Author: Andrew Sullivan

Following Jay Carney’s resignation, Weigel isn’t sure we need a White House press secretary:

Kenneth T. Walsh observes that “the White House press secretary has increasingly become a flak catcher, policy and political debater, and public relations strategist for the president rather than the conveyor of straightforward information to the media and the public”:

During Carney’s tenure, journalists raised frequent objections to what they considered reduced access to Obama and his senior advisers. They complained that Carney sometimes didn’t seem to know the president’s thinking or what was happening in the administration on key issues. There was distress within the media over the administration’s attempt to crack down on unauthorized leaks. And there was concern among White House correspondents that White House officials were shunting them aside and dealing instead with new media or communicating directly with key constituencies via the White House website and the Internet.

Reid Cherlin contrasts Carney’s tenure with Gibbs.’ His bottom line:

The good news for Carney is twofold. As soon as his successor, Josh Earnest, assumes the job, Carney’s reputation will undergo a rehabilitation, just as Gibbs is now remembered with nostalgia by White House reporters. More important, Carney will get to step out of one of Washington’s most fruitless positions and go make more money doing something rewarding.

Prepare to lose half your afternoon, poring through Terrible Real Estate Photographs. The captions push this one over the edge into edgy. So for the one above:

If you’re the sort of person who doesn’t mind defecating in a kitchen, then you probably won’t mind doing it next to a large window either.

Another fave:

Of the two options, “bless this house” is the more popular.

Followers of the Hindu spiritual leader Ashutosh Maharaj, who died of a heart attack several months ago, insist that he is not in fact deceased, but rather “in a state of transcendent bliss called samadhi, a central tenet of traditional yoga in which a yogi becomes one with the universe”:

This would seem to be at odds with the assessment of a team of local physicians who examined Maharaj in February. After performing an ECG that showed no heartbeats, noting that he had no respiratory movements, and seeing that his pupils were fixed and dilated, the physicians declared him “clinically dead.”

The sect’s website states, “His Holiness Shri Ashutosh Maharaj Ji has been in a deep meditative state (samadhi) since January 29, 2014.” Though, a representative from the sect did say on February 3, “About 4:00 PM yesterday, some changes were noticed in his skin (it became greenish). The body was then shifted to a freezer,” which may or may not be part of the traditional protocol for transcendent bliss.

The guru’s son and wife corroborate that he died of a heart attack in January, and that his followers are keeping his body in order to retain control of his financial empire, including the ten billion rupee ($170 million) estate where the corpse resides.

He is, of course, just pining for the fjords.

REMINDER: VA Struggles w/ Huge Influx of New Patients After Bush Ignored Shinseki On Post-Iraq http://t.co/OUIPie9INI pic.twitter.com/KDNy2Ln0dp

— The Baxter Bean (@TheBaxterBean) June 1, 2014

Shortly after a damning Inspector General’s report revealed widespread fraud and unacceptable wait times in Phoenix’s VA clinics, Eric Shinseki resigned on Friday. Jacob Siegel is saddened at his ouster:

The VA’s problems didn’t start with Shinseki and they won’t be solved by his resignation—in fact, they may get worse. The secret waiting lists discovered in VA hospitals exploited a lack of oversight that made cheating easy and profitable. But beneath them there are underlying structural issues that will be even harder to fix.

As I wrote last week, it didn’t have to be this way. The VA didn’t learn about treatment delays and falsified schedules when the national press picked up the story last month. This is a problem the VA has known about for years. The same “scheduling schemes” that placed 1,700 veterans on secret waiting lists in Phoenix have been extensively documented since 2005 and no one, including Shinseki, yet explained why it took so long to act.

Cassidy even thinks Obama should have kept him on:

As he demonstrated during the Iraq war, when he warned the Bush Administration that it would need a lot more troops to occupy the country than the Pentagon was deploying, Shinseki is a man of honor. Despite this scandal, he has done a number of positive things in his time at the V.A., such as expanding the treatments offered to victims of past wars, including the war in Vietnam, and helping to reduce the number of homeless veterans by a third. His remarks on Friday were made before the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, which gave him a standing ovation.

