Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (5889)	3/10/2009 8:44:32 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86350

It's not bogus rhetoric. The data absolutely proves it. Did you see this from Herbert in the NYT this morning.... Reviving the Dream By BOB HERBERT Working families were in deep trouble long before this megarecession hit. But too many of the public officials who should have been looking out for the middle class and the poor were part of the reckless and shockingly shortsighted alliance of conservatives and corporate leaders that rigged the economy in favor of the rich and ultimately brought it down completely. As Jared Bernstein, now the chief economic adviser to Vice President Joseph Biden, wrote in the preface to his book, “Crunch: Why Do I Feel So Squeezed? (And Other Unsolved Economic Mysteries)”: “Economics has been hijacked by the rich and powerful, and it has been forged into a tool that is being used against the rest of us.” Working people were not just abandoned by big business and their ideological henchmen in government, they were exploited and humiliated. They were denied the productivity gains that should have rightfully accrued to them. They were treated ruthlessly whenever they tried to organize. They were never reasonably protected against the savage dislocations caused by revolutions in technology and global trade. Working people were told that all of this was good for them, and whether out of ignorance or fear or prejudice or, as my grandfather might have said, damned foolishness, many bought into it. They signed onto tax policies that worked like a three-card monte game. And they were sold a snake oil concoction called “trickle down” that so addled their brains that they thought it was a wonderful idea to hand over their share of the nation’s wealth to those who were already fabulously rich. America used to be better than this. The seeds of today’s disaster were sown some 30 years ago. Looking at income patterns during that period, my former colleague at The Times, David Cay Johnston, noted that from 1980 (the year Ronald Reagan was elected) to 2005, the national economy, adjusted for inflation, more than doubled. (Because of population growth, the actual increase per capita was about 66 percent.) But the average income for the vast majority of Americans actually declined during those years. The standard of living for the average family improved not because incomes grew but because women entered the workplace in droves. As hard as it may be to believe, the peak income year for the bottom 90 percent of Americans was way back in 1973, when the average income per taxpayer, adjusted for inflation, was $33,000. That was nearly $4,000 higher, Mr. Johnston pointed out, than in 2005. Men have done particularly poorly. Men who are now in their 30s — the prime age for raising families — earn less money than members of their fathers’ generation did at the same age. It may seem like ancient history, but in the first few decades following World War II, the United States, despite many serious flaws, established the model of a highly productive society that shared its prosperity widely and made investments that were geared toward a more prosperous, more fulfilling future. The American dream was alive and well and seemingly unassailable. But somehow, following the oil shocks, the hyperinflation and other traumas of the 1970s, Americans allowed the right-wingers to get a toehold — and they began the serious work of smothering the dream. Ronald Reagan saw Medicare as a giant step on the road to socialism. Newt Gingrich, apparently referring to the original fee-for-service version of Medicare, which was cherished by the elderly, cracked, “We don’t get rid of it in Round One because we don’t think it’s politically smart.” The right-wingers were crafty: You smother the dream by crippling the programs that support it, by starving the government of money to pay for them, by funneling the government’s revenues to the rich through tax cuts and other benefits, by looting the government the way gangsters loot legitimate businesses and then pleading poverty when it comes time to fund the services required by the people. The anti-tax fanatic Grover Norquist summed the matter up nicely when he famously said, “Our goal is to shrink the government to the size where you can drown it in a bathtub.” Only they didn’t shrink the government, they enlarged it and turned its bounty over to the rich. Now, with the economy in free fall and likely to get worse, Americans — despite their suffering — have an opportunity to reshape the society, and then to move it in a fairer, smarter and ultimately more productive direction. That is the only way to revive the dream, but it will take a long time and require great courage and sacrifice. The right-wingers do not want that to happen, which is why they are rooting so hard for President Obama’s initiatives to fail. They like the direction that the country took over the past 30 years. They’d love to do it all again.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (5889)	3/10/2009 1:32:39 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 86350

Incomes are widening because of the nature of our economic and technological development. The payoff for education, especially technical education, is getting more valuable as opposed to unskilled labor. That's a function of technological development. Those with no education, with skills that qualify them to push a broom or throw garbage in a truck find the gap between them and engineers, etc getting bigger. Thats not because of some evil class war, its just the way our economy is developing. You talk a lot about technological advancements but don't recognize that they have a lot to do with income inequality. Think about high tech scientists, engineers, execs and ask yourself if the gap between their incomes and the guys behind the counter at 711 is all do to a class war by the rich? Another thing to consider is family structure. More single people makes a statistical appearance of inequality simply because there are more households each with one earner. A married couple will typically be better off for a number of reasons - two incomes even if one is low or part time, lower costs for two to live together - no duplication of rent or mortgage payments, savings on power costs on one household vs two, and much more. Changes in family structure also aren't driven by a class war conspiracy by the rich. You can pretend things are happening because a particular President MAKES it happen, wants it to happen, but thats nonsense. Its not even in the Presidents ability to change things that really drive inequality. And btw, the myth that the Republican party is the party of the rich is wrong too. There is a class divide within the "rich" these days, with the barely wealthy favoring Republicans while the very rich favor Democrats. Look at it as millionaires vs billionaires. BTW I'd like to know how "GOP policies" have made your parents poorer. Which policies and how?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (5889)	3/10/2009 2:59:21 PM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 86350

