Category: Movie

By MATTHEW DALY and LISA MASCARO

WASHINGTON (AP) — As President Joe Biden visited one disaster site after another this summer — from California wildfires to hurricane-induced flooding in Louisiana and New York — he said climate change is “everybody’s crisis” and America must get serious about the “code red” danger posed by global warming.

In many ways, the president is making up for lost time.

Biden and Democrats are pursuing a sweeping $3.5 trillion federal overhaul that includes landmark measures to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in what would be the most consequential environmental policies ever enacted, after years of fits and starts.

Sidelined after the former administration withdrew from the landmark Paris climate accord — the 2015 global effort to confront climate change — the U.S. has returned to the arena, with Biden promising world leaders in April that the U.S. would cut carbon pollution in half by 2030.

But following through on Biden’s climate goals depends in large part on passage of the Democratic package, and it will take the White House’s heft to close the deal between centrist and progressive lawmakers, including disputes over its climate provisions.

“That’s where he earns his legacy,” Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., said of Biden.

As Democrats rush to finish a package that touches almost all aspects of American life, the proposals related to climate change are proving to be a sticking point, particularly among key centrist lawmakers.

The president met separately Tuesday with Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona as Democrats chip away at the package’s overall price tag and marshal support. With Republicans in lockstep against the plan, Democrats have few votes to spare as they try to pass it on their own.

“This is Speaker Pelosi’s grand socialist agenda to destroy freedom and embolden our enemies on the backs of American families,″ said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rogers of Washington state, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce panel.

Yet, for many Democrats, and voters who elected them — the climate provisions are among the most important elements of the sweeping bill. A poll last month by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows 83% of Democrats are very concerned about climate change, compared with just 21% of Republicans.

“This is a ‘code red’ moment, but Democrats are answering the call,’ said Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Florida, chairwoman of a special House committee on climate change.

“Our only hope to avoid catastrophe is to act with urgency — to act now,’ Castor said Tuesday at the Capitol. She called climate change “a clear and present danger to American families who are facing brutal heat waves, devastating floods, failed electric grids and historic wildfires.”

The Democratic plan will make historic investments in clean energy, climate resilience and environmental justice, she said. “We have to get this right.”

Included in the massive legislation is a nationwide clean-electricity program that is intended to eliminate climate-damaging fossil fuel emissions from U.S. power plants by 2035 — catching up to requirements already set in some states.

The proposal would spend billions to install 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations and upgrade the power grid to make it more resilient during hurricanes and other extreme weather events that are increasing and intensifying as a result of climate change.

The measure also would create a New Deal-style Civilian Climate Corps to unleash an army of young people to work in public lands and restoration projects.

“The climate crisis is here, and the cost of inaction is already staggering,” said Energy and Commerce Chair Frank Pallone, D-N.J. The U.S. had 22 climate and weather disasters in 2020 with losses exceeding $1 billion each. Hurricane Ida and other recent disasters are likely to cost tens of billions more.

A slimmer $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill the House is set to consider Thursday addresses some of these priorities, with money for climate resiliency, water system upgrades and other provisions.

But progressive Democrats say a far more comprehensive approach is needed if the U.S is to have a chance to achieve Biden’s goal of cutting the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions in half, leaving both packages at a standstill as talks continue behind the scenes.

“It’s about the livability of this planet,″ said Huffman, a progressive caucus member who said Democrats were “unwilling to just be steamrolled on that.”

But Manchin has said he will not support a number of clean energy and climate provisions. As the powerful chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Manchin has vowed to protect jobs in his coal and gas-producing state and said the price tag for the Democratic bill is too high. Manchin said after the White House meeting he did not give Biden a new topline figure.

Manchin and Sinema are not alone in raising objections. Seven House Democrats from Texas said provisions in the Democratic plan could cost thousands of jobs in the energy industry and increase energy costs for Americans.

“These taxes and fees, as well as the exclusion of natural gas production from clean energy initiatives, constitute punitive practices,″ the Texas lawmakers said in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The letter was signed by Reps. Henry Cuellar, Vicente Gonzalez, Lizzie Fletcher, Sylvia Garcia, Marc Veasey, Filemon Vela and Colin Allred.

