If you are reading the Detroit News political blog you are probably the sort of person that receives and possibly sends political emails. Below is one of the latest that I received.
Read it and weep, folks.
Welcome to America.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO CHECK THIS OUT ON SNOPES - IT MADE FOX NEWS WHICH YOU CAN SEE THE VIDEO BY CLICKING ON BELOW! PRETTY SCARY FOLKS!!!
This is really frightening.
They sneaked another one in on us.
New law makes it illegal to protest in Obama's presence
This means that, wherever Obama is at, you do not have a right to ask him anything you want to. His secret service can have you arrested, fined, and imprisoned for more than a YEAR if you ask him something he doesn’t like. Sound like he’s more like Hitler than Lincoln to you?
WATCH AND BE AMAZED AT HIS LATEST ATTEMPT TO STAGE A TAKE OVER OF AMERICA ...
Guess you’ve probably heard about this, but sending it on anyway. It’s probably the scariest thing this guy has done yet.
Are you aware of this new law, signed by “Obama” in early March 2012?
May the Lord have mercy on us!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7SGWH3kirzg&vq=medium
So there you have it. The president is at it again. He is butchering the constitution.
Of course the president can't act alone on this. He would need congress to approve such a bill before he could sign it into law. Obviously Republicans wouldn't want to give this president any additional power especially a power that would limit the constitution. To their credit House Republicans put up quite a fight with a full 2 members voting no. Yes, this bill barely squeaked by with a 388 to 3 margin.
The reality is this is much ado about nothing. This bill is a slight tweak of a bill passed back in 1971. There is a change in verbiage making it incrementally more likely that anyone, including protesters, at an event with Secret Service could be arrested.
Now you may think this is just another example of a liberal blogger going after something Fox News is trying to drum up into a story but it should be noted that the Huffington Post and Slate also hate this bill. They think it is an attack on the Occupy movement. Go figure - the only thing that congress can agree on for the past three years raises the ire of the pundits on both the left and the right.
Is it possible that protesters of high profile individuals will be forced to stand at a greater distance when protesting than before? Sure it is, but let’s not act like this is some sort of sweeping change that will suddenly end one's right to free speech. With today's social media and never ending news coverage, proximity is not required to make your point. It may make you feel good to call the president a liar to his face but if you think that any of these people who have the power to enact change will be swayed by some tool with a blow horn you are sadly mistaken.
Having said that, if you feel this is still an egregious power grab by the president or congress feel free to cross the line into the restricted area that the Secret Service has established and you will get the chance to argue your case before a judge where decisions regarding constitutionality are made.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Friday, April 20, 2012
H.R. 9 - Republicans next tax cut for the rich
The GOP, led by Eric Cantor, recently introduced a new bill called the Small Business Tax Cut Act (H.R. 9). It should come as no surprise that this bill is rife with issues.
For example, for a business to qualify for this tax cut they have to have less than 500 employees. This disqualifies 0.1% of the companies in the US, meaning 99.9% of companies in the US are "Small Business" - mom and pop shops by this definition. Also the companies that most Americans think of as small businesses would not receive enough of a tax break to support the hiring of a new employee or even purchase new equipment. The reality is this bill creates yet another tax loophole for the rich to lower their tax rate.
Of course those are only the tip of the iceberg on this poorly designed and inappropriately named bill.
As we have all seen recently government agencies, like the GSA, can waste tax payer money. $44 for breakfast is something we should all be irritated by but politicians, seeing things through their partisan prism, only complain about the money wasted by the other party. With this in mind it should be noted that this GOP bill adds around $46 billion to the deficit while, according to Eric Cantor, only creating 40,000 jobs. The quick math puts the cost per job at around a million dollars. Even the sunniest projects show a cost of nearly a half million dollars per job. My guess is if similar results were offered for a Democratic bill this would become just another example of "big spending government", but when offered by Republicans it supposedly shows their commitment to creating jobs even though Republicans think government can't create jobs and hate it when the Democrats use government money to pick winners and losers.
The reason this will cost so much money yet create so few jobs is that this was never really intended to be a "jobs" bill. It is a tax cut for the rich disguised as a jobs bill. If the GOP truly cared about creating jobs with this bill they would have tied the tax cut to some form of job creation. No such requirement exists.