Doesn't seem like a socialist move to me. Education is one of the pillars of our prosperity. Obama recognizes that and wants to do something about it. I applaud the effort. Obama plan sees extra pay for top teachers, may anger union reuters.com By Ross Colvin WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed lengthening the school year and paying top teachers more as part of an effort to help U.S. students regain an edge in the competitive world economy. The United States has one of the worst high school dropout rates in the industrialized world, and its students regularly rank far below those in other Western countries in reading and math scores. Slightly more than half of the population has only a high school diploma. One out of every two American university students drops out before completing their post-secondary studies. "Despite resources that are unmatched anywhere in the world, we have let our grades slip, our schools crumble, our teacher quality fall short and other nations outpace us," Obama told the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. "The future belongs to the nation that best educates its citizens, and my fellow Americans, we have everything we need to be that nation," he added. The U.S. leader painted the education drive as part of a broader push to promote economic growth in the face of a deep recession and the nation's worst financial crisis in decades. His plan includes a focus on "cradle to career" learning and expansion of early childhood education programs, which received $5 billion in funding in the $787 billion economic stimulus package recently approved by Congress. SOME PROPOSALS UNPOPULAR Obama, who in his first 50 days in office has launched drives to overhaul healthcare and energy policy, plans to nearly triple spending on education in the 2010 fiscal year, which begins on October 1. The funding includes an $81 billion set-aside for education in the economic stimulus package, which would raise the Education Department's budget for next year to $127.8 billion from $46.2 billion in 2009. But the new education proposals risk angering teachers' unions, who are generally strong supporters of his Democratic Party and have in the past resisted ideas such as extra pay for top-performing teachers. Obama also acknowledged that students would be unhappy about spending more time in class. "I know longer school days and school years are not wildly popular ideas," he said to laughter. But he noted that students in other nations, such as South Korea, spent as much as a month more in school each year. Obama called for steps to ensure all Americans received a comprehensive education that followed them from infancy through the job market and ensured that they were competitive in the changing global economy. "In a 21st century world where jobs can be shipped wherever there's an internet connection, where a child born in Dallas is competing with children in Delhi ... education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity and success, it is a prerequisite," he said. Obama also challenged U.S. states to adopt more rigorous education standards, especially in reading and math, and called for expansion and redesign of federal student aid programs. Following his speech to the Chamber, he made a surprise visit to a conference of top state school officials in Washington, urging them to keep up efforts to improve the country's educational system.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (5889)	3/10/2009 3:18:32 PM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 86350

Finally, the EPA is doing what they were originally chartered to do, but were prevented from doing by Bush and Cheney. If we measure the process, then we can understand 1) if a problem even exists and 2) set targets to resolve whatever problems we find. Science finally triumphs over Bush Jr. and GOP obfuscation. US EPA Proposes First National Reporting on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Including Mobile Sources 10 March 2009 The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the first comprehensive national system for reporting emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases produced by major sources in the United States. The new reporting requirements would apply to suppliers of fossil fuel and industrial chemicals, manufacturers of mobile sources such as motor vehicles and engines, as well as large direct emitters of greenhouse gases with emissions equal to or greater than a threshold of 25,000 metric tons per year. This threshold is roughly equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions from just over 4,500 passenger vehicles. The gases covered by the proposed rule are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and other fluorinated gases including nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) and hydrofluorinated ethers (HFE). Approximately 13,000 facilities, accounting for about 85% to 90% of greenhouse gases emitted in the United States, would be covered under the proposal. The first annual report would be submitted to EPA in 2011 for the calendar year 2010, except for vehicle and engine manufacturers, which would begin reporting for model year 2011. Motor vehicle and engine manufacturers would need to report both on the emissions from their stationary manufacturing facilities, as well as provide GHG emissions rate data on their engines and vehicles. The EPA would use that mobile source emissions rate data in conjunction with its existing models and other information to project tons of GHG emissions for the various mobile source categories. EPA intends to build on our long-established programs that control vehicle and engine emissions of criteria pollutants including hydrocarbons, NOx, CO, and PM. These programs, which include emissions standards, testing procedures, and emissions certification and compliance requirements, are based on emission rates over prescribed test cycles (e.g., grams of pollutant per mile or grams per kilowatt-hour). Thus, we propose having manufacturers also report GHG emissions in terms of emission rates for this reporting program. It is important to note that this approach is somewhat different from the direct reporting of tons per year of emissions that is appropriate for the non-mobile source categories. —Preamble, V.QQ.2 For mobile sources, EPA is proposing a reporting threshold based on manufacturer size. EPA is proposing that manufacturers of passenger cars, light trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles measure and report emissions of CO2 (including A/C-related CO2), CH4, N2O, and refrigerant leakage. For CH4 and N2O reporting, EPA proposes that manufacturers begin to measure these emissions as a part of existing emissions certification and fuel economy test procedures (FTP, SFTP, HFET, et. al.), if they are not already doing so, and then to report those emissions in the same cycle-weighted format that they report other emission results under the current certification requirements. For A/C-related CO2 (i.e., the indirect CO2 emissions resulting from the additional load placed on the engine by an operating A/C system), EPA is proposing a new test cycle similar to one that exists in many State Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) programs. EPA estimates that the expected cost to comply with the reporting requirements to all reporting sectors would be $160 million for the first year. In subsequent years, the annualized costs for the private sector would be $127 million. EPA is developing this rule under the authority of the Clean Air Act. The proposed rule will be open for public comment for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Two public hearings will be held during the comment period. In developing the reporting requirements, EPA said it considered the substantial amount of work already completed and underway in many states, regions and voluntary programs.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (5889)	3/10/2009 3:55:09 PM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 86350

