looming, to demand our government eliminate the federal tax subsidies exxon, chevron, mobil, conoco, texaco and all the other dirty energy companies. They do not deserve the federal tax subsidies and tax breaks, and we can not afford to continue them. NOW is the time to end corporate welfare for the big oil companies. Click the link to send this message to your members of Congress.

Tell your members of Congress to throw Big Oil off the fiscal cliff and protect investments in conservation, clean energy, and public health! Tell your members of Congress to end Big Oil handouts, not environmental protections! We've got an idea for Congress: How about instead of cutting investments that support our families, protect our health, and preserve our environment, we finally get rid of those handouts that give oil companies billions of our taxpayer dollars every year to keep polluting our air and waterways? It seems like the most obvious plan, but right now Big Oil's congressional allies are pushing hard to do just the opposite as Congress looks for a way to deal with the so-called "fiscal cliff." Big Oil's allies in Congress want to protect special tax breaks for dirty energy companies while cutting investments in conservation, clean energy, and public health.  That makes no sense. But unless Congress hears from us now, they might just have their way. Email your members of Congress today: Tell them to throw Big Oil off the fiscal cliff, not the environmental programs that we all depend on! Big Oil has already recorded over $90 billion in profits so far in 2012. Yet the oil industry continues to receive $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies every year.  It is unacceptable that Big Oil's congressional cronies would have us fork over our tax dollars to these corporate polluters, while being forced to cut programs that protect our health and our environment. But even though environmental programs only make up 1.25% of the national budget, some members of Congress think we can somehow balance the budget by further decimating these critical programs. They would:     – Eliminate tax credits that have helped the wind industry grow,     – Starve our National Parks of funding,     – Cut programs for clean energy research and innovation,     – Undermine efforts to clean up contaminated waterways, and     – End programs that support more than 130 National Wildlife Refuges. We can't afford to lose these programs that keep our water clean, protect the places and wildlife we love, and build the infrastructure we need to curb global warming. So we need to make sure that Congress hears loud and clear that their constituents will not allow our health and our future to be traded away — especially not while they keep doling out billions to dirty energy companies. Send a message to your members of Congress right now urging them to put an end to Big Oil handouts, not our environmental protection programs. If we ended the handouts that we currently give to oil and gas companies, it would save more than $40 billion over the next 10 years. Given the furor over cutting wasteful spending, this should be a no-brainer. But Congress won't do it without hearing from you today. So we hope you'll join us in asking your member of Congress to stop subsidizing an industry that harms our health, and invest instead in clean energy jobs that will that strengthen our environment, our economy, and our energy independence. Thanks, Gene Karpinski President League of Conservation Voters

1920 L Street, NW Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036
202-785-8683

12 Things You Should Know About Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan 11AUG12

paul ryan r WI and mitt romney's pick for his running mate is like Dr Evil's minni-me, but there is nothing to laugh about if you understand the threat this team presents to the middle class, the working class, the working poor, the retired, disabled, women, students, Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid. A primer from Think Progress....

Mitt Romney has picked as his running mate 42 year-old Republican Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), the architect of the GOP budget, which the New York Times has described as “the most extreme budget plan passed by a house of Congress in modern times.” Below are 12 things you should know about Ryan and his policies:
1. Embraces extreme individualism. Ryan heaped praise on Ayn Rand, a 20th-century libertarian novelist best known for her philosophy that centered on the idea that selfishness is “virtue.” Rand described altruism as “evil,” condemned Christianity for advocating compassion for the poor, viewed the feminist movement as “phony,” and called Arabs “almost totally primitive savages. Though he publicly rejected “her philosophy” in 2012, Ryan had professed himself a strong devotee. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” he said at a D.C. gathering honoring the author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.” “I give out ‘Atlas Shrugged’ as Christmas presents, and I make all my interns read it. Well… I try to make my interns read it.” Learn more about Ryan’s muse:

2. Raises taxes on the middle class, cuts them for millionaires. Paul Ryan’s infamous budget — which Romney embraced — replaces “the current tax structure with two brackets — 25 percent and 10 percent — and cut the top rate from 35 percent.” Federal tax collections would fall “by about $4.5 trillion over the next decade” as a result and to avoid increasing the national debt, the budget proposes massive cuts in social programs and “special-interest loopholes and tax shelters that litter the code.” But 62 percent of the savings would come from programs that benefit the lower- and middle-classes, who would also experience a tax increase. That’s because while Ryan “would extend the Bush tax cuts, which are due to expire at the end of this year, he would not extend President Obama’s tax cuts for those with the lowest incomes, which will expire at the same time.” Households “earning more than $1 million a year, meanwhile, could see a net tax cut of about $300,000 annually.”
Audiences have booed Ryan for the unfair distribution:

3. Dramatically increases Medicare costs for seniors, increases eligibility age. Ryan’s latest budget transforms the existing version of Medicare, in which government provides seniors with a guaranteed benefit, into a “premium support” system. All future retirees would receive a government contribution to purchase insurance from an exchange of private plans or traditional fee-for-service Medicare. But since the premium support voucher does not keep up with increasing health care costs, the Congressional Budget Offices estimates that new beneficiaries could pay up to $1,200 more by 2030 and more than $5,900 more by 2050. A recent study also found that had the plan been implemented in 2009, 24 million beneficiares enrolled in the program would have paid higher premiums to maintain their choice of plan and doctors. Ryan would also raise Medicare’s age of eligibility to 67.
4. Leaves Social Security to the whims of Wall Street. In September of 2011, Ryan agreed with Rick Perry’s characterization of Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme” and since 2005 has advocated for privatizing the retirement benefit and investing it in stocks and bonds. Conservatives claim that this would “outperform the current formula based on wages earned and overall wage appreciation,” but the economic crisis of 2008 should serve as a wake-up call for policymakers who seek to hinge Americans’ retirement on the stock market. In fact, “a person with a private Social Security account similar to what President George W. Bush proposed in 2005″ would have lost much of their retirement savings.
5. Budget would result in 4.1 million lost jobs in 2 years. Ryan’s budget calls for massive reductions in government spending. He has proposed cutting discretionary programs by about $120 billion over the next two years and mandatory programs by $284 billion, which, the Economic Policy Institute estimates, would suck demand out of the economy and “reduce employment by 1.3 million jobs in fiscal 2013 and 2.8 million jobs in fiscal 2014, relative to current budget policies.”
6. Eliminates Pell Grants for more more than 1 million students. Ryan’s budget claims both that rising financial aid is driving college tuition costs upward, and that Pell Grants, which help cover tuition costs for low-income Americans, don’t go to the “truly needy.” So he cuts the Pell Grant program by $200 billion, which could “ultimately knock more than one million students off” the program over the next 10 years.
7. Keeps $40 billion in subsidies for Big Oil. In 2011, Ryan joined all House Republicans and 13 Democrats in his vote to keep Big Oil tax loopholes as part of the FY 2011 spending bill. His budget would retain a decade’s worth of oil tax breaks worth $40 billion, while cutting “billions of dollars from investments to develop alternative fuels and clean energy technologies that would serve as substitutes for oil.” For instance, it “calls for a $3 billion cut in energy programs in FY 2013 alone” and would spend only $150 million over five years — or 20 percent of what was invested in 2012 — on energy programs.
8. Family stands to benefit from oil subsidies. Ryan “and his wife, Janna, own stakes in four family companies that lease land in Texas and Oklahoma to the very energy companies that benefit from the tax subsidies in Ryan’s budget plan,” the Daily Beast reported in June of 2011. “Ryan’s father-in-law, Daniel Little, who runs the companies, told Newsweek and The Daily Beast that the family companies are currently leasing the land for mining and drilling to energy giants such as Chesapeake Energy, Devon, and XTO Energy, a recently acquired subsidiary of ExxonMobil.”
9. Claimed Romneycare has led to “rationing and benefit cuts.” “I’m not a fan of [Romney's health care reform] system,” Ryan told C-SPAN in 2010. He argued that government is rationing care in the state and claimed that people are “seeing the system bursting by the seams, they’re seeing premium increases, rationing and benefit cuts.” He called the system “a fatal conceit” and “unsustainable.” Watch it:

10. Believes that Romneycare is “not that dissimilar to Obamacare.” Though Romney has gone to great lengths to distinguish his Massachusetts health care law from Obamacare, Romney doesn’t see the difference. “It’s not that dissimilar to Obamacare, and you probably know I’m not a big fan of Obamacare,” Ryan said at a breakfast meeting sponsored by the American Spectator in March of 2011. “I just don’t think the mandates work … all the regulation they’ve put on it…I think it’s beginning to death spiral. They’re beginning to have to look at rationing decisions.”
11. Accused generals of lying about their support for Obama’s military budget. In March, Ryan couldn’t believe that Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey supports Obama’s Pentagon budget, which incorporates $487 billion in cuts over 10 years. “We don’t think the generals are giving us their true advice,” Ryan said at a policy summit hosted by the National Journal. “We don’t think the generals believe that their budget is really the right budget.” He later apologized for the implication. Watch it:

12. Co-sponsored a personhood amendment. Ryan joined 62 other Republicans in co-sponsoring the Sanctity of Human Life Act, which declares that a fertilized egg “shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.” This would outlaw abortion, some forms of contraception and invitro fertilization.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/08/11/677171/12-things-you-should-know-about-vice-presidential-candidate-paul-ryan/?mobile=nc

President Obama Asks Students to Tell Congress: #DontDoubleMyRate 24APR12 & Will a Young Generation's Dreams Be Rescued -- Or Bundled and Sold on Wall Street? 25APR12

AT a time when student loan debt exceeds credit card debt in America Congress is deadlocked in addressing the issue because the repiglicans and tea-baggers are committed to protecting the interest of the financial-banking cabal on wall street and the corporate tax loopholes of the wealthy who own them and big oil. Congressional Democrats are exploring increasing taxes on millionaires or cutting tax breaks for big oil to pay for student loan debt relief, repiglicans and tea-baggers want to take money from funding for health care. They want to transfer the burden of debt for the poor, working and middle classes from education debt to medical debt rather than require those who should be paying more to do so. No matter how this turns out students and their families need to remember who was and is on their side when they vote in November. This from HuffPost and the WH....

President Obama was at the University of North Carolina this afternoon asking students to tell their members of Congress one thing: Don’t double my rates.

Five years ago, Congress cut the rates on federal student loans in half. That was a good thing to do. But on July 1st -- that’s a little over two months from now -- that rate cut expires.  And if Congress does nothing, the interest rates on those loans will double overnight.... And just to give you some sense of perspective -- for each year that Congress doesn’t act, the average student with these loans will rack up an additional $1,000 in debt -- an extra thousand dollars.  That’s basically a tax hike for more than 7 million students across America -- more than 160,000 students here in North Carolina alone.

