Links to what I’ve been reading.
Reuters: Andrew Quinn
[…]Obama directed the State Department last month to conduct an additional environmental review of the $7 billion pipeline. That would punt the decision on whether to approve the project until after next year’s presidential election.
The State Department underscored it had long-standing authority to supervise permitting for cross-border pipelines and had led a “a rigorous, thorough and transparent process” that must run its course.
A short-cut pushed through by Congress “would not only compromise the process, it would prohibit the department from acting consistently with National Environmental Policy Act requirements by not allowing sufficient time for the development of this information,” it said.
*My Note: Interesting to see this question come up from the moderators at last night’s debate concerning ‘forcing’ the administration to approve the Keystone XL project.
*My Side Note: Newt Gingrich told the audience that, if he were in Congress now, he would send the bill to the President and force him to veto it. Apparently he forgets that the Senate is controlled by the Democrats…
[…]Unfortunately, Mr. Paul has maintained his consistency by ignoring reality, clinging to his ideology even as the facts have demonstrated that ideology’s wrongness. And, even more unfortunately, Paulist ideology now dominates a Republican Party that used to know better.
I’m not talking here about Mr. Paul’s antiwar views or his less well-known views on civil and reproductive rights, which would horrify liberals who think of him as a good guy. I’m talking, instead, about his views on economics.
[…]Europe is facing what is fundamentally a money demand crisis caused by a passive tightening of ECB monetary policy. This is due to the insane notion that the yard stick of success price stability, come hell or high water. This is the reason that a crisis is manifesting itself in countries whose fiscal position prior to the recession was not particularly bad.
[…]Everything else that’s wrong with Paul–the paranoia, the crank theories–exists as an adjunct to this first prime fault. And the success of Paul in winning a boutique audience for his message has driven the rest of the field to mimic his crank monetary theories. In the midst of the worst crisis since the 1930s, the one thing that all the current and former first-tier candidates have agreed upon (even Mitt Romney!) is the need for tighter money and higher interest rates. That should seem obviously nuts, and not in a theoretical or marginal way that denying evolution is nuts. The press for tighter money and higher interest rates now is the kind of nutty thing that a government can actually do--and that would inflict severe, immediate real-world harm on the US and world economy.