NO ADVERTISING, GOVERNMENT OR CORPORATE FUNDING

  • Latest News
  • Pitch a Story
  • Work with a Journalist
  • Join the Blog Squad
  • Afghanistan
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Baltimore
  • Canada
  • Egypt
  • Europe
  • Latin America
  • Middle East
  • Russia
  • Economy
  • Environment
  • Health Care
  • Military
  • Occupy
  • Organize This
  • Reality Asserts Itself
  • US Politics
  • Where is Obama's Climate Change Agenda?


    James Boyce and Joe Romm discuss the Obama administration climate change policy or lack thereof -   January 5, 2012
    Members don't see ads. If you are a member, and you're seeing this appeal, click here


    Audio

    Share to Facebook Share to Twitter




    I support The Real News Network because it is not Conservative, it is not Liberal; it is Real. - David Pear
    Log in and tell us why you support TRNN

    Bio

    Joe Romm is a fellow at American Center for Progress and the editor of Climate Progress.org. He was the acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy in 1997. James Boyce is the director of the Program on Development, Peacebuilding, and the Environment at the Political Economy Research Institute and a Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts. He is also author of The Political Economy of the Environment, published in 2002.

    Transcript

    Where is Obama's Climate Change Agenda?PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Washington. The COP17 climate change negotiations have come and gone in Durban. Only a few weeks later, Canada announced it was pulling out of the Kyoto accord, and Russia supported Canada's decision. Japan wasn't far behind. What was hoped for out of COP17 would be a binding agreement. Well, there wasn't such, and we look further away from one than we were before. In the United States, policy seems to be paralyzed on the climate-change front, and American media and American politics mostly ignored what was going on in Durban. So why this lack of interest in climate change in the United States, and what policy might be doable and effective? Now joining us to talk about all of this is, first of all, Joe Romm, a fellow at the Center for American Progress and editor of climateprogress.org. He was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy in 1997. And joining us from Amherst, Massachusetts, is Professor James Boyce. He's head of the program on development, peace building, and the environment at the PERI institute at UMass Amherst. Thank you both for joining us.

    JAMES BOYCE, POLITICAL ECONOMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE: Thank you, Paul.

    JAY: James, you kick it off. You've in the past critiqued the sort of cap and trade program proposed by the Obama administration, and I've asked you before why you think there's so lack of interest in the American body politic and American media on what's happening on climate change, and you've kind of connected those two issues. So, first of all, what do you make of the Obama administration's record? And why isn't this more on the political agenda?

    BOYCE: The Obama administration decided to punt in certain respects and let Congress take the lead in drafting the legislation. And when that happened, Congress made some decisions. I think some of the decisions were right, but I think one important decision was a mistake.

    JAY: What's the mistake?

    BOYCE: The parts that were right was the recognition, first, that we have to do something to reduce the burning of fossil fuels here in the United States, that that's a necessary part of the solution and it's a cost-effective thing for us to do. In other words, the benefits of doing this, not only through reducing the risks of climate change, but also through reducing our dependence on foreign fuel, and reducing the other environmental damages associated with fossil fuel energy production, make it worth the cost of doing this. The cost is actually rather modest of investing in energy efficiency and clean energy alternatives to fossil fuels. So that was correct.

    A second thing that was correct was that part of the policy mix, one of the things we need to do, is to raise the price of fossil fuels, so as to send signals to the private sector, to individual consumers, to businesses, and even to state and local governments, that investing in energy efficiency and alternative energy sources is a smart thing to do. We live in an economy in which price signals matter, and as long as the prices of fossil fuels don't reflect their true costs, we're not going to get the transition that we need to see. So raising the price is an important thing to do.

    Here's where I think the mistake was made. If you raise the price on fossil fuels, you create another kind of cost. It's not a cost to the economy, it's a transfer within the economy. It's not the cost of energy-efficiency investments or investments in wind or solar or other forms of energy, it's the price that people now have to pay, the extra price they have to pay for the fossil fuels they still burn. And the key question is: where will that money go? Who will get that money as it's recycled somehow from consumers to someone? Who is that someone going to be?

    The decision that Congress made was that a lot of that money should be parceled out through what are called free allowances--that is to say, free permits given to energy companies, with the idea being that bringing these people on board, buying their support by giving them free allowances, and thereby letting them keep the money that consumers pay in higher prices, was going to buy their political support. That was the calculation. Personally, I thought it was a myopic or shortsighted calculation, because as you know, Paul, what I've advocated for some time now has been instead that the permits be auctioned off 100 percent and that most of the money be recycled right back into the pockets of the American people through per capita dividends.

