“2 Republicans Open Door to Increases in Revenue” reads a headline in Monday‘s New York Times. The suggestion is that a few Republicans are walking away from the the party’s no-tax-hike orthodoxy. That much is clear from John Broder’s lead:
Two senior Republicans said Sunday that they might be open to raising new government revenue as part of a deal to resolve the dispute over the federal debt ceiling, but they warned that there was little time to enact a comprehensive deal.
This would be a pretty remarkable development. So who are we talking about? Broder reports:
One of the senators, John Cornyn of Texas, said he would consider eliminating some tax breaks and corporate subsidies in the context of changes in the tax code, provided there was not an overall increase in taxes.
That sounds like no shift at all– Cornyn went on to rule out any tax increases.
But he insisted that any changes in taxes be ‘revenue neutral,’ meaning that the government would not take in any more money from individuals or businesses than it does now.
OK– he supports raising revenues, so long as there is no increase in, well, revenues. Is there a clearer example Broder is thinking about?
The other senator, John McCain of Arizona, said he would be willing to consider some ‘revenue raisers’ as part of a broad deal, but he refused to name specific measures.
He was specific about one thing:
‘The principle of not raising taxes is something that we campaigned on last November, and the result of the election was that the American people didn’t want their taxes raised and they wanted us to cut spending,’ he said on the CNN program State of the Union.
This article provides the evidence to refute its premise, which I guess is helpful.
John Broder? Is this acertain apple that, clearly, has not fallen far from a certain tree?
I just heard that there was a certain shift among some key Rs toward a raise in taxation in talks with BAM.Don’t you believe it.If it happened it would fracture the Republican party.Or even cause a third party(TP).That of course would be a win for Obama.I think the line in the sand in pretty strong this time.President had his worst day ever on Friday with the higher unemployment figures. Heritage has calculated every new job has cost the gov 268 thou.Even the government acknowledges it has cost 170 thou ! Far over what the jobs are worth. Maddness.I saw Colmes on Bill O say we have not spent enough?Look lets part friends here.We tried it…it failed.We have all wondered if keneysian theories worked.They dont …move on.
In essence the president is saying raise taxes for ten years then the cuts will factor in.I say cut now and we will talk about factoring in tax raises in 10 ,all things being equal.of course loopholes should be closed ect.
JOB CREATION
Study by the Institute for Health & Socio-Economic Policy (IHSP):
Medicare for All (Single Payer) Reform Would Be Major Stimulus for Economy with 2.6 Million New Jobs, $317 Billion in Business Revenue, $100 Billion in Wages. The number of jobs created by a single payer system, expanding and upgrading Medicare to cover everyone, parallels almost exactly the total job loss in 2008, according to the findings of a groundbreaking study.
Green-collar enthusiasts aren’t stopping there — they are also calling on the federal government to help ignite change. Investing $100 billion in green technologies and industries “would create four times more jobs than spending the same amount of money within the oil industry, and would reduce the unemployment rate to 4.4 percent over two years,” according to a study released in September by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst under commission by the Center for American Progress.
The study presented at the EESI briefing, entitled “Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: Economic Drivers for the 21st Century,” was commissioned by the American Solar Energy Society (ASES) as a follow-up to its earlier “Tackling Climate Change” report in order to provide a detailed look at the economic development side of addressing global warming.
Presenting the results of the report, lead investigator Roger Bedzak, president of Management Information Services, Inc., said that over 446,000 people were directly and indirectly employed by the renewable industry in 2006. Within the renewable energy sector, 16,000 were directly employed by the wind industry, with a total of 36,800 jobs supported (directly and indirectly) by the wind industry in 2006.
The report also looks at possible job growth under both moderate and advanced industry growth scenarios. Under the “business as usual” base-case scenario, which assumes no major policy reform to encourage renewables or efficiency, renewables jobs nevertheless increase to over 1.3 million by 2030. Meanwhile, by 2030 over 3 million are created under the moderate growth scenario, and nearly 8 million jobs are created under the advanced growth scenario. The wind industry would support approximately 250,000 jobs in 2030 in the moderate growth scenario and 1.2 million jobs in the advanced scenario.
“The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that the USA needs to spend $1.6 trillion over five years to put its infrastructure â┚¬” which includes some 590,000 bridges â┚¬” in good condition.”
Snapshot for September 3, 2008.
Our failing grade on maintaining school facilities
by Ethan Pollack (Economic Policy Institute)
Back to school season is always a nervous time for parents, but there is one thing they shouldn’t have to worry about: the condition of the school buildings themselves. Unfortunately, school infrastructure spending, after being adjusted for increased construction costs, has decreased dramatically since 2001. While student enrollment has increased 3% since 2001, adjusted spending on school maintenance and construction has dropped by 42%, from $34.9 billion in 2001 to $20.3 billion in 2007. In fact, the American Society of Civil Engineers recently graded U.S. schools a “D.”