This article is unbiased and right on the mark, in my opinion. He criticizes both GOP and Dems and focuses on what GOP could do better to re-establish credibility. Taking a Depression Seriously nytimes.com The G.O.P. leaders have adopted a posture that allows the Democrats to make all the proposals while all the Republicans can say is “no.” They’ve apparently decided that it’s easier to repeat the familiar talking points than actually think through a response to the extraordinary crisis at hand. If the Republicans wanted to do the country some good, they’d embrace an entirely different approach. First, they’d take the current economic crisis more seriously than the Democrats. The Obama budget projects that the recession will be mild this year and the economy will come surging back in 2010. Democrats apparently think that dealing with the crisis is a part-time job, which leaves the afternoons free to work on long-range plans to reform education, health care, energy and a dozen smaller things. Democrats are counting on a quick recovery to help pay for these long-term projects. Republicans could point out that this crisis is not just an opportunity to do other things. It’s a bloomin’ emergency. Robert Barro of Harvard estimates that there is a 30 percent chance of a depression. Warren Buffett says economic activity “has fallen off a cliff” and is not coming back soon. Stock market declines are destroying $23 trillion in wealth, according to Lawrence Lindsey. Auto production is down by two-thirds since 2005. In China, 20 million migrant laborers have lost their jobs. Investment in developing countries has dropped from $929 billion in 2007 to $165 billion this year. Pension systems are fragile. Household balance sheets are still a wreck. Republicans could argue that it’s Nero-esque for Democrats to be plotting extensive renovations when the house is on fire. They could point out that history will judge this president harshly if he’s off chasing distant visions while the markets see a void where his banking policy should be. Second, Republicans could admit that they don’t know what the future holds, and they’re not going to try to make long-range plans based on assumptions that will be obsolete by summer. Unlike the Democrats, they’re not for making trillions of dollars in long-term spending commitments until they know where things stand. Instead, they’re going to focus obsessively on restoring equilibrium first, and they’re going to understand that there is a sharp distinction between crisis policy-making and noncrisis policy-making. In times like these, you’d do things you would never do normally. When it’s over, we can go back to our regularly scheduled debates. Third, Republicans could offer the public a realistic appraisal of the health of capitalism. Global capitalism is an innovative force, they could argue, but we have been reminded of its shortcomings. When exogenous forces like the rise of China and a flood of easy money hit the global marketplace, they can throw the entire system of out of whack, leading to a cascade of imbalances: higher debt, a grossly enlarged financial sector and unsustainable bubbles. If the free market party doesn’t offer the public an honest appraisal of capitalism’s weaknesses, the public will never trust it to address them. Power will inevitably slide over to those who believe this crisis is a repudiation of global capitalism as a whole. Fourth, Republicans could get out in front of this crisis for once. That would mean being out front with ideas to support the wealth-creating parts of the economy rather than merely propping up the fading parts. That would mean supporting President Obama’s plan for global stimulus coordination, because right now most of the world is free-riding off our expenditures. That would mean eliminating all this populist talk about letting Citigroup fail, because a cascade of insolvency would inevitably lead to full-scale nationalization. It would mean coming up with a bold banking plan, rather than just whining about whatever the Democrats have on offer. Finally, Republicans could make it clear that that the emergency has to be followed by an era of balance. This crisis was fueled by financial decadence, and public debt could be 80 percent of G.D.P. by the time it’s over. Republicans should be the party of restoring fiscal balance — whatever it takes — not trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. If Republicans were to treat this like a genuine emergency, with initiative-grabbing approaches, they may not get their plans enacted, but voters would at least give them another look. Do I expect them to shift course in this manner? Not really.