    JAY: Joe, let me bring you in. So James is making the point, and he's made the point in previous interviews on The Real News, that part of the reason this is kind of off the political agenda is because President Obama's policies led to, in fact, higher prices and a kind of tax on ordinary consumers, as opposed to really making the corporate emitters of carbon pay some of this price, and thus the Obama administration bears some of the responsibility for the fact that people are kind of losing interest in this whole issue. What do you make of that?

    JOE ROMM, AMERICAN CENTER FOR PROGRESS: Well, I think Obama bears a small part of the blame. I've tried to be pretty clear on climateprogress.org that most of the blame for America's inaction clearly goes to the conservative movement, which has embraced the denial of climate science; the fossil fuel industry, which has funded climate science denial and made it very difficult for anybody in the Republican Party to have a rational position. And so the net result has been that many people who in 2007 and 2008 supported the approach that President Obama put on the table—which, after all, was basically a Republican idea to start with. It was an idea that George Bush, George Bush's father, embraced in the acid rain pollution reduction program in 1990. They--people like, you know, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney and John McCain, you know, moderate to even conservative Republicans, supported putting a price on carbon and taking action. And then, once it became clear that Obama was serious and might actually achieve something, they spent a staggering amount of money, the fossil fuel companies did, and the Republicans flipflopped on their position.

    And it really doesn't matter what Obama had put on the table. There was nothing--it wasn't what Obama put on the table, it was the fact that finally the administration, you know, the progressive community, looked to be serious about passing a climate bill, which after all did pass the U.S. House of Representatives. And, again, if it hadn't been for this, you know, frankly, antidemocratic, extraconstitutional, you know, requirement that we need 60 votes in the Senate, this bill would have passed the U.S. Senate and it would have been law. So it's really the dysfunctionality of the U.S. political system, the flipping over to hardcore antiscience by the Republican Party, and, I would also say, the media's failure to report the story in a way that would let the public understand just how dire the situation is.

    But it bears stating that the public supported this bill and the public supported climate action, and it continues to support climate action, clean energy. It is merely the fact that a minority can stop all action in Congress that is the reason we don't have a climate bill.

    JAY: James, that bill that Joe says could have passed if there hadn't been the 60 votes necessary, you weren't a fan of that bill anyway.

    BOYCE: I wasn't a big fan, though of course I would've rather seen a flawed bill passed than no bill at all. I think I agree with everything Joe just said. I think the climate-change denial, the influence that that fringe movement has had within the Republican Party, is a very big part of the problem. But I don't think it's quite the whole story, Paul; I think there's another piece as well. I think there was another form of denial that was taking place on the other side of the aisle.

    If you listen to what the Republicans had to say, if you listen to Speaker Boehner, for example, he said at one point, this climate bill would be the biggest tax on American people in history. Now, that's political hyperbole, but the idea that this was a tax on the public was also part of the Republican opposition. It wasn't just we don't believe there's a problem; it was also this proposed policy is going to be bad for our constituents and bad for the American people, because it's going to raise the price of gas, electricity, heating oil, etc.

    And on the Democratic side, the response to that charge was another kind of denial. It wasn't climate change denial, it was kind of climate policy economics denial. The claim was that oh, no, no, this isn't really a tax, it's not really going to cost that much money; the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost is less than a postage stamp a day; etc. Well, that was quite a disingenuous response. I think on the Democratic side they were either confused or they were trying to fool people, because it's very clear that although the cost of reducing fossil fuel emissions is small, as the Congressional Budget Office said, the price that people will be paying, the higher price people will be paying for the fossil fuels that they still consume is a significant hit in the pocketbook. That's the part that's like a tax.

    And I think that had the Democrats chosen to go with an alternative proposal which was on the table in the House--. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland had introduced a bill, and in the Senate, senators Maria Cantwell and Susan Collins introduced a bipartisan bill, both of which would have given the result of higher prices but would have insulated the vast majority of the American people, including working people and the middle class, from the impact of higher prices by recycling the money straight back into their pocketbooks in a very clear and transparent fashion, so they'd know that they're getting the money back.

    You know, political viability is more than getting a bill through Congress; it's also getting a law in place that's going to stay long enough for us to make the clean energy transition. We're not talking about just one session of Congress here; we're talking about a 40-year period. Regardless of who controls Congress, regardless of who controls the White House, this legislation has to be durable. It has to command the enduring support of the American people.