President Obama said that stopping this from happening -- and helping more young people afford college -- should be a no-brainer because in today's economy, a college degree is an economic imperative:

In today’s economy, there is no greater predictor of individual success than a good education.  Right now, the unemployment rate for Americans with a college degree or more is about half the national average.  Their incomes are twice as high as those who don’t have a high school diploma.

And a college education –whether from a two-year or four-year school – shouldn’t be something that only some families can afford. A good education should be within reach for all students willing to work for it. But tuition and fees at America’s colleges have more than doubled since today’s college students were born, and students are taking on more debt to pay for it.
President Obama has worked to help more young people and their families afford a higher education. His Administration is offering incentives for states, colleges, and universities to keep costs down. And now he’s calling on Congress to do their part, and he’s asking students to help make sure they do.

But I’m asking everyone else who’s watching or following online -- call your member of Congress. Email them. Write on their Facebook page. Tweet them -- we’ve got a hashtag. Here’s the hashtag for you to tweet them:  #dontdoublemyrate. All right?  I’m going to repeat that -- the hashtag is #dontdoublemyrate.  
... Your voice matters. Stand up. Be heard. Be counted. Tell them now is not the time to double the interest rate on your student loans. Now is the time to double down on smart investments that build a strong and secure middle class. Now is the time to double down on an America that’s built to last.

---

Learn more:

• How will students who go to school in your state be affected if rates on student loans double?
• President Obama's plan to help make college more affordable: Everything you need to know

President Barack Obama delivers remarks on student loan interest rates, at Carmichael Arena, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, April 24, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy) 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/04/24/president-obama-asks-students-tell-congress-dontdoublemyrate?utm_source=042512&utm_medium=blog&utm_campaign=daily 

Will a Young Generation's Dreams Be Rescued -- Or Bundled and Sold on Wall Street?

 Interest rates for student loans will double on July 1 unless Congress acts. That's outrageous -- but the fiscal abuse of our nation's young people runs far deeper than that. An entire generation has been trapped into debt servitude and joblessness by the implacable machinery of Wall Street greed. Bank-servile scolds insult the young people of America while the bankers' economic engines strip-mine their financial future.
Jobless or overextended college graduates aren't even allowed to declare bankruptcy -- a privilege that's extended to every reckless investor and mismanaged corporation in the nation. Once they finally find work, college graduates face years of garnished wages to repay the loans that funded their often-overpriced educations. If they haven't repaid that debt by the time they grow old -- a very real possibility at the cost of a college education today -- they'll even be forced to surrender part of their Social Security benefits.
That's indentured servitude.
Meanwhile banks have been slicing and dicing student loans into derivative financial instruments called "SLABS" -- student-loan asset backed securities. We've seen this movie before -- the one where big banks mass-market loans to a population with stagnated wages and dwindling economic prospects, then bundle them and sell them to investors who haven't reviewed the way they were underwritten and sold.
Hey, what could go wrong?
It's true that many of these packaged debts are backed by the U.S. government -- but not all of them.
Why are these graduates facing such a bleak job market? Because Wall Street's gambling on other financial bets crashed the economy, leaving an entire generation without much of a future to give them optimism and hope. Their parents can't help them much, because most of their assets were taken by Wall Street, too. So as an entire generation of college students graduates with unprecedented debt -- and joblessness that's unprecedented in modern memory -- they're looking forward to a lifetime of reduced expectations.
And just like their parents, these young people are being told the the banks aren't the problem: They are.
Half of today's college graduates are un- or under-employed. The total amount owed on student loans is greater than our country's entire credit card debt. The banks were rescued in a multi-billion dollar bailout (that did not turn a profit), but If anybody talks about a WPA-like program to rescue young people the bank-funded political crowd gasps in horror.
Instead of help, young people get comments like this now-notorious one from perenially ignorant GOP representative Virginia (Ginny) Foxx: " I have very little tolerance for people who tell me that they graduate with $200,000 of debt or even $80,000 of debt because there's no reason for that."
Ginny Foxx is acting out the last in a four-step process to crush the soul and spirit of a generation:
First, cut funding for colleges and universities throughout the country, driving the cost of a college education out of reach of most Americans. And while you're at it, play footsie with the for-profit college industry, giving out student loans for paper mills that churn out worthless diplomas at inflated prices -- but whatever you do, don't tell the students that!
Second, lobby to "privatize" much of the student loan industry. Turn Sallie Mae, the agency created to help students, into a greed-driven get-rich-quick scheme for greedy executives (See "Sallie Mae's Jets") who used government money to lobby for their own get-rich-quick schemes and turned the student loan program into a taxpayer-funded money tree for already-rich bankers. (To their great credit, the Obama Administration and Democrats on the Hill did a great deal to roll back this part of the greed machine with last year's student reform law.)
Third, deregulate Wall Street and allow them to wreck the economy, forcing an entire generation to face the bleakest job future in modern memory.
Fourth, condemn them for their own situation. That distracts some people from the real cause of this generational misery.
Blame the victim: It's the oldest game in the world. In fact, it's exactly what was done to many of their parents when they bought their homes. They convinced them that homes would rise in value forever, sometimes hired crooked appraisers to inflate their homes' value, encouraged them to take out loans on that inflated value -- and then, when the bubble burst, convinced a lot of people that the real problem in this country is 'greedy homeowners.'
But this time it may not work. There are too many young people, and too many parents, who have learned how the game works. They may not stand for it a second time.
There's another reason why it won't work -- and why Mitt Romney is suddenly the voice of reason, urging his fellow Republicans not to let these interest rates double. If they do rise after July 1, a lot of students will be unable to pay their debts. Not all of those loans are backed by the government, so a lot of banks will be hurt.
Republicans don't want that to happen -- so expect a lot of conversions to "reasonableness" in the coming weeks. The delinquency rates for these loans may be higher than originally believed, and there's reason to believe it could go much higher as more students graduate into a bleak job market. The financial industry is beginning to worry.
It should worry. So should all of the investors who have bought those "SLABS." Between the politics and the economics, Republicans would be crazy to let these interest rates soar. But then, they've done lots of crazy things lately ...
Our financial system can't afford another shock. That's another reason why the Administration's additional proposals for easing student loan debt should be passed immediately, especially the "pay as you earn" and "forgiveness in 20 years" (or less) provisions.
But that isn't enough. We owe the next generation a lot more than what's being offered. We owe them nothing less than a national program of jobs -- a program that will give them experience, income and a sense of restored optimism about the future.
Students also deserve the chance to pay off their loans altogether by taking on tough jobs (with salaries) that help society, as well as themselves. (There's some reduction in the length of the loan under the current system, but it should be improved.)
And yes, we should be talking about forgiveness.
It's surprising that we haven't seen more student protests like those that have gripped Quebec. The Occupy Student Debt Campaign may be the first step in that direction.
Think about it: One trillion dollars in loans -- loans that look increasingly risky with every month that passes. A generation that was tricked into borrowing for their educations -- in many cases for an overpriced or useless diploma, and in many other cases at costs that were driven sky-high by the selfishness and false economy of their elders.
And now, instead of helping our kids, we're letting people like Ginny Foxx demonize them. Or we're letting candidates like Mitt Romney say all the right things, then push for only the bare minimum needed to placate the public -- and protect the banks, which is their real agenda.
The choice is simple, really: We can do the right thing by the nation's young people -- or we can let the banks slice and dice their futures and sell them to unwary buyers. We can give our kids the chance for a decent life, or let their hopes be run through the Wall Street meat grinder.
We welcomed them into this world with promises. Will we sell their dreams to Wall Street to be carted away on SLABs?
Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future and the host of The Breakdown, broadcast Saturdays nights from 7-9 pm on WeAct Radio, AM 1480 in Washington DC.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/will-a-young-generations_b_1454273.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications 