The underlying problems facing the V.A. are well known in Washington, and they go back at least a decade. As the number of wounded veterans has increased sharply, the agency’s budget hasn’t been raised in line with the increased demand for medical services. That’s why there are such long waiting lines: there are too few doctors and beds available for all the patients that need them.

Gordon Lubold and John Hudson ponder potential replacements:

Members of Congress, individuals associated with veterans groups and others were disinclined to name publicly individuals who should replace Shinseki, but a handful of names have emerged, including a slew of retired general or flag officers, from Mike Mullen to Stanley McChrystal or Peter Chiarelli. John McHugh, a former Congressman and now the sitting Army secretary, and Navy Secretary Ray Mabus were also on the lips in Washington on Friday. And Gen. Raymond Odierno, the Army’s chief of staff, and James Webb, the former senator, Marine, and Navy secretary have all been mentioned as a possible successors. Someone with corporate leadership experience, coupled with a military background, could also be seen as a good fit. That very short list would include someone like Fred Smith, the chairman and CEO of global mailing giant FedEx, who served as an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1966 to 1970.

Kleiman argues that Shinseki was felled by his preoccupation with metrics:

Apparently the systematic fudging of the waiting-list numbers was known to the Bush the Lesser administration and had started even earlier, but Shinseki was a strong advocate of numerical goal-setting, and in particular the strategy of setting “stretch” (i.e., impossible-to-satisfy) goals as a way of motivating extra effort. (One VA health-service provider, a sound progressive, told me back in 2010 that she was so frustrated at having to deal with idiotic goals imposed from DVA headquarters that planned to vote for any Republican against Obama in 2012.)

In fact, what “stretch” goals motivate is mostly deception.  If there’s no honest way to “make your numbers,” cheating seems like the only sensible strategy.

An audit released on Friday backs up this notion that the VA’s goals were simply unattainable:

Thirteen percent of staff were instructed to schedule appointments without regard to a patient’s desired date, which could indicate an attempt to falsify records. At least one instance of the practice was detected in 64 percent of the surveyed VA facilities. The survey, however, did not determine whether these activities were intentionally fraudulent behavior. The audit also acknowledged that the VA’s goal of seeing patients within two weeks of a desired appointment date “was simply not attainable given the ongoing challenge of finding sufficient provider slots to accommodate a growing demand for services.” The report also criticized other complications and technicalities in the VA scheduling system, many of which have been known for years.

Phillip Carter thinks the department’s problems won’t be easy to fix:

Yuval Levin blames the disjunction between the administration’s ability to identify the problem and its willingness to fix it:

Centrally run, highly bureaucratic, public health-care systems that do not permit meaningful pricing and do not allow for competition among providers of care can really only respond to supply and demand pressures through waiting lines. It happens everywhere, but when it has happened at the VA the response has been to criticize waiting times rather than to reconsider how the system is organized.

There is no question that the quality of the VA system has improved significantly over the last three decades, thanks to a series of modernization efforts launched (and very well executed, I should note) by the Clinton administration and continued by both the Bush and Obama administrations. But these efforts began from an extremely low baseline and they have achieved improvements by essentially modernizing the infrastructure that supports a very inefficient bureaucracy. The potential of these kinds of changes to dramatically reduce waiting times was always going to be limited, and the increasingly unrealistic targets set for waiting times put pressure on the system without giving administrators any way to release it.

Byron York pans Bernie Sanders’ bill that would give the VA an additional $20 billion to expand its services:

The bill would essentially offer VA health care services to all veterans, including those who do not have service-related problems and have incomes above current cutoff levels. It would also greatly expand a program that pays caregivers of disabled veterans a monthly stipend. Congress originally passed the measure for veterans of post-Sept. 11 wars; Sanders would expand it to all veterans.