    And I personally think that had the Democrats taken a different tack and had they gone for a cap and dividend policy that would have auctioned the permits, rather than giving them away, and would have used the money to protect the real incomes of American families, I think the bill might have had a better chance of getting through this Congress, and certainly would've had a better chance of enduring for the 40-year energy transition. It's my hope that when this comes back on the agenda, this is the way we're going to go.

    JAY: Joe?

    ROMM: Yeah, it's not--I appreciate everything that's been said, but it isn't--it just isn't really true. I mean, at some point, at some level the question is moot, since we're not going to see either bill this decade. But there's no possibility that a cap and dividend could have even gotten 10 percent support of the House or the Senate. The thing to remember is that the obstacle to passing a climate bill was never the American public. The American public always supported a climate bill, a price on carbon, a big push on clean energy. The big obstacle was always industry. And if you did not set up the system to minimize the impact on industry, then industry would have opposed the bill across the board. And the only reason that we don't know with 100 percent certainty that the cap and dividend bill would have been killed by business is because no one ever--everyone realized it was never going to go anywhere.

    The Republicans were going to demagog this bill no matter what. They would have called a cap and dividend a "cap and tax". They just opposed action. From the perspective of the people who didn't want a climate bill, there is no difference whatsoever between the bill that the House did pass and this so-called cap and dividend bill. And I must say that I don't--I'm not opposed to people looking at counterfactuals and alternative histories, but the reason we didn't get a climate bill is because of the 60-vote requirement in the U.S. Senate and because the Republican Party decided to double down on really a self-destructive policy of embracing the most extreme wing of their party and opposing what 97 percent of climate scientists know, what the world government knows. I mean, you have to understand, the U.S. conservative movement is almost unique in the world in its denial of the reality that the planet is warming, weather is getting more extreme, glaciers are melting, and humans are the primary cause, and that if we don't take action, things are going to get considerably worse in the future. And I just don't think most--. Most of the public had no deep knowledge of the differences of these bills, and the Republicans, frankly, were just taking advantage of the fact that the Democrats are not very good at communicating.

    And the big failing, if one wants to pin the blame on the Democrats, is that they simply didn't ever take the case to the American public about (a) the urgent need for action and (b) the economic benefits of passing this bill, something that Paul Krugman, the Nobel prize-winning economist, talked about a great deal, which is the need to get businesses to start investing again. They're sitting on over $1 trillion of cash in this country and they're not creating jobs, and clean energy is clearly going to be one of the biggest job creating sectors of the future. So I am a big--I've spent a lot of time on climateprogress.org faulting the administration for not making an aggressive push for a climate and clean energy bill. And I think in that regards Obama has been a massive failure.

    JAY: Yeah. James, is part of the issue here that market mechanisms themselves are simply not panning out, that either you can't pass something that's effective, or you can't pass something that doesn't wind up actually benefiting energy companies more than it's actually controlling carbon emissions? And if you're going to try to get the public behind something, does it need to be that you get the public behind, one, the urgency, and two, a need for just straightforward regulation?

    BOYCE: Well, I don't think it's exactly about market mechanisms is the problem, Paul. You need to have a higher price on carbon. That's what's going to motivate individuals and businesses and local governments to invest in energy efficiency and renewables. There's no way around that. We live in an economy in which prices matter. So that's not the problem. The problem is: how do you build that mass popular base for climate policy that Joe was referring to? I agree with him that, you know, the fact that the public wasn't fully engaged in this was a major part of the problem. It allowed Congress, it allowed the Republicans to get away with torpedoing this legislation. The strategy that the government Democrats followed, frankly, was not one of public engagement. Joe's right on that, too. The strategy was business as usual. And business as usual means you make backroom deals with industry to try to win over some of them to support your legislation. That's what they tried to do; that was the political calculation.

    Now, you know, reasonable people can differ about, you know, what might have happened if, what would have happened had the Democrats taken another strategy, you know, two, three years ago. That's not a battle really worth fighting. The battle worth fighting, or at least what's worth thinking about, is what's going to happen in the future if and when climate policy gets back onto the political agenda. When that happens, I hope we'll learn a few lessons from this experience. And one of the lessons is that the public engagement is central. And if that's going to be central, it means that we need to think about the economic impact of the policy on American households. We need to make damn sure that no one's going to be able to say that this is going to make people economically worse off by forcing them to pay higher prices for energy for which they don't get anything back. We've got to make sure that money comes back into their pockets. I think if we package a future policy in that way, we have a possibility of really building a broad-based support across the American public, and even across the political parties.