Oil subsidies: let's follow the money from 350.org & SEE HOW YOUR SENATORS VOTED 29MAR12

BIG OIL - 2 BILLION DOLLARS, THE 99% OF AMERICANS - 0. That is the result of today's vote in the senate after Pres Obama made a passionate plea to senators to do the right thing and end tax payer subsidies to the big oil industry. Nothing says F@#K YOU America like this vote, and yet amazingly the people will re-elect most of these people this November! BOHICA! Check out the video of Pres Obama calling on Congress to repeal the federal subsidies to big oil and then this from 350.org, the organization who's members will not willingly bend over and take it from big oil and their political whores and at the bottom check out how your Senator voted.....

In activism, just getting an issue onto the agenda is often half the battle. So it’s great news to see that the push to end subsidies to the fossil fuel industry is suddenly a central part of the political discussion here in the United States.
This morning, the US Senate voted on a bill that would repeal over $2 billion in subsidies for the top five Big Oil companies. The bill was mostly political theater and fell along party lines (four Democrats joined all but two Republicans in opposing the measure). Before the vote, President Obama spoke about subsidies at special briefing at the White House. He repeated his call to cut the billions of dollars that go to the largest oil companies each year. As you know, we strongly disagree with the President’s “all-of-the-above” energy approach, but this is a place where we can find common ground: the time to end subsidies is now.
This is a great chance for us to spread the word about the need to cut all fossil fuel subsidies (not just those to Big Oil) and remind people of the essential dynamic that’s at play: fossil fuel companies give small gifts to our politicians who then turn around and give huge gifts to the fossil fuel industry with our money. We whipped up a graph that tells this story of corruption in stark visual terms. Senators who voted for ending subsidies received $8,968,426 in campaign contributions from dirty energy companies while Senators who voted against repealing subsidies received a whopping $25,717,375.
Check it out:

Can you take a minute to share this image on Facebook, Twitter, or just by forwarding this email?
350.org is also gearing up for “Climate Impacts Day” on May 5, an effort to “connect the dots” between extreme weather and climate change. Hundreds of events are already getting registered on the website, from divers descending to bleached coral reefs in the Pacific to park rangers gathering in bark-beetle infested forests in North Dakota.
If you think it’s time to connect the dots between climate change and extreme weather, check out the new website here: www.climatedots.org
Just as we’re connecting the dots between climate and impacts, we need to be connecting the dots between these Senate votes on subsidies and the dirty energy money that’s flowing into Congress. We've got big plans to do just that in the coming weeks as we ramp up the battle to end fossil fuel subsidies.
We’ve got a foot in the door. Now, it’s time to shove the thing wide open.
Onwards,
Jamie Henn for the whole 350.org team

---

More Links and Info
Senate Fails to Cut Favors to Big Oil, Once Again | The Price of Oil go.350.org/HovTeb
Menendez Subsidies Vote - Dirty Energy Money Analysis: go.350.org/HotY9o
"Senators Who Voted To Protect Oil Tax Breaks Received $23,582,500 From Big Oil" - Think Progress: go.350.org/GZWvxm

HOW YOUR SENATOR VOTED 
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112^th Congress - 2^nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S.2204 )
Vote Number:	63	Vote Date:	March 29, 2012, 11:16 AM
Required For Majority:	3/5	Vote Result:	Cloture Motion Rejected
Measure Number:	S. 2204 (Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act )
Measure Title:	A bill to eliminate unnecessary tax subsidies and promote renewable energy and energy conservation.