Overall, the Biden package aims to provide more than $600 billion to tackle climate change and lower greenhouse gas emissions, funded in large part by taxes on corporations, the wealthy and other fees, keeping to Biden’s pledge not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000 a year.

One alternative for raising revenues would be to impose a carbon tax. Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said Monday he is developing legislation “that would make polluters pay for the costs of the climate crisis.”

But Wyden and others are mindful of Biden’s pledge not to hit pocketbooks of Americans and the senator said the carbon tax is being developed as part of a menu of options for consideration.

Environmental groups have hailed the overall package, calling it a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

“Investing in new clean energy technologies is one of the best things we can do to create good jobs for regular people right now while reaping long-term benefits and a healthier planet for decades to come,” said Matthew Davis of the League of Conservation Voters.

The clean-energy standard alone could create millions of jobs, while driving the U.S. electricity sector toward zero-carbon emissions, Davis and other advocates said.

With elections around the corner, approval of the bill is crucial, Democrats say.

“If we miss this moment,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D- R.I., referring to Democratic control of Congress and the White House, “it is not clear when we will have a second chance.”

___

Associated Press writer Alan Fram contributed to this story.

Charlie Barnes found out on Sunday that the Twins needed him — on short rest, no less — to start Tuesday’s series opener against the Tigers.

Given the conditions, Barnes gave the Twins everything they could have asked for — four scoreless innings on a pitch count — in their 3-2 win over the Tigers at Target Field.

His reward?

The Twins (70-87), who were thankful for his efforts, are optioning him back to Triple-A to make room on the roster for Joe Ryan, who is returning from the bereavement/family medical emergency list on Wednesday.

“Charlie, and doing it on shorter rest, gave us a tremendous effort tonight,” manager Rocco Baldelli said. “Sometimes when you are on short rest, maybe it’s the stuff that’s maybe not where you wait it. Sometimes it’s the command that’s maybe one of the first things that you may see. He was in the zone pretty good. He made pitches when he needed to.”

And he often needed to, because he dealt with Tigers (75-82) baserunners during every inning of his start. While it wasn’t a clean outing, it was an effective one. For Barnes, who has now appeared in eight major league games this season, it was the first scoreless outing of his career.

“I kind of knew I was on a pitch count. I had some traffic in all four innings,” Barnes, who threw 68 pitches in the win, said. “I really just tried to execute and make pitches when I needed to. I found a way to do that tonight and keep them off the board, which is huge.”

So, too, did most of the relievers who followed him into the game. Jorge Alcala, Tyler Duffey, Caleb Thielbar (who was credited with the win), Ralph Garza Jr. and Alexander Colomé each appeared in the victory, all but Colomé throwing scoreless innings.

Colomé gave up a pair of runs in the ninth inning as the Twins just missed out on throwing their ninth shutout of the season, but he wound up collecting his 17th save of the season anyways.

“The guys on the mound came out, starting with Charlie, one after the other and did a great job making pitches. I mean every single guy,” Baldelli said. “… It was fun to watch our guys do it. They didn’t waste any time coming into the game, getting outs.”

Offensively, Byron Buxton’s legs and Miguel Sanó’s bat helped back their effort.

Buxton reached first on a walk in the third, swiped second shortly after, advanced on a flyout and came home to score on Mitch Garver’s sacrifice fly to give the Twins a lead.

“He always plays hard, gives himself a chance to make things happen and it doesn’t always have to be a homer, doesn’t always have to be a highlight-reel deal,” Baldelli said. “He makes very difficult on the opposition just by the way he plays the game.”

The Twins’ second run of the game came in the seventh on Sanó’s 30th home run of the season, marking the second time in his career that the first baseman has reached that mark. Max Kepler added the Twins’ second sacrifice fly of the night shortly after, which wound up being the deciding run.

NEW YORK — Amazon’s new robot can hear, see and follow you around the the home, but its no Rosey the Robot.

Amazon’s version, called Astro, doesn’t cook or clean like the animated character from “The Jetsons,” but it can check if you left the stove on while you’re out or send an alert if someone enters the house it doesn’t recognize.

It uses cameras, sensors and artificial technology to avoid walls or dogs, and Amazon said Astro — which also happens to be the name of the Jetson’s dog — will only get smarter as time goes on. It does do some housework: Snacks or a can of soda can be placed on its back to be carted to someone across the house.