    I don't think the climate change denial thing is going to prove to be a lasting strategy, because guess what? Climate change is real. You can only deny this thing for so long. And if and when we're going to do something about it, we need to make sure that it happens in a way that isn't going to pit people's economic interests against their environmental sense of responsibility, but rather is going to marry the two, so that they can both help to wean the country off fossil fuels and not torpedo their own pocketbooks in the process. It's possible [incompr.]

    JAY: Joe, final word?

    ROMM: Well, we learned this year that the climate situation is getting more severe. And I think in particular it's starting to show up in the extreme weather that we've been seeing, the droughts, the floods. And we're seeing it in particular affecting the agricultural system. And food prices are at levels not seen since the 1970s. And I think [incompr.] article in Nature that the great challenge of this century is going to be feeding 9 billion people by midcentury in this globally warmed world. And I think if we don't act soon, it's just going to be one of the great tragedies of all time. And I think it's incumbent on people to become informed on climate change. It is real. It is going to affect everyone's lives, and it's going to affect Americans a great deal. And the opportunities, the technologies exist to solve it. It's just a matter of having the political will to start acting.

    JAY: And do you see any signs of that will from within the Obama administration? I don't know that he's mentioned the words "climate change" in the last year.

    ROMM: No, I do not see any political will from the Obama administration, and it is--you know, I think on the matter of climate, Obama has been a failure, and I would give him an F, and history's going to judge him very harshly. It's going to judge all of us harshly if we don't quickly get on a sustainable energy path.

    JAY: Thank you both for joining us.

    BOYCE: Thank you.

    ROMM: Thanks for having me.

    JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

    End

    DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.


    Comments

    Our automatic spam filter blocks comments with multiple links and multiple users using the same IP address. Please make thoughtful comments with minimal links using only one user name. If you think your comment has been mistakenly removed please email us at contact@therealnews.com