What is particularly perplexing about the lack of a job creating requirement is that similar requirements are paramount to Republicans when it comes to the poor. The complaints about welfare are that the government just gives away money without requiring that these people to find a job. Well this bill is essentially welfare for business owners. They get to reduce their taxes without creating a single job or purchasing a single piece of equipment. As a matter of fact they could reduce staff and still get the tax cut. If demanding work for pay should be a requirement for the poor to receive welfare then demanding jobs for tax cuts should be a requirement of corporate welfare.
The irony is that this bill is really just more stimulus. The president’s previous attempts to stimulate the economy have been an all of the above approach which not only included some spending but also a considerable amount of tax cuts.
While I would prefer to lean on the infrastructure spending type stimulus, given that it benefits main street more than wall street, the president’s plan has proved affective when compared to the Republican plan of mainly austerity measures similar to those enacted by the UK. So while this bill might be chock full of easy money for the rich it should be more effective at stimulating the economy than any of the other Republicans plans.
For example, for a business to qualify for this tax cut they have to have less than 500 employees. This disqualifies 0.1% of the companies in the US, meaning 99.9% of companies in the US are "Small Business" - mom and pop shops by this definition. Also the companies that most Americans think of as small businesses would not receive enough of a tax break to support the hiring of a new employee or even purchase new equipment. The reality is this bill creates yet another tax loophole for the rich to lower their tax rate.
Of course those are only the tip of the iceberg on this poorly designed and inappropriately named bill.
As we have all seen recently government agencies, like the GSA, can waste tax payer money. $44 for breakfast is something we should all be irritated by but politicians, seeing things through their partisan prism, only complain about the money wasted by the other party. With this in mind it should be noted that this GOP bill adds around $46 billion to the deficit while, according to Eric Cantor, only creating 40,000 jobs. The quick math puts the cost per job at around a million dollars. Even the sunniest projects show a cost of nearly a half million dollars per job. My guess is if similar results were offered for a Democratic bill this would become just another example of "big spending government", but when offered by Republicans it supposedly shows their commitment to creating jobs even though Republicans think government can't create jobs and hate it when the Democrats use government money to pick winners and losers.
The reason this will cost so much money yet create so few jobs is that this was never really intended to be a "jobs" bill. It is a tax cut for the rich disguised as a jobs bill. If the GOP truly cared about creating jobs with this bill they would have tied the tax cut to some form of job creation. No such requirement exists.
What is particularly perplexing about the lack of a job creating requirement is that similar requirements are paramount to Republicans when it comes to the poor. The complaints about welfare are that the government just gives away money without requiring that these people to find a job. Well this bill is essentially welfare for business owners. They get to reduce their taxes without creating a single job or purchasing a single piece of equipment. As a matter of fact they could reduce staff and still get the tax cut. If demanding work for pay should be a requirement for the poor to receive welfare then demanding jobs for tax cuts should be a requirement of corporate welfare.
The irony is that this bill is really just more stimulus. The president’s previous attempts to stimulate the economy have been an all of the above approach which not only included some spending but also a considerable amount of tax cuts.
While I would prefer to lean on the infrastructure spending type stimulus, given that it benefits main street more than wall street, the president’s plan has proved affective when compared to the Republican plan of mainly austerity measures similar to those enacted by the UK. So while this bill might be chock full of easy money for the rich it should be more effective at stimulating the economy than any of the other Republicans plans.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
The war on Rosen
While the whole thing is an example of how easily the electorate can be manipulated, there has been a lot of discussion recently about the war on women and the subsequent war on moms.
In response to comments made by Hilary Rosen regarding Ann Romney there has been a desperate attempt to attach Rosen to President Obama. The Washington Post did a good analysis on the topic and it turns out the connection is loose at best. Still when fellow blogger Libby Spence spoke on the topic she got a considerable amount of push back with the standard rhetoric being offered by the media with some suggesting that Rosen's mere appearance at the White House proves she has influence on the decisions the President makes.
It should be noted that Rosen currently works for a firm that handles strategic communications. They do not provide policy advice. Also it is estimated that between 2,000 and 2,500 people are currently on the staff of the Executive Office of the President. It is an extraordinary leap to think that Hilary Rosen is meeting and providing political advice to the President on each of her 36 visits over the past three years.
Another problem with this claim is that the issues that Rosen and her company support are not ones that the president currently supports. If Rosen is so influential as to be considered a de facto spokesman for the white house then all of the positions she represents should be the reflected on the president's policies.
