That North Carolina Town Is Afraid of Solar Power Because They Have No Ownership

That North Carolina Town Is Afraid of Solar Power Because They Have No Ownership

Last week, the internet collectively shook its head at the residents of Woodland, a small North Carolina town. At a meeting to discuss a proposed new field of solar panels, Woodland residents offered up some ridiculous protests. One worried that solar panels cause cancer. (They don’t.) A complaint was raised that solar panels draw sunlight away from chlorophyll-producing plants. (Not even remotely true.) And another suggested that the panels “would suck up all the energy from the sun and businesses would not come to Woodland.” Everyone on the internet had a good laugh at the Woodlanders’ expense and promptly moved on. But David Roberts at Vox published an excellent piece today that explores the story a little further. He discovers that Woodland is an incredibly poor town, and like many poor American towns it’s suffering from a youth drain—young people are moving away at rapid rates. Four out of every ten residents does not have a high school diploma. Residents are rightfully worried that their town is slowly being abandoned. Roberts points out that Woodland doesn’t benefit from the solar panels at all. They don’t get taxes from the solar farms, or jobs, or any cuts to their energy bills. So far as they’re concerned, the panels are just taking up space. Is it any wonder that they’re spreading rumors about the panels? They’re terrifying, they provide no benefit to the town, and they’re a reminder that people have abandoned Woodland. By way of a solution, Roberts suggests benefit sharing. He shows that complaints from locals go way down when benefit sharing takes place, and he shares some benefit sharing mechanisms from an EU report that have helped clean energy achieve immense levels of popularity in Europe. 1. Community Funds: the local developer provides funds which are at the disposal of the community for common
+ Read More

Daily Clips: December 18th, 2015

Daily Clips: December 18th, 2015

Matthew Yglesias on Marco Rubio:  As per usual, Yglesias writes an op-ed that neatly unpackages what the Skunk Works team has been grappling with in private. His opening sentence, in particular, is very apt: Virtually every Democrat I talk to in Washington is equal parts delighted and baffled that Republican Party stakeholders have as of yet done nothing to seriously try to unify the party establishment behind Marco Rubio. That has been the conversation we’ve all been having privately for a long time. Rubio is the only GOP candidate that scares us for the 2016 election. Cruz? Trump? No way. Jeb!? Yes, but there’s almost no chance that he gets the nomination. Hillary’s Economic Balancing Act:  Even though Republicans have completely ignored the economy , we know this issue will be front and center come 2016. Hillary Clinton, when she becomes the Democratic nominee, will have a difficult time addressing Americans economic concerns, however. As the author points out: How do you run a campaign that capitalizes on the country’s populist mood—and anger—while also touting the economic advances made under Obama? This economic balancing act will not be easy. And the Fed’s recent decision to raise rates from near zero will force the conversation upon Hillary Clinton, most likely at tomorrow’s Democratic debate (isn’t it refreshing that one party actually talks about the economy?). Nonetheless, Hillary should take comfort in the fact that “A large body of research shows that voters are more inclined to stick with the incumbent party when the economy is doing well and to support the opposition when it’s not. Recent elections have borne this out.” The path to 270 in 2016: The Center for American Progress has just published a new report which lays out a roadmap to victory for the Democratic presidential nominee. It’s an in-depth piece of research worthy of your time.