The caregivers provision is one of the single most expensive features of the bill, and it was put into the legislation over the objections of the Department of Veterans Affairs itself, which believes it would cost even more than Sanders estimated. “VA believes the expansion of benefits to caregivers of eligible veterans of all eras would make the program more equitable,” the agency noted in a statement on cost. “Unfortunately, core health-care services to veterans would be negatively impacted without the additional resources necessary to fund the expansion.”

But Beutler warns Republicans against trying to score points on the VA scandal without offering a meaningful alternative:

This isn’t a familiar Congressional impasse where Democrats want to spend a certain amount of money on something while Republicans want to spend less money. Those sorts of fights are destructive, too. In a way they’ve defined the Obama presidency. But they’re also resolvable. Veterans health care is different—the story here is 100 percent ideological, and zero percent fiscal.

It’s not that big government foes are after spending less money on the VA, per se, or want to isolate efficiencies within its existing structure and ply the savings into building out capacity within the department. They instead want to spend more money on veterans by transitioning them into an entirely different, private-sector oriented system of care. This includes House Speaker John Boehner.

Previous Dish on the VA scandal here, here, here, and here.

Chait has a great little jab at the Republican “I’m not a scientist” schtick when trying to square objective reality with the denialism or fantasy of their own coalition. I’m not a scientist either. I have no expertise in measuring carbon levels back thousands of years; I have no clue how to balance measurable heat in the oceans as opposed to the deserts; I cannot say what would likely shift in weather patterns if we keep boiling our planet like the proverbial frog; and on and on. But I can read temperature charts and I can read the IPCC report and I can glean something relevant from the crushingly overwhelming majority view of the relevant climate scientists.

And that simple act of amateur reasoning is all we ask of ourselves as citizens, and it is all we can ever ask of our elected representatives. We elect them to make decisions about the future of Afghanistan, the sectarian conflict in Syria, the intricacies of Internet regulation, and any number of complex questions usually grasped only by experts. Sometimes, they can become kinda experts themselves. But what’s vital is that they simply use reason – a core democratic practice – to figure stuff out.

On this important issue, one entire party in our system has simply decided to opt out of these basic demands of democratic life. And this is not restricted to Christianist congressmen who believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago. It’s deep in the bones of what’s left of the intelligentsia as well:

In a recent hearing before Congress, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce refused to take a position on whether anthropogenic global warming is real. “Room to Grow,” the new policy manifesto by a coalition of non-crazy Republicans, has one chapter on energy, which omits any reference at all to climate change. It doesn’t deny climate change, nor does it concede it — it merely treats the energy debate as if the question of whether to price carbon emissions does not exist at all.

A figure as respected on the right as Charles Krauthammer has been reduced to claiming that no reigning scientific theory should be taken seriously because it might one day be adjusted in light of new data or new experiments.

This is what happens when reason becomes anathema in one hermetically sealed party:

According to Pew Research Center surveys conducted last year, 25 percent of self-identified Republicans said they considered global climate change to be “a major threat.” The only countries with such low levels of climate concern are Egypt, where 16 percent of respondents called climate change a major threat, and Pakistan, where 15 percent did. By comparison, 65 percent of Democrats in the United States gave that answer, putting them in the same range as Brazilians (76 percent), Japanese (72 percent), Chileans (68 percent) or Italians and Spaniards (64 percent).

It matters when one major party refuses to accept reality – when it refuses to grasp the fact that you cannot raise revenue by cutting taxes, that the United States practiced torture, or that human-made climate change is real. When one side engages in this surreal debate, the country becomes incapable of engaging in any real debate. I know we’ve become used to this – and the press has found a way to write about the GOP as if they are not a reckless, know-nothing, post-modern fantasy machine. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t remain capable of shock and anger at this pathetic excuse for a political party, at the unique idiocy of this party of the right in the Western world.