Inadequate facilities can have a negative effect on academic achievement and student health. According to a Department of Education survey, 43% of schools indicated that the condition of their permanent facilities “interferes with the delivery of instruction,” with heating and air conditioning being the most common complaint. Furthermore, both the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency have found that “poor environments in schools due primarily to effects of indoor pollutants adversely influence the health, performance, and attendance of students.”
Bernie Sanders:
Not only would a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund help solve the affordable housing crisis in the United States, it would also generate 1.8 million decent paying new jobs and nearly $50 billion in wages according to a recent study by the Center for Community Change. As today’s economy continues to sputter with layoffs over 600% from last year, and as millions of Americans are paying 40 to 50% of their limited incomes on housing, the creation of a National Affordable Housing Trust is needed now more than ever.
Subject: Clean Energy Gets President Obama’s Attention and Public’s Support
Date: 6/18/2010 5:43:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time
EPA and Other Analyses Look at Economic Impacts of the American Power Act
This week, the Environmental Protection Agency released an analysis of the American Power Act, authored by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., that looked at its impact on consumers and found that the bill will reduce consumers’ energy bills through 2030, due to improved energy efficiency from a price on carbon. The EPA analysis also found that the American Power Act would keep overall household costs to a minimum for the life of the bill-between $79 and $146 per year. You can read the analysis on the EPA website.
Another analysis released this week by the ClimateWorks Foundation found that average employment levels under the American Power Act will be 440,000 higher between 2012 and 2020 than under a business-as-usual scenario, and 540,000 higher between 2012 and 2030. The ClimateWorks study also looked at consumer impacts and found that the American Power Act will save consumers $35 on their annual household utility bills through 2020.
A National Research Council study found renewable sources could supply 10 percent of the country’s energy by 2020 with existing technology.
If we could make 25 percent of our electricity needs with renewable energy by 2025, then up to 850,000 jobs could be created
UT analysis advocates linking climate, bioenergy policies
By Margot Emery, University of Tennessee
Nov. 11, 2010 2:03pm
What is in this article?:
â┚¬Ã‚¢ UT analysis advocates linking climate, bioenergy policies
â┚¬Ã‚¢ Standard to be met by 2025
â┚¬Ã‚¢ The study, â┚¬Ã…“Implications of Energy and Carbon Policies for Agriculture and Forestry Sectors,â┚¬Ã‚Âfound that a Renewable Electricity Standard could generate $14 billion in accumulated additional revenues for agriculture and forestry, increasing the demand for and production of dedicated energy crops for biomass feedstocks.
â┚¬Ã‚¢ The study goes on to show that a Renewable Electricity Standard could create an additional $215 billion of additional economic activity, more than 700,000 jobs and $84 billion to the nation’s gross domestic product.
Farmers, ranchers and forestland owners would stand to gain significant and widespread economic benefits if a properly constructed Renewable Electricity Standard is implemented on top of the Renewable Fuels Standard set by federal energy legislation in 2007.
The findings come in a University of Tennessee Bio-based Energy Analysis Group study commissioned by 25x’25 and released at the National Association of Farm Broadcasting convention in Kansas City, Mo.
The authors of the study, Burton C. English, Daniel G. De La Torre Ugarte, Chad Hellwinckel, Kimberly L. Jensen and Christopher D. Clark, are professors and Jamey Menard is a research associate in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Tennessee. Co-author Tristram O. West is an ecosystem scientist at the Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Md.
The study, â┚¬Ã…“Implications of Energy and Carbon Policies for Agriculture and Forestry Sectors,â┚¬Ã‚ found that a Renewable Electricity Standard could generate $14 billion in accumulated additional revenues for agriculture and forestry, increasing the demand for and production of dedicated energy crops for biomass feedstocks. And while that would cause shifts to move intensely managed pasture land, University of Tennessee researchers predict that forest residues, thinnings and tree harvest will play a significant role in meeting those feedstock demands. There would be no significant changes to commodity cropland use, or crop and livestock prices. Since both prices and production increase over time for beef, pork and poultry, gross returns will also increase.
The study goes on to show that a Renewable Electricity Standard could create an additional $215 billion of additional economic activity, more than 700,000 jobs and $84 billion to the nation’s gross domestic product.
Larry
Well I just went back and re-read the avalanche of promises by Biden and Obama, and talk of shovel ready jobs and green energy explosions of technology and the massive amount of jobs to be created from these investments during the early heady days of their administration.All complete failures.Money down a rat hole.Look if the free market creates these things it will work.If the government tries to super fund it- it will fail.i think the figures you stated are pie in the sky, wishing on a star.In other words Obamas economic program.For now we sit on an ocean of energy.Enough to support all our needs for generations.We should move now to Drill baby drill.If the market creates new forms that are advantageous to the public…..there will be no need for any gov help
Sorry, michael, it’s the free market that doesn’t work. We tried that under G.W. Bush, remember? The United States’ economy created 23m jobs during the Clinton presidency. Total payroll employment grew 21.1%, far outstripping population growth of 8.9%. (For comparison, payroll employment under George W. Bush grew a miserable 2.3%, well behind population growth of 7.7%.) Free market Republican principles are what got us into this huge recession.