Donald Trump Is the End Result of the Republican Party’s Exclusionary Tactics

Donald Trump Is the End Result of the Republican Party’s Exclusionary Tactics

Adam Serwer’s excellent assessment of the Trump campaign—it’s titled “ The Antidote to Trump “—is absolutely worth your time. Here’s the thesis statement: The force that can scour Trumpism from the Republican Party for good is the same one that gave Truman the ability to defy the Dixiecrats: a diverse base. Not the feel-good diversity of tokenism or having “black friends,” but the division of power. This is absolutely true. Trump’s rise to popularity in the Republican Party could only have happened with the help of a homogenous base. And the only way to stop this kind of exclusionary talk is by diversifying that base. On the face of it, this seems to be a catch-22, but Serwer correctly points out that both Democrats and Republicans have successfully incorporated more diverse viewpoints at multiple times in their histories. More to the point, the diversification often came after demagogues single-handedly drove the parties to their worst moments. Nobody can seriously deny that the party of Trump is at a low point. Unless you’re a straight white male, the Republican Party has likely overtly offended you in the last few years. In this primary alone, politicians have worked to exclude, vilify, or outright deny the rights of every minority imaginable. This is not sustainable. Diversity, as Civic Skunkworks co-founder Nick Hanauer has said , is the key to innovation of all kinds: “The more cognitive diversity we have — the more people simultaneously approaching the same problem from as many different backgrounds and perspectives as possible — the greater the rate of innovation.” And yes, that includes political innovation. Without diversity, your answers become more and more myopic, until finally the solutions to all your problems start to look remarkably like Donald Trump: hateful, exclusionary, and cruel. Donald Trump is the end result of the negative feedback loop that Hanauer
+ Read More

In This Economy, High School Grads Are Falling Out of The Middle Class

In This Economy, High School Grads Are Falling Out of The Middle Class

Last week, Pew Research released a 74-page report, “ The American Middle Class Is Losing Ground ,” which examined economic data from 1971 to 2015. The study discovered that “after more than four decades of serving as the nation’s economic majority, the American middle class is now matched in number by those in the economic tiers above and below it.” In other words, our economy has been hollowed out from the middle. We have become a nation of “haves” and “have-nots.” Predictably, this evaporation of the middle class has affected some demographic groups more than others. Hispanics and millennials were hit hard, but no one lost more ground economically than adults who had no more than a high school diploma. Look at this graphic from the report: As you can see, those with high school degrees lost even more income share (-21.9 percent) than those with less than a high school degree (-18.1 percent). But did those with college degrees do much better? The answer is an unequivocal yes. During the period researched by Pew, “only one educational attainment group did not lose income status: college graduates.” Marinate on that for a second. Now look here: These numbers are startling. Americans with college degrees are “eight times as likely as adults who did not graduate from high school to live in upper-income households, and they are more than twice as likely as high school graduates or adults with some college education to be in the upper-income tier.” Pew Research adds: As the U.S. economy increasingly rewards those with job skills, college-educated Americans have an economic edge over other adults, even when the costs of going to college are factored in. They have a growing earnings advantage over those with no more than a high school diploma. Their study seems to be pointing to a clear solution: in order to create a more robust middle class, we must ensure
+ Read More

Scott Walker Hopes You Won’t Notice Him Quietly Killing Voter Rights in Wisconsin

Scott Walker Hopes You Won’t Notice Him Quietly Killing Voter Rights in Wisconsin

In a private ceremony far away from the prying eyes of the media, Wisconsin Governor (and failed presidential candidate) Scott Walker signed two new bills into law. The first strips power from a nonpartisan elections panel and instead creates two new partisan committees to oversee elections. And the second, in the words of Amanda Terkel at the Huffington Post … …relaxes campaign finance rules, doubling the limit for individual contributions, eliminating the requirement that donors must identify their employer and allowing corporate donations to political parties and legislative campaign committees. Yep. If you asked me how to destroy a democracy as quickly as possible, those are pretty much the steps I’d outline: remove nonpartisan oversight and give outsize power to big money interests. These kind of policies have been enacted in Republican strongholds across the country, and they are incredibly detrimental to democracy. Walker signed those bills in secret, which is telling: it indicates to me that he knows what he’s doing isn’t in the public’s interest. Unlike most conservative pushes against voter rights, he can’t even hold up a bogus claim of voter fraud as a reason for these policies. What he’s doing will strip the electorate of their voice, and devalue that quintessential American idea of one vote for every citizen. Instead, poor people, minorities, and other populations will lose their chance for equal representation. Meanwhile, Walker might not have won the presidency—in fact, he made a total hash of his presidential campaign—but you can bet he’ll retire from his governorship into a fancy high-paying position for one of the companies that supported the anti-voter legislation that he signed into law. The ugliness is so overt; opponents of election equality aren’t even trying to hide their goals behind euphemism and coded language anymore. They’re just trying to get what they want and sneak off like thieves into the night.