Vote Counts:	YEAs	51
	NAYs	47
	Not Voting	2

Vote Summary

By Senator Name

By Vote Position

By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Yea Alexander (R-TN), Nay Ayotte (R-NH), Nay Barrasso (R-WY), Nay Baucus (D-MT), Yea Begich (D-AK), Nay Bennet (D-CO), Yea Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea Blunt (R-MO), Nay Boozman (R-AR), Nay Boxer (D-CA), Yea Brown (D-OH), Yea Brown (R-MA), Nay Burr (R-NC), Nay Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Cardin (D-MD), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Yea Chambliss (R-GA), Nay Coats (R-IN), Nay Coburn (R-OK), Nay Cochran (R-MS), Nay Collins (R-ME), Yea Conrad (D-ND), Yea Coons (D-DE), Yea Corker (R-TN), Nay Cornyn (R-TX), Nay Crapo (R-ID), Nay DeMint (R-SC), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Franken (D-MN), Yea

Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea Graham (R-SC), Nay Grassley (R-IA), Nay Hagan (D-NC), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Not Voting Heller (R-NV), Nay Hoeven (R-ND), Nay Hutchison (R-TX), Nay Inhofe (R-OK), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Nay Johanns (R-NE), Nay Johnson (D-SD), Yea Johnson (R-WI), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Yea Kirk (R-IL), Not Voting Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea Kyl (R-AZ), Nay Landrieu (D-LA), Nay Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Yea Lee (R-UT), Nay Levin (D-MI), Yea Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Nay Manchin (D-WV), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Nay McCaskill (D-MO), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Yea Merkley (D-OR), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Yea

Moran (R-KS), Nay Murkowski (R-AK), Nay Murray (D-WA), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Nay Paul (R-KY), Nay Portman (R-OH), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Yea Reed (D-RI), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea Risch (R-ID), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Rubio (R-FL), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shaheen (D-NH), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Nay Snowe (R-ME), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Yea Tester (D-MT), Yea Thune (R-SD), Nay Toomey (R-PA), Nay Udall (D-CO), Yea Udall (D-NM), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Nay Warner (D-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Yea

Vote Summary

By Senator Name

By Vote Position

By Home State

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---51
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bennet (D-CO) Bingaman (D-NM) Blumenthal (D-CT) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Coons (D-DE) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN)	Gillibrand (D-NY) Hagan (D-NC) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Manchin (D-WV) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD)	Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Snowe (R-ME) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---47
Alexander (R-TN) Ayotte (R-NH) Barrasso (R-WY) Begich (D-AK) Blunt (R-MO) Boozman (R-AR) Brown (R-MA) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coats (R-IN) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC)	Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Heller (R-NV) Hoeven (R-ND) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Johnson (R-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lee (R-UT) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY)	Moran (R-KS) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-NE) Paul (R-KY) Portman (R-OH) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Rubio (R-FL) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Thune (R-SD) Toomey (R-PA) Vitter (R-LA) Webb (D-VA) Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 2
Hatch (R-UT)	Kirk (R-IL)

Vote Summary

By Senator Name

By Vote Position

By Home State

Grouped by Home State

Alabama:	Sessions (R-AL), Nay	Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska:	Begich (D-AK), Nay	Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Arizona:	Kyl (R-AZ), Nay	McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Arkansas:	Boozman (R-AR), Nay	Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California:	Boxer (D-CA), Yea	Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado:	Bennet (D-CO), Yea	Udall (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut:	Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea	Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware:	Carper (D-DE), Yea	Coons (D-DE), Yea
Florida:	Nelson (D-FL), Yea	Rubio (R-FL), Nay
Georgia:	Chambliss (R-GA), Nay	Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Hawaii:	Akaka (D-HI), Yea	Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Idaho:	Crapo (R-ID), Nay	Risch (R-ID), Nay
Illinois:	Durbin (D-IL), Yea	Kirk (R-IL), Not Voting
Indiana:	Coats (R-IN), Nay	Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Iowa:	Grassley (R-IA), Nay	Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas:	Moran (R-KS), Nay	Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Kentucky:	McConnell (R-KY), Nay	Paul (R-KY), Nay
Louisiana:	Landrieu (D-LA), Nay	Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Maine:	Collins (R-ME), Yea	Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland:	Cardin (D-MD), Yea	Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts:	Brown (R-MA), Nay	Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan:	Levin (D-MI), Yea	Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota:	Franken (D-MN), Yea	Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi:	Cochran (R-MS), Nay	Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Missouri:	Blunt (R-MO), Nay	McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Montana:	Baucus (D-MT), Yea	Tester (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska:	Johanns (R-NE), Nay	Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Nevada:	Heller (R-NV), Nay	Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire:	Ayotte (R-NH), Nay	Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
New Jersey:	Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea	Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico:	Bingaman (D-NM), Yea	Udall (D-NM), Yea
New York:	Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea	Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina:	Burr (R-NC), Nay	Hagan (D-NC), Yea
North Dakota:	Conrad (D-ND), Yea	Hoeven (R-ND), Nay
Ohio:	Brown (D-OH), Yea	Portman (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma:	Coburn (R-OK), Nay	Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Oregon:	Merkley (D-OR), Yea	Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania:	Casey (D-PA), Yea	Toomey (R-PA), Nay
Rhode Island:	Reed (D-RI), Yea	Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina:	DeMint (R-SC), Nay	Graham (R-SC), Nay
South Dakota:	Johnson (D-SD), Yea	Thune (R-SD), Nay
Tennessee:	Alexander (R-TN), Nay	Corker (R-TN), Nay
Texas:	Cornyn (R-TX), Nay	Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Utah:	Hatch (R-UT), Not Voting	Lee (R-UT), Nay
Vermont:	Leahy (D-VT), Yea	Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Virginia:	Warner (D-VA), Yea	Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington:	Cantwell (D-WA), Yea	Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia:	Manchin (D-WV), Yea	Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin:	Johnson (R-WI), Nay	Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming:	Barrasso (R-WY), Nay	Enzi (R-WY), Nay