The $1,000 robot, which will be sent out to customers later this year, was one of a slew of gadgets Amazon unveiled Tuesday as part of its annual event ahead of the holidays.

Astro, however, stole the show. Amazon executive David Limp asked the 17-inch (43-centimeter) tall robot to come on stage during the virtual event, then asked it to beatbox. Its round digital eyes close or widen as it does tasks, giving it a human-like touch.

Amazon said a limited number of the Astro will be sold, but didn’t provide a number.

Besides the robot, Amazon also unveiled a picture frame-like screen that can be hung to a wall and has Amazon’s Alexa voice assistant built in. The company foresees it going in the kitchen, where users can see recipes, check their schedule or watch a show as they cook.

Also Tuesday, the Seattle-based company said its Echo listening devices will be put in Disney hotel rooms next year so that guests can order towels from room service or ask it the fastest way to get to a theme park.

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — South Dakota’s attorney general said Tuesday he is reviewing concerns from state lawmakers over a meeting Gov. Kristi Noem held last year that included both her daughter and a state employee who was overseeing her daughter’s application to become a certified real estate appraiser.

“I have been contacted by concerned citizens and legislators,” Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg said in a statement. “I am actively reviewing their concerns and I will be following the steps prescribed in codified law in relation to those questions.”

Ravnsborg didn’t immediately respond to a question about what steps he might take. The attorney general is tasked under state law with issuing legal opinions to lawmakers.

The Associated Press reported Monday that Noem held the meeting shortly after the state agency had moved to deny her daughter the license last year. Noem’s daughter eventually received her license four months later. Afterward, the state employee who directed the agency was allegedly pressured to retire by Noem’s cabinet secretary. The state employee, Sherry Bren, eventually received a $200,000 payment from the state to withdraw the complaint and leave her job.

Ethics experts said the episode raised concerns that the governor had abused the power of her office.

The governor’s office declined to answer detailed questions from the AP, and Noem’s spokesman dismissed the AP’s report as a political attack on the governor.

Noem, 49, is seen among a handful of early GOP hopefuls for the White House in 2024. In just her first term as governor after nearly a decade in Congress, her star has risen as she has honed a message of more freedom and less government — particularly during the coronavirus pandemic, when she decried restrictions being put in place elsewhere. Though Noem has said she’s focused on re-election in 2022, she’s visited key early presidential states Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and shown a willingness to jab at potential rivals.

Though Ravnsborg and Noem are both Republicans, they have become political enemies over the last year after the governor pressured Ravnsborg to resign following a car crash in which he struck and killed a man walking on a highway. The attorney general pleaded no contest to two misdemeanors in the crash. The Legislature is planning to convene in November to consider whether to proceed with impeaching Ravnsborg.

Democrats in the Legislature, who hold just a handful of seats, have also called for an investigation into the governor’s conduct during her daughter’s appraiser certification application.

No idea is more dearly held by political activists than the notion that voters will reward elected officials who enact an ambitious policy agenda. But it’s entirely possible that what voters really want, especially in a time of political and social insecurity, is competence and stability.

Two of the most popular governors in America are Larry Hogan of Maryland and Charlie Baker of Massachusetts. Neither can be said to have a signature accomplishment or celebrated failure. In both cases, a Republican with moderate affect narrowly won a governor’s race in a huge Republican wave year and then spent four years mostly checking the excesses of a Democratic legislature. For their trouble, they both won with landslide victories.

Conversely, Kansas has a Democratic governor because the state’s Republican Party decided to enact supply-side economics. It was an unpopular disaster, and led to a backlash in an extremely red state. Something similar happened in Vermont in 2016, when Gov. Peter Shumlin made an ambitious push for single-payer health care. The legislature suffered sticker shock over the price tag, and a Republican got elected basically on a promise to not rock the boat too much. He then cruised to reelection and remains popular based on his competent handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Americans are just more complacent than activists on either side of the aisle want to believe.

Are parents mad about “woke” teachers injecting critical race theory into the classroom? Some of them, probably. But 73% of parents say they are satisfied with the education their children are receiving.