Of course the debate on Rosen only exists because of the false equivalence between what one woman said about another woman and the massive quantity of legislation attacking women that are currently being offered by Republican controlled state legislatures. The Daily show has a great piece on this but I assume very few conservative readers can stomach 6 minutes of Fox News clips accompanied by left leaning commentary so below are a list of the recent legislative "accomplishments" regarding women.
Wiscosin ends equal pay for women.
Arizona is looking to require women who want their insure to cover contraception to prove it is for a "medical condition".
Pennsylvania is trying to require women to get a sonogram before an abortion.
Virginia wanted to force women to have a transvaginal ultrasound before having an abortion.
Mississippi wants a constitutional amendment that would brand abortion as murder.
Arizona is allowing doctors to avoid any legal action for failing to disclose any issues with fetus.
Republicans opposed to the violence against women act.
Wisconsin wants to classify being a single parent as child abuse.
Texas is blocking funding for planned parenthood.
Topeka, Kansas decriminalized domestic violence.
House Republicans have a bill that would allow hospitals to let women die rather than perform a life saving abortion.
The reality is the comments made by Hilary Rosen are in no way shape or form equivalent to the legislative actions of Republicans.
In response to comments made by Hilary Rosen regarding Ann Romney there has been a desperate attempt to attach Rosen to President Obama. The Washington Post did a good analysis on the topic and it turns out the connection is loose at best. Still when fellow blogger Libby Spence spoke on the topic she got a considerable amount of push back with the standard rhetoric being offered by the media with some suggesting that Rosen's mere appearance at the White House proves she has influence on the decisions the President makes.
It should be noted that Rosen currently works for a firm that handles strategic communications. They do not provide policy advice. Also it is estimated that between 2,000 and 2,500 people are currently on the staff of the Executive Office of the President. It is an extraordinary leap to think that Hilary Rosen is meeting and providing political advice to the President on each of her 36 visits over the past three years.
Another problem with this claim is that the issues that Rosen and her company support are not ones that the president currently supports. If Rosen is so influential as to be considered a de facto spokesman for the white house then all of the positions she represents should be the reflected on the president's policies.
Of course the debate on Rosen only exists because of the false equivalence between what one woman said about another woman and the massive quantity of legislation attacking women that are currently being offered by Republican controlled state legislatures. The Daily show has a great piece on this but I assume very few conservative readers can stomach 6 minutes of Fox News clips accompanied by left leaning commentary so below are a list of the recent legislative "accomplishments" regarding women.
Wiscosin ends equal pay for women.
Arizona is looking to require women who want their insure to cover contraception to prove it is for a "medical condition".
Pennsylvania is trying to require women to get a sonogram before an abortion.
Virginia wanted to force women to have a transvaginal ultrasound before having an abortion.
Mississippi wants a constitutional amendment that would brand abortion as murder.
Arizona is allowing doctors to avoid any legal action for failing to disclose any issues with fetus.
Republicans opposed to the violence against women act.
Wisconsin wants to classify being a single parent as child abuse.
Texas is blocking funding for planned parenthood.
Topeka, Kansas decriminalized domestic violence.
House Republicans have a bill that would allow hospitals to let women die rather than perform a life saving abortion.
The reality is the comments made by Hilary Rosen are in no way shape or form equivalent to the legislative actions of Republicans.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Teachers unions: The great diversion
It seems that you can't have a conversation about improving education without someone blaming the teachers union for the all of the problems with public education. Are teachers unions perfect? No. Are they the problem with American education? No.
First it should be noted that only 38% of the nation’s educators belong to a union. Given that nearly two thirds of public school teachers are non-union it seems like a stretch to blame the unions for the failings of public education. Also, if the teachers unions were to at fault for the downfall of public education there should be some research that provides evidence for such a claim. The data however shows that there is little to no difference in test scores of students taught by union teachers versus non-union teachers.
Given the lack of data to support the attack on teachers unions the next argument you often hear is that teacher tenure is ruining public education. This belief was fueled by the following quote from the documentary 'Waiting for Superman'.
...in Illinois, 1 in 57 doctors loses his or her medical license, and 1 in 97 attorneys loses his or her law license, but only 1 teacher in 2500 has ever lost his or her credentials."
Unfortunately this "statistic" has no basis in reality. Unlike the filmmakers, Leonie Haimson from the Huffington Post actually took the time to examine the data and found that the numbers across these three occupations are nearly identical.