Daily Clips: December 17th, 2015

Daily Clips: December 17th, 2015

An appalling silence on gun control:  The New York Times Editorial Board published what we were all thinking, complaining that the Republican debate completely ignored the gun violence epidemic that offers “a lethal, daily threat” to Americans. It’s easier for these candidates to engage in eerie discussions of whether the next president should be free to bomb civilians in Syria or shoot down Russian bombers in a no-fly zone. They are experts at stoking fears about terrorism and great at wringing their hands about the unfounded bomb scare that shut down the Los Angeles school district on Tuesday , but actually facing up to gun violence — which kills more than 33,000 Americans a year — is beyond their capacity or courage. Far from offering any ideas, their statements on the campaign trail are a national embarrassment. I'm still disappointed that nobody at #GOPDebate argued that limiting access to guns should be part of any real counter-terror strategy. — igorvolsky (@igorvolsky) December 16, 2015 Why portable benefits should be a priority in this new economy:  Our economy has changed. And the lack of portable benefits is one of the biggest impediments blocking US workers from thriving in this new economy. As the author says, …The system for supporting the independent workers who provide these services is the opposite of flexible. Our health insurance, unemployment insurance, and workers compensation are rigidly attached to the employer. When you leave the company, you lose your employee benefits. This system makes no sense in today’s economy, where people move from job to job to build a career. The Fed is hiking rates for the first time since 2006. That’s a big deal:   After seven years of keeping a key interest rate near zero percent, the Federal Reserve has voted for a rate increase. The decision signals the central bank’s growing confidence in the economy. The Fed is raising its target for the federal funds rate — the rate banks charge when they lend money to one another — from 0 percent to 0.25 percent. By itself, that modest increase isn’t going to have
+ Read More

Marco Rubio Says You Can’t Live on $10/Hr, So…What? People Just Die?

Marco Rubio Says You Can’t Live on $10/Hr, So…What? People Just Die?

At a campaign event back in October, Marco Rubio said something that is factually accurate: That poverty wages simply are not enough to support a family. “I have full confidence that the American private sector…won’t just create millions of jobs. They’ll create millions of jobs that pay more,” he said, standing in a backyard in (according to the clip) Portsmouth. “Because even the jobs that are being created now don’t pay enough. You can’t live on $10 an hour! You can’t live $11 an hour! We need to create jobs that pay much more than that. But we have to have an economy and economic policy that make America the best place in the world to create jobs that pay more.” There’s a lot to unpack here, so let’s go point by point: Marco Rubio believes that the private sector, not the government, should be creating jobs and spreading wealth, even though he’s often said that a tax credit is the best way to put more money in the pockets of Americans. Marco Rubio doesn’t like the jobs that are being created now, even though he’s very much a believer that the economy is a game of straight supply-and-demand and thus, theoretically should believe that the jobs being created are the ones that are most in demand. Marco Rubio admits that the minimum wage—well below $10 or $11 in all states—is not enough to live on, and yet, does not suggest what to do about that. Marco Rubio wants people to be paid more than $11 per hour, but somehow refuses to admit that a quick way to do that is to raise the minimum wage. Marco Rubio says that to pay people more, we need to have “an economy and economic policy” that would favor job creators, though he fails to quite put
+ Read More