Vote Summary

By Senator Name

By Vote Position

By Home State

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00063#state
 

THE MATH OF PAUL RYAN'S BUDGET: YOU OWE THE 1% AND WILL PAY 22MAR12 & Three Hidden Time Bombs in the GOP's Medicare Budget 21MAR12

BIG surprise, not only does rep paul ryan's (r WI) proposed budget continue the repiglican / tea-bagger assault on the middle class, the poor, the disabled, the elderly and children, it also rewards the greed of the 1% (not all of them are greedy, remember the Patriotic Millionaires) with a minimum $150,000 tax cut. How will he pay for that? By destroying the social contract in America, by decimating Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Every day, you and your family make choices about how you spend your money and what investments you make. Leaders in Congress do the same thing when they draw up their budgets for the country. And if you spend some time with their plans, you learn what they value, you see the type of country they want America to be. So when Congressman Paul Ryan put out a new budget for the House Republicans this week, we spent some time with it. We took a careful look and did the math. Here's what we learned. Republicans in Washington want to give millionaires and billionaires an average tax break of at least $150,000. They want to pay for those tax cuts by slashing programs that create jobs and protect our children, our seniors, and the veterans who have fought for the country. They want to end Medicare as we know it. And they want to undercut our economic strength by rolling back key investments in education, research, and our nation's roads and bridges. President Obama believes we need to live within our means and that's why he put forward a balanced plan that reduces the deficit by more than $4 trillion. But the plan put forward by the GOP fails that test of balance. To show you what we mean, we've put together an infographic that breaks out the kinds of priorities we'd have to give up for the $150,000 tax break that Republicans want to give to the nation's millionaires and billionaires. Check it out below and forward this message to your friends. The more people who share it, the more folks will understand what's at stake and how we can do better for the middle class. Thanks, David David Plouffe Senior Advisor to the President