But even these numbers don't give an accurate picture of the situation. To get a law license in most states you need only to get a law degree and pass the bar. To get a license to practice medicine you need to earn a medical degree, pass the boards and practice medicine for one year. To get tenure you need to get a degree in education and teacher for around 4 years (varies by state). Given the fact that 46% of teachers leave the profession within 5 years it should come as no surprise that the turnover rate for tenured teachers is low. Those teachers that make it to tenure tend to be those who are most dedicated to the job.
Regardless of these facts many people will still argue against unions because they claim unions cost the taxpayers too much. Again, this is a fallacy. Most often we debate what a teacher makes without ever considering the cost of living. Teachers unions tend to be the strongest in the states that are the most expensive to live. When you take cost of living into account the states with little to no union teachers actually make more money per year than the teachers in states with little to no non-union teachers.
If the goal is truly to improve education in America then there is plenty of good data on real solutions which make a difference. Focusing on unions is a politically motivated diversionary tactic that helps no one but the politicians.
First it should be noted that only 38% of the nation’s educators belong to a union. Given that nearly two thirds of public school teachers are non-union it seems like a stretch to blame the unions for the failings of public education. Also, if the teachers unions were to at fault for the downfall of public education there should be some research that provides evidence for such a claim. The data however shows that there is little to no difference in test scores of students taught by union teachers versus non-union teachers.
Given the lack of data to support the attack on teachers unions the next argument you often hear is that teacher tenure is ruining public education. This belief was fueled by the following quote from the documentary 'Waiting for Superman'.
...in Illinois, 1 in 57 doctors loses his or her medical license, and 1 in 97 attorneys loses his or her law license, but only 1 teacher in 2500 has ever lost his or her credentials."
Unfortunately this "statistic" has no basis in reality. Unlike the filmmakers, Leonie Haimson from the Huffington Post actually took the time to examine the data and found that the numbers across these three occupations are nearly identical.
But even these numbers don't give an accurate picture of the situation. To get a law license in most states you need only to get a law degree and pass the bar. To get a license to practice medicine you need to earn a medical degree, pass the boards and practice medicine for one year. To get tenure you need to get a degree in education and teacher for around 4 years (varies by state). Given the fact that 46% of teachers leave the profession within 5 years it should come as no surprise that the turnover rate for tenured teachers is low. Those teachers that make it to tenure tend to be those who are most dedicated to the job.
Regardless of these facts many people will still argue against unions because they claim unions cost the taxpayers too much. Again, this is a fallacy. Most often we debate what a teacher makes without ever considering the cost of living. Teachers unions tend to be the strongest in the states that are the most expensive to live. When you take cost of living into account the states with little to no union teachers actually make more money per year than the teachers in states with little to no non-union teachers.
If the goal is truly to improve education in America then there is plenty of good data on real solutions which make a difference. Focusing on unions is a politically motivated diversionary tactic that helps no one but the politicians.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Government overreach or convenient rhetoric
If you've listened to any conservative leaning news source over the past three years you most likely believe that President Obama and other various government entities such as the EPA have overstepped their authority.
This may or may not be true but it should be noted that here in Michigan a court recently ruled that the Michigan Department of Human Services exceeded their power by cutting welfare assistance to many who should not have been removed from the welfare rolls. It is also true that the Michigan legislature overstepped their authority by ignoring a constitutional requirement in the immediate affect clause.
While conservative news sources like Fox News are more than happy to list every perceived overreach by the Obama administration they seem to have completely missed these two events which have actually been declared by US courts to be illegal. Maybe we aren't really concerned about government overreach at all since if government overreach is bad, then it is bad regardless of which political party perpetrates the overreach yet that never seems to be the case. The complaints always seem to fall along party lines.
The good news is that interpreting the constitution and other laws is in the hands of those who actually know the law instead of being in the hands of the court of public opinion. So if Obama and other government entities are guilty of overstepping their authority the courts will let us know and everyone can rest easy knowing that the constitution exists un-trampled for another day.
This may or may not be true but it should be noted that here in Michigan a court recently ruled that the Michigan Department of Human Services exceeded their power by cutting welfare assistance to many who should not have been removed from the welfare rolls. It is also true that the Michigan legislature overstepped their authority by ignoring a constitutional requirement in the immediate affect clause.