Daily Clips: December 16th, 2015

Daily Clips: December 16th, 2015

The winners and losers of last night’s debate, according to Jennifer Rubin: Rubin is a rigidly conventional thinker and an establishment Republican at the Washington Post. And within her analysis of last night’s debate, she does everything she can to make you think that Rubio and Bush were the best candidates on stage. Her winners and losers were perfectly demarcated between establishment candidates and outsiders: Winners: Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, CNN (for tough, substantive questions on foreign policy) Losers: Trump, Cruz, Dr. Ben Carson (who seemed barely there) A couple of things: How did she possibly think Jeb Bush won that debate? He was downright awful. And how does she think that CNN did a good job on foreign policy when they never even brought up the historic Paris agreement? Their adherence to terrorism was pathetic and cheap. Deep down, CNN is shallow. The GOP debate explained in one tweet: This wasn’t a “foreign policy” debate, or even a “national security” debate. It was contest about who could tell the scariest story. — Ana Marie Cox (@anamariecox) December 16, 2015  Rand Paul decided to show up to this debate:

The Republican Debate Was Alternately Horrifying and Boring

The Republican Debate Was Alternately Horrifying and Boring

I stand by my prediction from this morning : tonight’s Republican debate was all about fear. Candidates proposed war with just about every country we’re currently not friendly with, including Russia. They implied that terrorists and criminals were behind every rock and around every corner, ready to leap out and take everything we hold dear. They accused all refugees and Muslims and immigrants of being criminals or murderers or worse. It was a horrifying display. Even stranger, tonight’s debate was a bizarre blend of deadly dull and horrifying—there was a point when the candidates were jostling over who would be most eager to kill innocent children that I felt an alarming blend of boredom and shock that I’ve never quite felt before. I guess you can get used to anything. So if you’re still keeping track: Trump and Cruz probably “won” the debate, insofar as they projected their message of fear and hatred as clearly and as relentlessly as possible. Marco Rubio sweat it a little bit; he’s not going to lose his favored son status with the establishment, but a few Rubio fans might have walked away from the debate on shaky feet. Jeb Bush had the best debate of his campaign, but it won’t matter. His stammering closing statement was still ugly, and he didn’t make a case for why anyone should pass Rubio over for him. Christie was strong enough to pick up a point or two in New Hampshire. Rand Paul was about as good as he’s ever been, but it won’t help him at all, either. Kasich, Carson, and Fiorina all failed to justify their continued existence on the debate stage. But really none of that matters. What matters is that the candidates didn’t discuss the economy at all. They barely mentioned climate change, or guns. They talked about Americans feeling unsafe, but they
+ Read More

The Winner of Tonight’s Republican Debate Will Be…

The Winner of Tonight’s Republican Debate Will Be…

You’ll probably scroll past a lot of previews for tonight’s Republican presidential debate on Facebook and Twitter today. They’ll theorize about how many candidates will try to attack Ted Cruz (many of them) and who will “win” (probably Rubio) and who will “lose” (probably Paul and Bush) the debate. This is fine. I like to speculate about presidential debates as much as the next person—probably more. But the thing is, we’ve long since passed the point where this kind of speculation was useful. There have been four Republican debates so far, and they’ve all roughly followed the same pattern: Trump starts with a bang and disappears for the middle part of the debate after humiliating one or two of his opponents. Rubio follows his script and is praised for it. A few of the fringe candidates get to say a thing or two. Jeb Bush flails around and is visibly uncomfortable. Maybe Cruz does a little better or a little worse, depending on the day. This pattern is probably not going to change on any significant level between the last four debates and now. But here’s what has changed. In the month since the last debate, we have seen the Paris and San Bernardino terror attacks. We’ve seen that Republicans are interested in changing the conversation from economics to terror , because they believe they have a better shot at winning that way. Donald Trump has led the field on a ridiculous escalation of anti-Muslim statements that eventually led to a proposed unconstitutional (and unenforceable) ban on all Muslim travel into the US. In the time since the last debate, Trump has also proposed an automatic death penalty for all convicted killers of police officers. Since we’ve already established that the Republican presidential field is taking its orders from Trump, and since this debate is hosted by Wolf Blitzer, who is one of the least capable TV news hosts in the business, this
+ Read More

1 2 3 4