Or consider the U.S. health care system, which virtually every analyst on both the left and right says is wracked by huge irrationalities and inefficiencies. Most people are satisfied with the health insurance they have — whether from the public or private sector. Famously, a single national health insurance system polls very well until people learn it would involve eliminating private insurance or shifting health cost payments into the tax system. Indeed, Americans aren’t even that bothered about the amount of taxes they pay — though woe betide anyone who tries to raise taxes on the middle class.

The mistake activists make is confusing an inchoate sense of public anger at the system with a desire for sweeping policy change. In reality, it probably goes the other way: Amid mass disillusionment with politics, voters are suspicious and fearful of change.

It’s not a coincidence that the worst poll numbers of Donald Trump’s presidency came when media attention was focused on his proposed changes to tax policy rather than his scandals or outlandish behavior. Nor is it a coincidence that former President Bill Clinton’s approval ratings improved enormously once Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 and he was able to position himself as standing against their efforts to cut Medicare and Medicaid.

None of this is to say that it’s never a good idea to try to change things. Creating Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 didn’t win Democrats any votes in the 1966 midterms. But once the programs are in place, they are very difficult to dislodge — and those who try get punished.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statement during the debate over the Affordable Care Act fight that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it” was widely mocked at the time, and certainly didn’t help Democrats in the 2010 midterms. But in the long run she was vindicated. Once the ACA had been in place for years, the public’s basic aversion to change made it very difficult to repeal.

Even in countries such as Canada and the U.K., with a less clunky legislative process, it’s unusual for the policy pendulum to fully swing back and forth. Margaret Thatcher didn’t dismantle the National Health Service, nor did Tony Blair renationalize industry.

Of course, people generally get into politics because they want to change things. It’s a risky pursuit, but it can also be quite rewarding. And an incumbent politician who accomplished literally nothing might have trouble cutting convincing reelection ads.

But it’s a question of scale. Clinton was widely mocked by contemporaries (and his successor Barack Obama) for dedicating so much time to school uniforms, the v-chip and so on. But people really liked Clinton. The v-chip sought to address a widespread parental concern in a minimally disruptive way. It often doesn’t take much to scratch the public’s itch that something be done.

Which brings us to the presidency of Joe Biden. During the Democratic primaries, Biden was portrayed — accurately, mostly — as the safe, boring, electable choice. (If you wanted “big structural change” or a “political revolution,” you favored another candidate). In the general election, Biden’s main message was that he would be a steady and compassionate pair of hands to guide the country through the COVID-19 pandemic.

To much of the public, Biden fundamentally fulfilled his core campaign promise the day he took the oath of office — delivering an unremarkable speech full of patriotic bromides. That’s true as far as it goes, but his campaign also had an actual policy agenda — and it was surprisingly sweeping and progressive.

Democrats’ struggles this fall reflect the tension between these two promises of the Biden campaign. One is genuinely committed to trying to deliver major policy change — above all else on climate, which progressive elites care about enormously. The main sales pitch of the other promise was that the president would no longer tweet bizarre things.

The best way forward from here is for Democrats to make their strongest case for action on the merits, but recognize the political reality: When it comes to change, less is often more.

I’m quite attached to the idea, for example, of making the newly enhanced child tax credit permanent, which would greatly reduce child poverty. But the Democrats’ proposal contains so much more than that — sliding-scale subsidies for child care, investments in preschool for three and four year-olds, a half-baked paid parental leave plan, a huge investment in at-home care services for Medicaid beneficiaries, and more generous subsidies for various Affordable Care Act programs.

These are all fine ideas, but are they really necessary if Democrats want to say they accomplished something? Each of them has its own constituency, and it would be painful for the party to break the news that it’s not going to happen. But the public simply isn’t demanding rapid advances on every policy front.

In the context of the current legislative battle, it would be better for Democrats to focus on the climate provisions, which are in many ways the motivating force for Democrats and are a distinct minority of the spending proposed in their $3.5 trillion budget package. The idea of pairing them with a few spoonfuls of sugar in the form of cheaper prescription drugs and dental and vision benefits for senior citizens makes a lot of sense. The sooner something is done, the sooner Biden can pivot to seeking the 21st-century equivalent of the v-chip.

Once you’ve got your most important idea and you most popular idea, how much more do you need?

Matthew Yglesias wrote this column for Bloomberg Opinion.