While conservative news sources like Fox News are more than happy to list every perceived overreach by the Obama administration they seem to have completely missed these two events which have actually been declared by US courts to be illegal. Maybe we aren't really concerned about government overreach at all since if government overreach is bad, then it is bad regardless of which political party perpetrates the overreach yet that never seems to be the case. The complaints always seem to fall along party lines.
The good news is that interpreting the constitution and other laws is in the hands of those who actually know the law instead of being in the hands of the court of public opinion. So if Obama and other government entities are guilty of overstepping their authority the courts will let us know and everyone can rest easy knowing that the constitution exists un-trampled for another day.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Misconceptions abound on ACA
Given the recent arguments made in front of the Supreme Court regarding the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as ObamaCare or RomneyCare) there has been a lot of discussion about the effects on the President's legacy and rehashing of the ACA.
While I can't speak for the president I do take issue with many of the opinions that have been offered.
First, as much as this legislation has been tied to President Obama, the talk at the time of passage was that Obama was too distant in the process and let congress do too much of the leg work. Did Obama support health care reform? Yes. Was this his bill? Hardly.
Second, the rhetoric over the individual mandate suggests that progressives like the idea. The truth is progressives feel that every American citizen should have access to health care without going bankrupt. They support a single payer system. When the ACA was being passed there were conversations among progressives on whether you accept a flawed bill that accomplishes only a small portion of your goals and hope for future revisions and improvements or if you just scrap the whole thing and start over.
Progressives probably don't support the individual mandate (the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation) any more than conservatives, but they value the benefits it provides to the uninsured and others such as those with the dreaded "pre-existing condition".
Third, the debate over how this affects the deficit is largely irrelevant to progressives. Again the progressive stance is that universal health care falls under the basic tenant of government of general welfare. Medicare is more cost effective than private insurance so if progressives had their way and got a universal health care system the CBO score wouldn't make any difference. There is a reason we spend more money per person than any other nation in the world and our lack of a universal health care is a key component of that.
Additionally if your complaint is that the ACA doesn't reduce the deficit or actually increases it some, it should be noted that if we did nothing or if we eliminate the ACA the increase in deficit would be worse. Fighting against the ACA doesn't lead to a cut in the deficit.
If you’re a conservative and you hate the ACA then welcome to the club. This is nowhere near the progressive health care utopia that it is being portrayed as, but it gives more people access to health care and that is at least a good start.
While I can't speak for the president I do take issue with many of the opinions that have been offered.
First, as much as this legislation has been tied to President Obama, the talk at the time of passage was that Obama was too distant in the process and let congress do too much of the leg work. Did Obama support health care reform? Yes. Was this his bill? Hardly.
Second, the rhetoric over the individual mandate suggests that progressives like the idea. The truth is progressives feel that every American citizen should have access to health care without going bankrupt. They support a single payer system. When the ACA was being passed there were conversations among progressives on whether you accept a flawed bill that accomplishes only a small portion of your goals and hope for future revisions and improvements or if you just scrap the whole thing and start over.
Progressives probably don't support the individual mandate (the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation) any more than conservatives, but they value the benefits it provides to the uninsured and others such as those with the dreaded "pre-existing condition".
Third, the debate over how this affects the deficit is largely irrelevant to progressives. Again the progressive stance is that universal health care falls under the basic tenant of government of general welfare. Medicare is more cost effective than private insurance so if progressives had their way and got a universal health care system the CBO score wouldn't make any difference. There is a reason we spend more money per person than any other nation in the world and our lack of a universal health care is a key component of that.
Additionally if your complaint is that the ACA doesn't reduce the deficit or actually increases it some, it should be noted that if we did nothing or if we eliminate the ACA the increase in deficit would be worse. Fighting against the ACA doesn't lead to a cut in the deficit.
If you’re a conservative and you hate the ACA then welcome to the club. This is nowhere near the progressive health care utopia that it is being portrayed as, but it gives more people access to health care and that is at least a good start.
Fired up over coal
Conservative media outlets are at it again. They are painting the EPA's recent decision about coal fired power plants as more proof that President Obama and the EPA are hell-bent on ruining this country. Unfortunately their data is about as accurate as a Rick Santorum speech when it comes to providing all of the facts.
The President and nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that climate change is real and the EPA is acting to lower the harmful emissions that coal fired power plants produce. According to reports the new regulations would essentially end the production of traditional new coal fired power plants. That doesn't mean that coal will no longer be used to produce electricity because existing coal fired power plants will not be subject to these standards. Also the technology is available to produce new coal fired power plants that meet the new EPA standards but the energy sector of course complains that these technologies are too expensive.