Three Hidden Time Bombs in the GOP's Medicare Budget

By now most people have heard some of the worst things about the Republican budget proposal -- commonly called the "Ryan plan" and unironically described by the GOP as "the Path to Prosperity": That it decimates programs for middle class and lower-income Americans while giving even greater tax breaks to the rich -- $3 trillion worth, in fact. That it guts education, research, and transportation while preserving tax breaks for Big Oil. That it undercuts Medicare with a voucher system that will be worth less and less with each passing year.
And that, despite all that, it would actually increase the deficit.
You'd think that pretty much covers it -- but it doesn't. When it comes to Medicare, there are three more ugly facts about this plan that have yet to attract widespread attention -- mostly because the Republicans have done their best to keep them secret:
1. They're secretly planning to raise the Medicare age.
It's not in House Budget Chair Paul Ryan's Wall Street Journal editorial, the one where he sneered at "some who would distort for political gain our efforts to preserve programs like Medicare" and said "our plan provides guaranteed coverage options financed by a premium-support payment." It's not in the summary description of the GOP budget, which claims it "strengthens health and retirement security by taking power away from government bureaucrats and empowering patients instead with control over their own care." It's not even in the full budget document itself, which is 99 pages long and contains a section entitled "Strengthening Health and Retirement Security."
So how do we know that the GOP wants to raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67? Because that's what Ryan and his staff told the Congressional Budget Office when they asked the CBO to calculate the impact of their plan. It's right there in the CBO report on the budget.
Here's the key sentence: "In addition, the eligibility age for Medicare would increase by two months per year beginning in 2023 until reaching age 67 in 2034."
That's right: When Ryan and his staff instructed the CBO to calculate the impact of the Republican budget, they told its analysts that the GOP plan included an increase in the eligibility age for Medicare. Apparently they didn't have room to mention that fact anywhere in their 99-page document, and didn't see fit to bring it up while they were spouting all that rhetoric about "preserving entitlement programs for the future."
The Republican Party intends to raise the Medicare age for people as they approach the costliest years for receiving health insurance, and they're keeping it a secret from the public. This change alone would indirectly cut Social Security benefits by as much as 45 percent, by forcing seniors to spend that much of their benefit check on additional health care costs.
And remember, the GOP wants to raise the eligibility age for Social Security, too. The net effect of these two changes means that older Americans would be forced to keep working -- or looking for work -- at an age when their medical expenses would make hiring them prohibitively expensive for employers who offer health insurance. They would be forced to try purchasing health insurance on the open market.
Which gets us to our second dirty secret ...
2. Insurers will get to set their own rates.
The Ryan plan lets private, for-profit health insurers set their own rates -- rates which, according to the Ryan plan, will determine the Federal budget for senior health. It doesn't say that, of course, but that's how it would work.
According the the GOP's proposal, "All plans... would participate in an annual competitive bidding process ...The second least expensive approved plan... would establish the benchmark that determines the premium support amount... Program growth would be determined by the competitive bidding process..."
What does that mean in English? That Medicare goes away, to be replaced by a system of private health insurance companies who'll be paid to provide services that are supposed to (but won't) resemble the level of coverage seniors currently receive under Medicare. That health insurers would submit their bids to provide those services once a year.
And then comes the surprising part: The Federal government's expenditures for senior health care will be determined by the private insurers themselves, because the second-lowest bid establishes what the government is willing to pay for health insurance.
How crazy is that? Private health insurance rates have been climbing at three and four times the rate of today's Medicare. They've shown no ability to restrain costs -- and have no motive to do so, since they make money the old fashioned way: on the mark-up. And now they -- or the lowest bidder among them -- will dictate what the government must pay.
The plan says so, very clearly. "As opposed to pegging the growth rate to a predetermined formula," the GOP document say, "competitive bidding offers the ideal means of harnessing the power of choice and competition to control costs, while also securing guaranteed affordability for patients." In other words, the Republican Ryan plan places budgetary control for a major government program in the hands of the very insurance companies that profit from it.
At least that's what it would do, if they didn't contradict themselves in the very next paragraph.
3. The GOP plan radically cuts per-person spending for Medicare.
Remember that sentence we just quoted, the one about not pegging the growth rate to a predetermined formula? They totally lied about that. The plan does peg the growth rate to a predetermined formula, and Ryan's staff were very specific about it in their instructions to the CBO: "Total spending would grow in subsequent years," the CBO was told, "with nominal growth in per capita GDP plus 0.5 percentage points per year."
That's a "predetermined formula." And it's important to note that "nominal growth in per capita GDP" is not the same as the the growth in per capita health care costs, which have risen much more quickly than general inflation or GDP. That amounts to a major cut in benefits every year.
It gets even worse. The "per capita GDP" applies to everybody in the nation, not the ever-swelling ranks of Medicare-eligible seniors. This gets technical, but here's what it means: After this formula takes effect in 2023, there will be much faster growth in the Medicare-eligible age group than in the overall population. By structuring their formula this way the Republicans have ensured that there will be dramatic benefit cuts, especially as the "age wave" of Baby Boomers retires in the 2023-2030 period.
The "predetermined formula" is itself a secret, since they said there wasn't one. And the way it's structured will lead to dramatic cuts in Medicare.
Three-Pronged Attack
While the contradictions and evasions make exact forecasts difficult, it's clear that the net effect of these three changes would be to create a budget-busting giveaway to rich insurance corporations while at the same time slashing health coverage for seniors. And this isn't some radical ideologue's manifesto: it's the Republican Party's official Medicare proposal.
One terrible plan, three dreadful secrets. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said very, very nice things about this budget. In fact, all of the GOP's leaders have been bragging about it. Since they're so proud of it, why don't they tell more people what it really does?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/three-hidden-time-bombs-i_b_1371531.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications

President Obama: You can't have it both ways on Keystone XL

PRES Obama is playing both sides of the fence on keystone xl because of the heat he is getting on the price of gas and the unrelenting and deceptive propaganda campaign being waged by the gop and tea-baggers. Check out this video and article from 350.org on the pipeline and then take part in Credo's call to action and tell Pres Obama to stop cheerleading for keystone xl! AND consider making a donation to 350.org and the e mailing the Obama campaign and tell them their donation went to 350.org to fight the keystone xl pipeline (I did). http://act.350.org/sign/join-the-fight/?akid=1667.575720.veaTqt&rd=1&t=2

