Senate Forges a Compromise Energy Bill
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_37/b4099021658903.htm
The proposal contains some items on the Republican wish list, such as opening areas of the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling and boosting nuclear power. The Democrats get incentives for wind, solar, and other renewables along with energy efficiency measures—and pay for much of the projected $84 billion cost by eliminating tax breaks on the oil and gas industry. "Some environmentalists have serious problems with it, but it's actually a pretty good deal," says Joseph J. Romm, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank, and a top Energy Dept. official in the Clinton Administration....
If the plan does come up for a vote in the Senate, it will be a key test for both Presidential contenders, forcing them to go on record on a major issue. McCain has yet to get behind the compromise. Lead economics adviser Douglas J. Holtz-Eakin explains that while McCain supports the notion of a bipartisan approach, he doesn't like the repeal of tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. "Senator McCain believes we don't need to be raising taxes," he says.
In contrast, Obama supports the basic framework, along with the general idea of bipartisan compromise. "If I had to reduce the McCain energy platform to a single word, it would be 'drill,' while ours would be 'diversity,'" explains Jason Grumet, Obama's senior adviser on energy. "It's the difference between serious energy policy and slogans."
I like the fact that Washington is actually attempting to get things done across the aisle, unusual for an election year. To me, this seems like a fair compromise. At the least, I like it better than either side sniping at each other for not doing anything.
And I say your 3.5% Titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!
Hyperbole - THE BEST THING EVER
This could be a sign of how the energy sector thinks the elections are going to play out. If Obama wins, they'd better begin making motions towards compromise and agreeing to concessions, lest he takes even MORE by force once he's in the White House and the Democratic majority in Congress is bolstered.
Xbox Live tag Gorilla800lbs
Actually, there was a piece in the Post yesterday entitled "And now a word on our sponsors" that had an interesting interactive map revealing the major sponsors and to whom they contributed. With very few exceptions, major donors tend to split their donations pretty evenly.
A few observations I made were that the RBOC telecoms like VZ, ATT, Qwest tended to contribute more generously to the GOP (usually around 60/40). CLECs like Level3 and TimeWarner tended the opposite direction. I spoke with a number of analysts about this who seemed to think that a GOP admin would be far more likely to repeal telrec and recreate the 1984 monopolies.
Unsurprisingly, traditional energy companies tended to give more generously to the GOP as well.
Technology companies (eg: google, Microsoft) tended to give much more generously to Dems.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
Hmm it theory it sounds like a good deal, but I would want to see the actual bill itself before passing judgment.
For all we know there is a bunch of pork tagged onto the bottom to get the crap to pass the senate.
Xfire: Pharacon
Tempest says: "A team hat doe snot communicate and talk to each other about what the next move will be is going to lose."
Mex is my hero = "f*ck it, I'll do it. WE'LL DO IT LIVE."
Yeah, but getting both sides to work on a bill is a welcome thing, after GOP intransigence and Democratic laissez-faire over the last few years.
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
At first I thought the 'throwing the election' theory was nonsense, but I'm not so sure anymore.
I never minded piracy. Anyone who minds about piracy is full of sh*t. Anyone who pirates your game wasn't going to buy it anyway! -Warren Spector
Congress did something? Wow.
I'm sad about the environment part but everything else seems good to me.
XBox Live|Tshirts|xfire | Last.fm
I don't think that the Dem's have a choice when it comes to the offshore drilling issue. It has to come up in a few months anyway. They might as well take what they can get.
The repeal of the tax credits makes my heart sing.
Playing WoW as: Vilius (70 NE Druid)
“The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.” John K Galbraith
Just a reminder, this isn't passed or anything yet. I think the article was mainly saying that it's a minor victory that it's coming up for a vote at all, and with fairly even bipartisan support. I haven't even seen anything close to a projection of whether or not it will pass. Closest I saw was that something like 15 - 20 senators explicitly support it, while they were talking about how bipartisan it is.
Hyperbole - THE BEST THING EVER
And it doesn't matter too much anyway, because there's no money to fund it unless we borrow more. The issue here is not the "compromise", it's how they expect to pay for all the freebies they are handing out.
Remember: this conversation is just between you and me ... and the NSA.
MaverickDago wrote:
Indeed. It's always easier to divide the cake when you can buy more on credit.
Xbox Live: StaatsM
Actually, in the article in mentions that it is almost entirely paid for by removing tax breaks given to the oil/gas companies. Again, this is an unsigned bill we are talking about here with potential to change, but it sounds as if it would be a mostly revenue neutral bill.