    Comments


    Latest Stories


    The Resegregation of American Schools
    The Modern History of Venezuela, Why Still So Much Crime? - Edgardo Lander on Reality Asserts Itself (7/9)
    What Role Has Russia Played in Eastern Ukraine?
    Can Johns Hopkins Afford to Pay A Living Wage? (2/2)
    University Sit-In Targets World's Largest Private Coal Company
    The Modern History of Venezuela and the Need for a Post-Oil Economy - Edgardo Lander on RAI (6/9)
    Can Johns Hopkins Afford to Pay A Living Wage? (1/2)
    One Percent of Environmentalists Killings Lead to Convictions
    Investigation Finds Former Ukraine President Not Responsible For Sniper Attack on Protestors
    The Modern History of Venezuela from 1973 to the Caracazo Massacre - Edgardo Lander on Reality Asserts Itself (3/9)
    Ukraine Transitional Gov't Moves Militarily To Reclaim Seized Buildings
    IPCC Report Flawed By Narrow Focus on Carbon Emissions
    The Modern History of Venezuela: The Bolivarian Revolution - Edgardo Lander on Reality Asserts Itself (5/9)
    Obama Signs Directives to Reduce the Gender Wage Gap
    Eastern Ukraine Lacks Political Representation in Kiev
    Demystifying the Role of Mitigation in the Most Recent IPCC Report
    Hypersurveillance State Won't Prevent Another Boston Marathon Bombing
    The Modern History of Venezuela from 1973 to the Caracazo Massacre - Edgardo Lander on Reality Asserts Itself (3/9)
    Univ. of Maine Faculty Reinstated After Students Protest Against Cuts
    The Modern History of Venezuela from 1908 to 1973 - Edgardo Lander on Reality Asserts Itself (2/9)
    IMF Will Address Global Inequality, Says Managing Director Christine Lagarde
    Raising Big Banks' Leverage Ratio Good, But Not Nearly Enough
    TRNN Replay: Austerity Road to 19th Century
    Has Palestinian Maneuvering Revived Peace Talks?
    Late Jackson Mayor Lumumba's Son Wins Primary to Replace His Father, Runoff Election Ahead
    Quebecers Reject PQ and Elect a Liberal Government Representing Big Business
    TRNN Debate: Decriminalization vs. Legalization
    The Beginning of the Chavez Era - Edgardo Lander on Reality Asserts Itself (4/9)
    "Off With His Head": Court Upholds Obama's Power to Kill
    Workers at Nation's Top Hospital Strike For Fair Wages
    From Exile to Radicalization in Venezuela - Edgardo Lander on Reality Asserts Itself (1/9)
    Rwanda 20 Years Later: Genocide, Western Plunder of Congo, and President Kagame
    Ukrainian Protesters in the East Demand More Autonomy From Kiev Government
    Hunger Strikers Demand President Obama Halt His Record 2 Million Deportations
    Indian Parliamentary Elections - A Primer With Vijay Prashad
    West Looks to Carve Up Ukraine & Privatize Industries Held by Kleptocrats
    Where Are Israeli-Palestinian Peace Negotiations Headed?
    The Multiple Kingdoms of Saudi Arabia (5/5)
    Do the Afghan Presidential Elections Signify Progress?
    Republican Presidential Hopefuls Pay Homage to Billionaire Casino Tycoon Sheldon Adelson
    Will Extremist Lieberman Become Israel's Next Prime Minister?
    Why do the Saudis Want the US to Attack Iran? (4/5)
    Immigrant Advocates and Families Tell President Obama 'Not One More'
    Elections, Pipelines, and Protests - The Canada Panel
    Chris Hedges on "Israel's War on American Universities"
    Baltimore Residents Decry Lack of Affordable Housing
    Yellen Talks the Talk But Will She Walk the Walk?
    Hopkins Hospital Workers Speak Out against "Poverty Wages"
    Will Venezuela's New Floating Exchange Rate Curb Inflation?
    The European Central Bank's War on Wages is Pushing Europe's Economy to the Brink
    Supreme Court Decision Opens Floodgates for More Campaign Cash
    Charles Keating, the Financier Behind the Savings and Loan Scandal, Dies at 90
    Saudi Arabia and the al-Qaeda Monster (3/5)
    Maryland Residents Voice Opposition to Natural Gas Fracking Export Facility
    Supreme Court Ruling Gives Wealthy Individuals More Influence Over Elections
    What are the Saudis Afraid Of? - Madawi Al-Rasheed (2/5)
    Baltimore's MICA Adjunct Professors Set to Vote on Unionization
    Boycott of Israel Moving to Next Level?
    Hypocrisy Dressed Up as "Realism" Justifies American Alliance with Saudi Dictatorship
    Immigration Reform in the Shadows of Cesar Chavez's Legacy
    Leaked Senate Report Shows Use of Torture As "Ineffective"
    UN Report Says Climate Change Will Threaten Food Production Worldwide
    The Hypocrisy of US Calling for Enforcement of International Law
    How the Ecuadorian Economy Grew in a Global Recession
    'Shadows of Liberty' Trailer
    Kristina Borjesson on Why CBS Shut Down Her investigation into Flight 800 (2/8)
    Glen Ford on Racism in the American Media (3/8)
    Paul Jay on What Drives Corporate Media and What Drive The Real News (4/8)
    Creating a New Media Paradigm After Citizens United (5/8)
    Should The Left Engage with the Mainstream Media? (6/8)
    What Is the Financial Backing For The Real News? (7/8)
    Standing up to Character Assassination (8/8)
    Oligarchs, Fascists and the People's Protest in Ukraine