We just recorded a new video that I think you’ll enjoy: www.350.org/join-the-fight I'm pretty sure this video won't go viral and get 50 million views in 24 hours -- and it doesn't need to. It’s more of an internal update for the extended 350.org family, a chance for all of us to reflect and get ready for some busy months ahead. As 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben explains in the video, we're gearing up for a major new fight to end the billions of dollars in subsidies the fossil fuel industry receives each year -- the tax-breaks, handouts, and loopholes that are just adding to the record-breaking profits that these companies are already making. And perhaps most importantly, getting rid of fossil fuel subsidies across the board would be a huge step to cutting carbon emissions and putting us back on a pathway to 350 ppm. The subsidies battle is gaining momentum, and fast. In a recent speech, President Obama called for an end to subsidies to Big Oil and said, “Let's put every single member of Congress on record: You can stand with oil companies or you can stand up for the American people.” As you probably know, we haven’t agreed with President Obama on everything, but we think getting every member of Congress on the record is a great idea. As a first step, we just launched this short and simple petition that reads: "I call on Congress to end all subsidies to fossil fuel companies, and invest in green jobs and clean energy instead." Please take a minute to add your name to the petition calling for Congress to put an end to fossil fuel subsidies. Over the next month, we'll ramp up the pressure -- on Twitter, on Facebook, over the phones, and in district -- to get every politician to tell us where he or she stands on these subsidies. For now, we'll use this petition to show Congress how important this issue is -- and when we launch our big push to get every member of Congress on the record, they'll know that we have an army of concerned citizens who have our back. As Rev. Lennox Yearwood of the Hip-Hop Caucus says in the video, “To make this movement successful, we have to continue to keep the pressure going.” We couldn't agree more. Along with taking on fossil fuel subsidies, we're gearing up for some massive new efforts to build this movement: Taking on more iconic fossil fuel fights across the country and around the world. “Connecting the Dots” between climate change and extreme weather -- expect more on that front very soon!  Training and supporting thousands of new climate leaders to strengthen our movement. And lots more… None of this work is possible without your participation and leadership. As Bill says in the video: “This fight is going to be a lifetime fight. I’m so, so, so grateful to all of you who are playing such a huge role in it.” On we go, May Boeve for the 350.org Team Links and Articles "Scrapping fossil-fuel subsidies would get us halfway on climate change" - The Washington Post: go.350.org/ypIIRs 350.org is building a global movement to solve the climate crisis. Connect with us on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for email alerts. You can help power our work by getting involved locally and donating here. What is 350? Go to our website to learn about the science behind the movement.      President Obama is touting his efforts to expedite the southern portion of Keystone XL — although it will do nothing to reduce high gas prices. Send an email directly to the Obama Campaign demanding real leadership for our climate, not cheerleading for Keystone XL. Send a message to President Obama: Stop cheerleadingfor Keystone XL Today, President Obama takes his "all of the above" energy tour to Cushing, Oklahoma — the "pipeline crossroads of the world." Standing in front of piles of TransCanada's pipeline waiting to be put in the ground,1 he will issue a specific memorandum to federal agencies, not just to build, but to "expedite" the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma, to the refineries and shipping ports in the Gulf Coast. Even as he rejected the full Keystone XL pipeline saying he had insufficient time to evaluate it, the President has always pushed for the southern portion to be completed. But now in issuing a memorandum to speed up that process, he's signaling a willingness to backtrack on his initial (and minimal) condition of a full review for Keystone XL. Such a public announcement in Cushing to promote Keystone XL is a slap in the face to those of us who worked so hard to convince President Obama to reject Keystone XL in January. And it gives fuel to the cynics who said that that rejection was just an attempt to temporarily placate the environmentalists and young people who believed his campaign rhetoric about the need for real action on climate and our fossil fuel dependence. If there was ever a clear moment to register our disappointment, this is it. Send a message to President Obama: Be a leader on climate, not a cheerleader for the disastrous Keystone XL Pipeline. President Obama's energy tour is clearly a response to political pressure. His advisors think that he'll suffer at the polls if he's perceived as failing to take tough action about gas prices. And so they're working to showcase his support for Big Oil. An "all of the above" strategy just digs us in deeper. We all know the only way to get out of the hole we're in is a dramatic shift away from more drilling and bigger pipelines and to a massive investment in renewable energy like wind and solar. The fact is, President Obama's trip to Cushing shows that he is failing on gas prices. Oil prices are up because of speculation, irresponsible talk of war with Iran, and rising demand for gasoline in countries like China and India — not because of a lack of dirty tar sands oil. And any policy that deepens our dependence on oil puts us at the continued mercy of oil prices that we can do little to control, and oil companies who have every incentive to keep prices high, not just now, but forever. This is the problem with the southern portion — or any portion — of Keystone XL, and the problem with "all of the above" in general. As the ever-wise Bill McKibben wrote this week: And if you think about it, "all of the above" is not a particularly coherent energy policy, not if one worries about climate change. Burning all the oil you can and then putting up a solar panel is like drinking six martinis at lunch and then downing a VitaminWater. You're still a drunk — just one with your daily requirement of C and D. If a presidential candidate said they had an "all of the above" foreign policy, where every other nation was an equal ally, they'd be thought lightweight or even dangerous. But with energy, it apparently seems politic to insist we need never make a choice. Or at least to tailor your talking points to your audience.2 Tell President Obama: Be a leader on climate, not a cheerleader for the disastrous Keystone XL Pipeline. Send an email messageto his campaign now. While the southern portion of Keystone XL does not turn up the spigot of tar sands bitumen that can be transported out of Alberta, Canada, and it does not threaten Nebraska's crucial Ogallala Aquifer, it does ultimately accomplish the biggest goal of Keystone XL — to connect with the existing tar sands pipeline from Canada, and finally bring the landlocked tar sands to shipping ports and the global market so it can be burned across the globe, leading to disastrous climate impacts. Ironically, building the pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma — where there is currently an excess of stored oil due to expanded domestic and tar sands production — will reduce supply in the Midwest and actually raise gas prices by an estimated 20 cents!3 But President Obama is so determined to use the southern portion of Keystone XL to show that he's taking aggressive action to promote fossil fuels, he's issuing an executive order to federal agencies to expedite approval. Once the southern portion is built to the Gulf, it is only a matter of time before oil companies like TransCanada figure out a way to get more oil out of the tar sands and to the Gulf for export. And then we'll be one step closer to "essentially game over" for the climate.4 As President Obama stands in Cushing today, let's urge him to bring some real leadership on climate, and let his campaign know our bitter disappointment over this significant misstep: http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/obama_cushing/?r_by=37105-179986-M49fM0x&rc=paste1 Thank you for fighting Keystone XL. Elijah Zarlin, Campaign Manager CREDO Action from Working Assets 1. "Keystone XL Pipeline: Big Oil Leans On Obama To Approve Entire Project," Huffington Post, March 21, 2012 2. "Mr. Obama Goes to Cushing, OK," Bill McKibben, March 21, 2012 3. "Keystone Oil Pipeline Seen Raising Gas Prices in Midwest: Energy," Bloomberg, February 29, 2012 4. "Key Facts on Keystone XL," Tarsands Action Share on Facebook Post to your wall Tweet this Post to Twitter

© 2012 CREDO. All rights reserved.