And, we are drilling now, more than ever before! On July 8, 2011, the Wall Street Journal reported “the number of rigs drilling for oil rose by one, to 1,007, the 12th consecutive week of gains. Oil drilling often yields significant volumes of natural gas along with crude oil.” Of course, the oil is sold on the world market; so don’t expect it to have any effect on prices at the pump. It will merely increase the obscene profits of the multinationals who lobby to avoid paying any revenue to our overly generous country.
The so-called “free market” is just BS!
Wow Martha……Dont even know where to begin.Well oil first.Though it is true that a few laws bush signed in have kept us creeping along it has nothing to do with Obama who is shutting off the tap.Refining down 50%.Number of wells down about 80%.Number of wells available drastically down(they have moved to more hospitable climates).My God he even tapped the national reserve.
Free markets………It is not even an argument.It is like arguing about freedom itself.Tell me all the bad things and still we must have it.It is who we are.If you believe in changing it……….you are in for a fight.
Wanna fix the debt cieling/Cancel Obama care.
China just posted a 9% gain in their economy. This at a time when the president says he can not promise 1%!Ever visit china or do business there?Visit the beautiful gleaming NIKE factory.Landscaped grounds. Lovely cafeteria.Fantastic working conditions.Wanna know what the corp tax rate is?I don’t think you do.That communist country has become more business friendly to anyone starting a business while we everyday become more and more hostile.Do the math
“Obama is shutting off the tap. Refining down 50%”
6/30/2011
The total crude oil processing capacity of the nation’s refineries reached its highest level in 28 years in 2010, but much of that capacity went unused because of low demand for gasoline and other refined products, the federal Energy Information Administration reported this week.
The nation’s 148 refineries had the capacity to process 17.7 million barrels of oil a day on Jan. 1, the EIA calculated in its annual Refinery Capacity Report. Eleven refineries were idle.
But the facilities only used about 86 percent of their capacity last year, well below the record highs of more than 95 percent in the mid-to-late 1990s.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/06/30/u-s-refineries-grow-capacity-but-not-production/
“Number of wells available drastically down(they have moved to more hospitable climates).”
6/20/2011
In its weekly release, Houston-based oilfield services company Baker Hughes Inc. reported a rise in the U.S. rig count (number of rigs searching for oil and gas in the country). This can be primarily attributed to an increase in the tally of oil rigs, somewhat offset by a fall in the natural gas and miscellaneous rig counts.
The Baker Hughes rig count, issued since 1944, acts as an important yardstick for drilling contractors such as Transocean Inc. (RIG), Diamond Offshore (DO), Noble Corp. (NE), Nabors Industries (NBR), Patterson-UTI Energy (PTEN) and Helmerich & Payne (HP) in gauging the overall business environment of the oil and gas industry.
Rigs engaged in exploration and production in the U.S. totaled 1,860 for the week ended June 17, 2011. This is up by 5 from the previous week’s rig count and represents the highest level since November 26, 2008.
http://www.stockbloghub.com/2011/06/20/bhi-u-s-oil-drilling-rig-count-goes-up/76847
Almost….almost every number you stated is the direct result of the end of the Bush laws as it involves oil exploration.Call it scraping the bottom of the barrel and utilizing everything left.Most of the numbers stated in the article proffered deal with idol rigs trying to find ways to get beck on line due to lack of permits held up by Obama(he is still facing contempt charges for that).If all was equal and permits opened my numbers would come into play.Truth is Obama is not by any manner of looking at it -accepting the mantra ‘DRILL BABY DRILL”.If you are saying that, using the oil companies posa-spin numbers ,you are dead wrong.If you are saying oil companies are still doing some great open field running as the president tries to “tackle” them to the ground….im with ya.
Both of your numbers were wrong.
As for “drill, baby, drill,” it’s impact would be slight at best. Oil prices wouldn’t move and additional extraction would put only a small dent in out current import/export numbers. They’re currently in the neighborhood of 3.6 billion barrels a year.
Drilling up in S dakota could lower prices from $100 per barrei to $16.What are you talking about?Look is this president doing all he can to tap our natural resources?Just a simple yes or no will do.
The $16 a barrel claim has been totally debunked.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/bakken.asp
Estimates run between 4 billion and 16 billion barrels in the Bakken fields. The U.S. currently uses between 6 and 7 billion barrels a year….it wouldn’t budge the price of oil a bit…which is priced, traded and sold using international numbers….