Hyperbole - THE BEST THING EVER
Minase beat me to it but it needed to be pointed out twice. Repealing tax breaks to oil/gas industry who are making record profits is raising taxes?
Is anybody paying attention?
I don't think I've ever said this sentence before, but man would I love to hump that butterfly.-- KrazyTaco
One phone call and you're melting like butter over my kettle pop. -- Edwin to Mex
2005 GWJFFL2 Champion
So much for the free market.
Playing WoW as: Vilius (70 NE Druid)
“The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.” John K Galbraith
Our government is already running billions of dollars a month in the red. The bill has to be more than revenue neutral.
Remember: this conversation is just between you and me ... and the NSA.
MaverickDago wrote:
I'd settle for revenue nuetral and a step in the right direction for energy policy. Shangri-La is a long way away, but I'd at least like to be on the right path.
Hyperbole - THE BEST THING EVER
Folks, tax revenues need to double to pay our bills. That's not going to happen. It would instantly strangle the economy.
Instead, they'll print money (well, more accurately, borrow it with an interest cost from the Fed) and slowly strangle the economy far more thoroughly that way instead.
No, they don't. When you look at a 30 year payoff time, all we'd have to do is repeal the Bush cuts. There are many other things to do - shock therapy is not necessary.
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
The GAO disagrees with you, Robear, and they're presumably highly expert at knowing these things. I don't see that you have any particular qualifications to contradict them.
Fixed that for you. We're in go deeper in the hole about $2 billion a day...every day.
Dig that hole deep enough, eventually we'll be in China...
Hyperbole - THE BEST THING EVER
I don't, not that that's any business of yours. I was quoting Dave Walker, former Comptroller General of the US, in interviews I heard last month. If I remember correctly, he argues that if we increased taxes from about 18.5% of the economy to something in the low 20's for 30 years, that would be sufficient to handle the deficit with current obligations. As he described it, that's about equivalent to eliminating the Bush tax cuts for that period. Of course, there are other changes that could make it easier or harder. If the window of time is shorter, then yeah, taxes could double. If we give it a century, we'll all just start throwing quarters in a jar and we'll be fine.
He also has said that it would be 30% if we were looking in the 15-20 year horizon, which is closer to what you asserted. But crucially, the amount of change required is based on the time available. My point was that just saying "taxes will have to double" without explaining your scenario is fearmongering, and further it's wrong. You make it sound like that's the only solution; it's not.
And you know what? My source is a guy who was in charge of US government finance for years, and is very worried about this stuff, basically he has the same sense of urgency you do. What twists my tail is that when I call you on some totally unexplained extreme solution, you don't deign to explain, but rather remind me that I'm not the GAO and who am I to venture an opinion. You didn't even *mention* the GAO in your assertion! Come on. I know we disagree but let's keep it civil. I've got as much a right to put my opinions out as you do, and neither of us should feel restrained because we depend on professionals for information we don't get ourselves in the course of our jobs. As long as you've got reasonable data to back up your points, I'm not gonna ask for your qualifications, so extend me the same courtesy and let's let our arguments stand on logic and evidence.
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
These are the real numbers, straight from the GAO.
This was in mid-2006. Things have only gotten worse since. We weren't yet 50 trillion in the hole when this report was made. We are now.
Either we double taxes, or we renege on some or all of our commitments. There are no other options.
You know what the other option is? You retract that comment about my qualifications.
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
GAO:
Me:
I hadn't even read the article and yet what I posted is not contradicted by the GAO statement, since I'm talking about changing one of the drivers of long-term debt.
And funnily enough, the GAO thinks there are other options than "reneging on our obligations".
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
Which will make it easier for us to borrow money from them...
Since nearly 80% of $26 trillion increase the GAO noted came from the growth in Medicare expenditures alone, it seems like now is truly the time to talk about National Health Care at a level beyond the right calling it socialism. We're already paying for good health care, we might as well actually get the value from our tax dollars.
The GAO and Robear are right in the sense that we truly do need to closely examine and re-prioritize what we spend our money on as a nation. The only thing that makes this difficult is literally sifting through the millions of program, projects, and departments to figure out where we're spending more than $2.7 trillion a year.
Maybe one place to start is keeping the amount of federal tax dollars any state receives to under a 1:1 ratio, say they only get 90 cents for every dollar they pay. The difference is used to pay down the debt. The cap would also serve the double purpose of limiting pork barrel spending by making Congressmen fight amongst their fellow state representatives to get the bigger slice of pie for their district.