Obama climate efforts finally begin. This is what happens when people organize, push, demand. See you in NYC in Sept http://t.co/U9ecrDv9BW

— Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) June 2, 2014

Yglesias calls today “the most important day of Obama’s second term”:

It’s important not only because climate change is an issue of enormous significance, but because the text of the Clean Air Act really does give the executive branch power that matters. The White House can’t unilaterally change the wage structure of the United States or create a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants, but it really can revolutionize the environmental practices of the electricity sector — a sector that, as seen [here], is responsible for about 38.4 percent of America’s total carbon dioxide emissions.

Ryan Koronowski declares that this is “the most significant move any U.S. president has made to curtail carbon pollution in history”:

There are many opinions of what method is best to lower emissions: carbon tax, cap-and-trade, clean energy incentives, direct regulation. All that matters for those concerned about climate change, in the end, is whether emissions drop, and how quickly. The Council of Foreign Relations’ Michael Levi points to EIA analysis of the likely impact of a carbon tax and other climate bills on power plant emissions. A $25-per-ton carbon tax would be far more effective, dropping emissions 47 percent by 2020 and 66 percent by 2030 — and the cap-and-trade bill passed by the House would have lowered emissions 56 percent by 2030 according to the EIA. The EPA’s proposed target, however, achieves reductions comparable to a far lower carbon tax, the Senate’s 2010 American Power Act, and 2012′s Clean Energy Standard Act. Levi suggests that the 2030 could be seen as a moving target — it could be ratcheted down through additional legislation or new regulation.

Indeed, the EPA could finalize this rule next year with a stronger target, especially if it receives a great deal of feedback from the public. Many environmental groups will be pushing for more ambitious targets later in the decade, even as they nearly unanimously applauded the regulations.

Ben Adler is hearing complaints from environmentalists. He also wonders about the international reaction:

The big question on the minds of many environmentalists is whether this will be enough to encourage other major polluting countries to make significant climate commitments. While the CO2 reduction will be significant by historical U.S. standards, it won’t get emissions down anywhere close to what’s needed to avert catastrophic global warming, nor even get the U.S. to the goal it agreed to at U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen in 2009: a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2020. The hope is that it will signal enough progress to get the rest of the world to agree to binding emissions reductions in the next round of U.N. climate talks, which is supposed to culminate in a new climate treaty signed in Paris in December 2015. Will these proposed rules be good enough?

Plumer has a full explainer on the new EPA regulations. On whether the rules will survive legal scrutiny:

[T]he regulations could get knocked down in court. Industry groups and conservative states are sure to challenge the power-plant rule as soon as humanly possible. Environmentalists, for their part, have argue that the EPA’s flexible approach to regulation is defensible. Other legal experts think it’s a closer call. But it would all come down to whatever the DC Circuit Court or the Supreme Court decided.

If the EPA’s power-plant rule did get struck down in court, the agency might have to start all over again — raising the possibility that it wouldn’t be able to craft a new rule until Obama left office in 2017.

Jason Mark labels the EPA move “Obamacare for the air”:

If the “job-killing EPA regs” and “Obama overreach” soundbites seems to echo the political script from the Obamacare battle, there are some key differences. For starters, Republican-controlled states won’t have the ability to opt out of the system, as many have with the Affordable Care Act’s extension of Medicaid. If a state fails to submit a plan for lowering emissions from its power plants, the EPA has the authority to impose one—a scenario most states will choose to avoid.

More importantly, corporate opposition to the new rules isn’t as unanimous as it may appear. Several major electric utilities —including Dynergy, American Electric Power, and First Energy — have expressed cautious optimism about being able to thrive within the new regulations. Electricity generation is a capital-intensive industry that works on planning horizons of 30 to 50 years, and the utilities would prefer certainty and clarity as opposed to the policy purgatory they’ve been in the for the last decade.

Michael Grunwald sees the regulations as part of Obama’s war on coal:

It’s filthy stuff. When Obama said Saturday that his carbon rules will prevent 100,000 asthma attacks in Year One, he wasn’t describing the health benefits of emitting less carbon dioxide; he was describing the health benefits of burning less coal.