The same was true when President Gerald Ford signed the CAFE standards in to law and when President Ronald Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol. The industries affected started their sky is falling campaign suggesting it would ruin their companies. Of course their doomsday predictions never came true because as the greatest country in the world, Americans rose to the challenge and not only met the new standards but even started embracing them as necessary.
So while this new EPA ruling may change the future plans for energy companies it is not the end of the world.
The right also claims this will lead to higher energy prices. Given that energy prices have been steadily outpacing inflation for the past five years and are at record highs the odds are that energy prices will continue to go higher. For example after building a new coal fired power plant in the Upper Peninsula residents saw their energy bills spike by as much as 30%. Building new energy plants costs money regardless of what source the plant uses to generate that power. The real question we should ask is whether these new regulations will have any affect above and beyond the increases that we are already seeing. It is a distortion of the facts to ignore the costs associated with new coal facilities while including the costs of new natural gas or wind facilities.
It should also be noted that as of 2008, before Barak Obama was even elected, more natural gas plants were being built than coal fired plants. Plans to build new coal fired plants were being canceled because of market forces not EPA regulations. According to a Duke Energy representative "as one of the largest utilities and largest - users of coal in the country (we have) no plans to build a new coal plant for two decades so the regulations are not relevant." He also stated that "natural gas (was becoming) the crack cocaine of the power industry." because "It was cheap to build the plants".
Oddly enough this new EPA regulation is actually also catching heat from environmentalists as well. The reason being that is does nothing to affect existing coal fired plants. In a perverse way this actually leads to more air pollution given that energy companies have no incentive to build new cleaner coal facilities and instead will rely on the old plants that have been grandfathered in. At this point China is actually ahead of the US in clean coal plants because we have chosen pricing and politics over our long standing history of being the world's innovators.
If Obama and the EPA really wanted to reduce emissions they should support the retirement of old coal fired plants and push natural gas while also gradually increasing the requirements for all coal fired power plants.
Clearly there are flaws in these standards but the flaws have little to do with the standard corporate talking points that always get thrown around when the good of the people is put ahead of corporate profits.
The President and nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that climate change is real and the EPA is acting to lower the harmful emissions that coal fired power plants produce. According to reports the new regulations would essentially end the production of traditional new coal fired power plants. That doesn't mean that coal will no longer be used to produce electricity because existing coal fired power plants will not be subject to these standards. Also the technology is available to produce new coal fired power plants that meet the new EPA standards but the energy sector of course complains that these technologies are too expensive.
The same was true when President Gerald Ford signed the CAFE standards in to law and when President Ronald Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol. The industries affected started their sky is falling campaign suggesting it would ruin their companies. Of course their doomsday predictions never came true because as the greatest country in the world, Americans rose to the challenge and not only met the new standards but even started embracing them as necessary.
So while this new EPA ruling may change the future plans for energy companies it is not the end of the world.
The right also claims this will lead to higher energy prices. Given that energy prices have been steadily outpacing inflation for the past five years and are at record highs the odds are that energy prices will continue to go higher. For example after building a new coal fired power plant in the Upper Peninsula residents saw their energy bills spike by as much as 30%. Building new energy plants costs money regardless of what source the plant uses to generate that power. The real question we should ask is whether these new regulations will have any affect above and beyond the increases that we are already seeing. It is a distortion of the facts to ignore the costs associated with new coal facilities while including the costs of new natural gas or wind facilities.
It should also be noted that as of 2008, before Barak Obama was even elected, more natural gas plants were being built than coal fired plants. Plans to build new coal fired plants were being canceled because of market forces not EPA regulations. According to a Duke Energy representative "as one of the largest utilities and largest - users of coal in the country (we have) no plans to build a new coal plant for two decades so the regulations are not relevant." He also stated that "natural gas (was becoming) the crack cocaine of the power industry." because "It was cheap to build the plants".
Oddly enough this new EPA regulation is actually also catching heat from environmentalists as well. The reason being that is does nothing to affect existing coal fired plants. In a perverse way this actually leads to more air pollution given that energy companies have no incentive to build new cleaner coal facilities and instead will rely on the old plants that have been grandfathered in. At this point China is actually ahead of the US in clean coal plants because we have chosen pricing and politics over our long standing history of being the world's innovators.