That is exactly what the GAO is for - to account for expenditures. But there's a lot of low-hanging fruit. Reforming the military's purchasing, contracting and HR systems are the most obvious ones from where I sit. And no, that's not an anti-military statement. Outlawing earmarks would go a long way towards exposing pork, as well.
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.
I thought about something like this the other day, but if you're going to end up with under 1:1, why not have the states pay for their own programs? The federal system is based around the idea that the rich states partially finance the infrastructure and government services of the poorer ones.
What irritates me about this situation is that 1) my "blue, elite, snobby" state of CT tends to be a net loser in terms of our tax revenues, and 2) some of the biggest anti-federalist sentiment comes from people in states that are essentially dependents of the federal government. Do the Palin's of the world really need to insult my lifestyle when my lifestyle partially finances theirs?
Certis asked me about the comment to Robear above, and suggested that I post here what I sent to him in PM. Thus:
Boy am I with you on that.
It is the absolute height of hypocrisy when backwoods yahoos like Palin complain about the onerous Federal government and the white wine drinking Eastern elite when it is largely MY tax dollars that are paying for their roads, schools, and National Guard. Alaska gets $1.70 for ever federal tax dollar it contributes. However "reform minded" she thinks she is, she's still the mother of all welfare states.
This is the internet! In our natural environment, atheists run in packs and have dictionaries! --- JoeBeDurndurn
Malor, with respect, here's the entirety of your claim that I responded to.
This has NO mention of the GAO, or anything to indicate it's anything other than your opinion. I believed that it was not sourced because you were just making claims you'd read somewhere, and so I responded with what I'd heard recently from an authoritative source. There is absolutely nothing in there that would lead me to go look at the GAO for that information. How can I be expected to just intuit your source? That was annoying, and it fit with your pattern of just posting claims without attribution (although you usually produce sources later). I was pretty sure you were not just making that up, but what good is it to just *say* something without backing it up?
In other words, I used the same standards in dismissing your point that you'd used in making it - based on expert opinions, but unsourced. And note that I didn't assume you were waving hands, making your own claims, as you did for me. I didn't assume you were unqualified to participate in the discussion, and I certainly didn't state that in public. You usually have sources for what you say. I just assumed you could not be bothered to source even an extraordinary claim, so I didn't source the rebuttal.
You can't just say "Oh, I posted an article a while back so he should have known that was what I was referring to." All it would have taken was the preamble "The GAO says..." and I could have gone and checked it out.
Your assertions that I don't understand the scope of the problem or that I don't read or understand your points are wrong. And as I pointed out, what I asserted was not what you read - even in your response to Certis, you ignored the fact that I was talking about the use of a 30 year time frame (you had specified no conditions or circumstances in your post, just a flat "this is the only way to do it".)
The reason I'd like you to retract the comment is that you were wrong that I was just making it up. You can go look up David Walker's various interviews and comments. All I did in this case was comment with *exactly* the same kind of unsourced claim that you used, and yet somehow I get ganked for not sourcing - when your initial point was *completely* unsourced as well. Can you see that? How are you not making *exactly* the same kind of unsourced statement that I did?
How do I make you understand that I'm not just knee-jerking here, that when I do try (in other situations) to make reasoned arguments, you dismiss me with sarcasm and comments that show that you don't actually get the points I'm making? Repeatedly I tell you I agree with you on the seriousness of the US financial situation, and yet every time you bring it up, you say as you do above that I don't understand that. Will you please put that out of your mind? We AGREE on that point?
It seems to me that you are so upset that I disagree with you on the *mechanics* of the problem that you won't even consider (or retain) the points that I'm making. I believe this because no matter how much I try to explain, you keep repeating the same erroneous claims that I'm making things up, that I don't understand what you say, and that I don't understand the seriousness of the situation. All I did in this case was comment with *exactly* the same kind of unsourced claim that you used, and yet somehow I get ganked for not sourcing - when your initial point was *completely* unsourced as well. Can you see that?
I feel like I'm putting good faith effort into discussions and you're lashing out at me every chance you get. I just get tired of it, and for once I just posted in the same format you used. Mea culpa.
"Sometimes I go around saying, 'Kommisar Paulson has seized the commanding heights of the economy!'" - Paul Krugman, asked if recent changes to banking are socialistic.