So let’s face it: When Obama talks up his “all-of-the-above” energy strategy, he really means all-of-the-above-except-the-black-rocks-below. In the 21st century, any national leader that takes environmental protection and the fate of the planet seriously will need to launch a war on coal, and Obama takes it very seriously. He hasn’t advertised his war on coal—it would be questionable politics in swing states like Ohio or Virginia, and even his home state of Illinois—but he’s fought it with vigor.

Tom Zeller Jr. thinks the plan may boost the economy:

While some jobs will almost certainly be lost if companies decide that it’s not worth it to outfit their aging coal plants with new pollution-control technologies, those losses will almost certainly be offset by the creation of new jobs elsewhere, as the new regulations drive investment in cleaner technologies, efficiency upgrades and other areas. A recent analysis from the Natural Resources Defense Council estimated that new greenhouse gas limits on power plants could reduce electric bills for U.S. households and businesses by as much as $37.4 billion by 2020, and create more than 274,000 jobs.

Sure, the NRDC isn’t exactly an impartial observer, but then neither is the API or the U.S. Chamber. The larger point is that most regulations have upsides and downsides, and short-term pain is often offset to some degree by long-term benefits that industry likes to ignore.

McArdle has low expectations:

As with any new Environmental Protection Agency rule, a lengthy comment period will ensue. After the comment period, the EPA presumably has discretion about the deadlines they set. With a big election coming in 2016, and some nice, big, coal-consuming swing states on the line, I would wager cash money that those deadlines are set no earlier than Dec. 31, 2016.

Whenever the deadlines do kick in, the new president will be besieged with desperate legislators and governors pleading to keep electricity prices from rising in these hard economic times. I can imagine a steadfast Democratic president standing up for the environment against utility lobbyists, coal-mining districts and electricity users, telling them that we need to do what’s best for the planet, not some narrow economic interest. But I can also imagine a beautiful world where everyone rides around in carriages driven by unicorns, angels sing in the trees, and purple raspberry pie grows on bushes outside your backdoor.

Ann Carlson reminds everyone that Obama is following the law:

Obama’s proposed rules are not a power grab. Nor are they an end run around Congress. Rather, the rules are reactive, a legally-required response to a petition filed when Bill Clinton was still president. I hope this part of the story — that Obama is following, not skirting or flouting, the law — gets highlighted in what is already a big press story.

Here’s the backdrop for those who don’t know it. In 1999, the International Center for Technology Assessment and a number of other non-profit organizations filed a petition with the Clinton EPA arguing that EPA should regulate greenhouse gases from automobiles under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. In 2003, after George W. Bush became President, EPA denied the petition. A coalition of states and environmental groups then challenged the denial of the petition in the case that resulted in the landmark decision Massachusetts v. EPA. The Court held in Mass v. EPA that the agency erroneously denied the petition. The Court also ruled — and this is key — that greenhouse gases are an “air pollutant” as defined in the Clean Air Act and that EPA must decide whether, under Section 202 of the Act, greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The Court’s ruling triggered a cascade of regulatory actions by EPA, all required by the Court’s substantive holdings.

And Ezra Klein points out that the new regulations “are far less ambitious than the proposal McCain offered in Oregon in 2008”:

They’re less ambitious than the proposals Newt Gingrich championed through the Aughts. They’re far less than what’s required to keep the rise in temperatures to two degrees Celsius.

But they’re probably at the outer limit of what can be done so long as the Republican Party refuses to even believe in climate change, much less work with the Obama administration on a bill. The good news, if there is any, is that the Republican Party hasn’t always refused to believe in climate change. There was even a time when its key national leaders were committed to doing something about it. Those leaders are still around today. They could still do something about it today.

(Photo: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy’s signature is shown on new regulations for power plants June 2, 2014 in Washington, DC. By Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)