    TRNN Debate: Is Obamacare In the Interest of Workers?
    Too-Big-To-Fail Advantage Remains Intact For Big Banks
    Obama and the Saudi Agenda
    TRNN Replay: Investigating the Saudi Government's 9/11 Connection and the Path to Disilliusionment - Sen. Graham on Reality Asserts Itself pt 1
    The Iraq War's Real Legacy
    Petitions with 100,000+ Signatures Call for Snowden's Passport to be Reinstated
    We Need to Harness People Power - Andy Shallal on Reality Asserts Itself (4/4)
    BC Pipeline Fight and Quebec Elections - The Canada Panel
    Jonathan Schell - 1943-2014: Board Member of TRNN on Why We Need The Real News
    Teachers on Strike from the UK to Argentina
    Connecticut Poised to Become First State with $10.10 Minimum Wage
    Oil Spill Threatens Wildlife and Local Economy
    DC School Test Scores Up, But Poor Black Kids Are Doing Worse - Andy Shallal on RAI (3/4)
    Obama's Proposal To End NSA Bulk Data Collection Won't Protect Privacy
    How Google, Apple & The Biggest Tech Companies Colluded to Fix Workers' Wages
    An American Should be One that Questions Their Government - Andy Shallal on RAI (2/4)
    What's Driving Putin & Obama's Posturing on Ukraine?
    Hundreds of Students & Faculty Occupy College Campus to Fight Cuts to Public Higher Ed
    Due Process 'Impossible' In Harsh Death Sentencing Of Over 500 Muslim Brotherhood Members
    Has Anglo-American Capitalism Run Out of Steam?
    Being the "Other" in America - Andy Shallal on Reality Asserts Itself (1/4)
    TRNN Debate: Should Baltimore 'Ban The Box'?
    How Fallujah Became the Iraqi Government's New Battleground
    Why I Decided to Blow the Whistle on the NSA
    NASA Climate Predictions Show Serious Threat To Humanity
    Professor Who Teaches Israel-Palestine Conflict Accuses College of Violating His Academic Freedom
    CIA and NSA Wrongdoing Requires Independent Investigation, Says Former Church Committee Staff
    Are Tuition Breaks Enough To Combat High Student Debt And Low Graduation Rates?
    Industries Across the U.S. Are Stealing Wages From Their Lowest Paid Workers
    Who In Ukraine Will Benefit From An IMF Bailout?
    NSA Recording All International Calls From U.S.
    Israel "Making Lives Miserable" for Africans, Hoping They 'Self-Deport' (2/2)
    BP Gets Green Light to Drill in Gulf, But Has Safety Improved?
    Residents Still Not Drinking Tap Water Two Months After West Virginia Spill (1/2)
    Libya's Descent Into Turmoil Three Years After NATO Intervention
    From Pipelines to Peladeau - Canadian Report
    Israel "Making Lives Miserable" for Africans, Hoping They 'Self-Deport' (1/2)
    Congressional Progressive Caucus Budget Strikes Back Against Austerity
    Libya Three Years Later - Chaos and Partition
    Why Was Gaddafi Overthrown?
    Should Ukraine and West Accept De Facto Crimea Joining Russia? (2/2)
    Tony Benn Saw Socialism as the Culmination of Democratization
    Why Didn't Bush/Cheney Attack Iran and Can Obama Make and Sell a Deal? - Gareth Porter on Reality Asserts Itself (3/3)
    After Late Mayor Lumumba is Laid to Rest, What's Next for Jackson, Mississippi? (2/2)
    Crimea Referendum: Self Determination or Big Power Manipulation? (1/2)
    Sen. Graham: President Must Side with Openness About CIA and 9/11
    Manufacturing a Narrative for War - Gareth Porter on Reality Asserts Itself (2/3)
    Protesters Hit the Streets of Brooklyn to Demand $15 Minimum Wage
    Hammer: 'Moral Bankruptcy' Behind Massive GM Recall
    White House Withholds Thousands of Documents from Senate CIA Probe
    I Grew Up Believing in Time Magazine's Version of America - Gareth Porter on RAI (1/3)
    Western European Banks Vulnerable to Ukrainian Sovereign Debt Crisis
    TRNN Debate: What's Driving Inflation in Venezuela? (2/2)
    CIA vs. Senate: Who Is Obama Protecting?
    Will Tipped Workers Get Excluded Again From Minimum Wage Hike?
    TRNN Debate: What's Driving Inflation in Venezuela? (1/2)
    After Late Mayor Lumumba is Laid to Rest, What's Next for Jackson, Mississippi?(1/2)
    TRNN Replay: A Look at Who's Poised to Become No.2 at the Fed
    How Right-Wing Nationalism Rose to Influence in Ukraine (2/2)
    Netanyahu Attacks Boycott As Campaign Enters New Phase
    Moving Towards a Police State - Michael Ratner on Reality Asserts Itself (7/7)
    Fighting Reagan's Secret, Illegal Wars - Michael Ratner on Reality Asserts Itself (6/7)
    Puerto Rican Independence Movement and Cuba Further Radicalized Me - Michael Ratner on RAI (5/7)
    The Butcher of Attica - Michael Ratner on Reality Asserts Itself (4/7)
    MLK and a Radicalizing Moment in American History - Michael Ratner on Reality Asserts Itself (3/7)

    RealNewsNetwork.com, Real News Network, Real News, Real News For Real People, IWT are trademarks and service marks of IWT.TV inc. "The Real News" is the flagship show of IWT and Real News Network.

    All original content on this site is copyright of The Real News Network.  Click here for more

    Problems with this site? Please let us know

    Linux VPS Hosting by Star Dot Hosting