If Obama and the EPA really wanted to reduce emissions they should support the retirement of old coal fired plants and push natural gas while also gradually increasing the requirements for all coal fired power plants.
Clearly there are flaws in these standards but the flaws have little to do with the standard corporate talking points that always get thrown around when the good of the people is put ahead of corporate profits.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Do business tax cuts create jobs?
Late last week I set out to write a post discussing the value of business tax cuts to the economy and in particular to job creation. Unfortunately, as I researched, it became apparent that there is little to no data to support the idea that the across the board tax cuts like the ones Governor Snyder championed actually do anything to create jobs. Even the Governors office has been unable to supply any studies to back the Governors opinion that eliminating the Michigan Business Tax (MBT) will promote job growth.
Prehaps the governor didn't need to do a bunch of research to since he has a business background and a Republican controlled congress which also believes that cutting business taxes will help Michigan. Maybe a group like the Michigan Chamber of Commerce would have some supporting documetation. They did afterall boast that "last year the Michigan Chamber of Commerce was successful in repealing the Michigan Business Tax". With this in mind I contacted my representative to see what information they had that made reducing business taxes their number one priority. Their response: "We do not have any data that suggests the specific tax cuts create jobs."
Making matters worse it doesn't seem that either the NFIB or the Heritage Foundation, two business friendly organizations, have any figures to lend credence to the belief that Governor Snyder's business tax cuts will create jobs.
The only source that seems to care about these tax cuts is the Tax Foundation in their state business tax climate index rankings. The only problem is that the Tax Foundation rankings don't appear to have any correlation to job creation. The Tax Foundation addmitted that they do not take every aspect of business climate into account when compliling their rankings which might lead to this lack of link between their rankings and job creation.
If the belief is that companies will suddenly decide to relocate to Michigan due to a reduced tax rate the data doesn't seem to support this claim. Washington College economics professor Robert Lynch authored a study on the topic and found that "firms don't necessarily relocate or expand to an area more just because it has lower taxes." He also found that "a lower tax rate...doesn't necessarily create substantial jobs."
In Copperas Cove, Texas, the economic development group gathered data on why companies relocate and found that the two most important reasons were access to a larger and/or better talent pool and to aquire additional space. They found that taxes were no more important to the decision than labor costs or regulatory environment.
Maybe the Snyder tax cuts will defy the odds and actually create some jobs but I imagine the "possibility" of job creation is little comfort to those public sector employees that lost their jobs or the elderly who will see their pensions taxed or the charities that will see a drop in donations all in exchange for busines tax cut that the governor "feels" will be good for the state.
Prehaps the governor didn't need to do a bunch of research to since he has a business background and a Republican controlled congress which also believes that cutting business taxes will help Michigan. Maybe a group like the Michigan Chamber of Commerce would have some supporting documetation. They did afterall boast that "last year the Michigan Chamber of Commerce was successful in repealing the Michigan Business Tax". With this in mind I contacted my representative to see what information they had that made reducing business taxes their number one priority. Their response: "We do not have any data that suggests the specific tax cuts create jobs."
Making matters worse it doesn't seem that either the NFIB or the Heritage Foundation, two business friendly organizations, have any figures to lend credence to the belief that Governor Snyder's business tax cuts will create jobs.
The only source that seems to care about these tax cuts is the Tax Foundation in their state business tax climate index rankings. The only problem is that the Tax Foundation rankings don't appear to have any correlation to job creation. The Tax Foundation addmitted that they do not take every aspect of business climate into account when compliling their rankings which might lead to this lack of link between their rankings and job creation.
If the belief is that companies will suddenly decide to relocate to Michigan due to a reduced tax rate the data doesn't seem to support this claim. Washington College economics professor Robert Lynch authored a study on the topic and found that "firms don't necessarily relocate or expand to an area more just because it has lower taxes." He also found that "a lower tax rate...doesn't necessarily create substantial jobs."
In Copperas Cove, Texas, the economic development group gathered data on why companies relocate and found that the two most important reasons were access to a larger and/or better talent pool and to aquire additional space. They found that taxes were no more important to the decision than labor costs or regulatory environment.
Maybe the Snyder tax cuts will defy the odds and actually create some jobs but I imagine the "possibility" of job creation is little comfort to those public sector employees that lost their jobs or the elderly who will see their pensions taxed or the charities that will see a drop in donations all in exchange for busines tax cut that the governor "feels" will be good for the state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
