Chris Dodd has introduced legislation to help towns and regions across the country plan and implement development projects that integrate their community’s needs for transportation, housing, land use, and economic development.
By encouraging sustainable development at the local, regional, and federal level, the Livable Communities Act will help communities cut traffic congestion, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption, protect green spaces, create more affordable housing, and revitalize existing Main Streets and urban centers. Dodd’s legislation is cosponsored by Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Dan Akaka (D-HI).
“As our communities grow, people are commuting longer distances on more crowded roadways,” said Dodd. “Those are precious hours they could be spending with their families, and precious dollars wasted on gas. We must change the way we plan for the future of our communities and tackle these challenges with a coordinated strategy.”
The Livable Communities Act will:
· Create competitive planning grants that towns and regions can use to create comprehensive long-term plans that integrate transportation, housing, land use, and economic development.
· Create challenge grants that towns and regions can use to implement these long-term plans through investments in public transportation, affordable housing, complete streets, transit-oriented development, and brownfield redevelopment.
· Establish a federal Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities at the Department of Housing and Urban Development to administer and oversee the Livable Communities grant programs;
· Establish a federal Interagency Council on Sustainable Communities that will include representatives from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies to coordinate federal sustainable development policies.
Last month, Dodd chaired a hearing at which Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson announced a new interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities that will help improve access to affordable housing, expand transportation options, and lower transportation costs while protecting the environment and combating climate change in communities nationwide. The three departments will be working together to create a coordinated approach to transportation, housing, energy and environmental policies. In February, Chairman Dodd sent a letter to President Obama calling for the creation of such an entity.
John DeStefano, Jr., Mayor, City of New Haven, Connecticut:
Senator Dodd’s proposed Livable Communities Act represents a major step forward for the federal government and its contribution to the economic health of vibrant communities and urban centers. The bill recognizes the relationship between housing, transportation and environmental performance – a relationship that is essential to the nation’s long-term economic prosperity.
Will is a very nice, intelligent, open-minded young man. He is quite unusual for a Republican candidate in that he has a very healthy respect for individual rights and strongly believes that the Bush administration was a disaster for the country and for the Republican party, and is willing to say so publicly. He also believes that the McCain campaign, for which he worked in Washington, by pandering to the right wing, did nothing to repair the damage done by the Bush administration. He believes that the Republican party, if it does not change its way, will become a small regional party and may eventually go the way of the Whigs.
He has more traditional Republican views, although not well articulated, opposing “big” government, “socialism” and “socialized medicine.”
He believes that the race he is in will be crowded, with as many as 8 candidates at the convention, and 3-4, including himself, by petition if necessary, in a primary.
Jim Amann’s campaign website is prominently featuring a blogpost by Brian Lockhart which is clearly a tongue-in-cheek endorsement:
I GET Jim Amann’s approach to clinching the Democratic nomination.
Much is being made of the fact the retired Speaker of the House from Milford only raised around $8,000 over the past three months and still owes the state Elections Enforcement Commission about $20,000 because of an innaccurate filing earlier in the year..
Who do you want sitting up at the capitol making the big decisions? A new Governor whose campaign never faced any money problems or Jim Amann, who knows what it’s like to be in the hole and, perhaps, might still pull out of it?
..I think Amann’s banking on voters’ appetite for a new kind of leader. A Governor who, in the face of a deficit in the billions-of-dollars, ends their budget address with “Everybody chill out. This is not a setback” and then leaves the podium to “Don’t Worry, Be Happy…
His upcoming events schedule is a little sparse and easy to get to for him:
08/15/09 – Milford Oyster Festival – Milford,CT
Please join Jim Amann Saturday while he walks the green meeting local residents. Starting at 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM
And speaking of sparse, doesn’t the audience at “Jim Amann’s First Big Fund Raiser for Governor of Connecticut” seem a little sparse? And note that he says he’s not going to criticize, and then goes ahead and does just that:
Legislative experience trumps administrative? What else is he going to say? He’s never run anything.
Alpert’s campaign website is prominently featuring an anecdote with a very odd conclusion that seems to have nothing to do with a Senator’s responibility, or even local government:
Aug 5, 2009
Last night at a pro-jobs event in Eastern Connecticut I met a young doctor from New York. She is interested in moving to Connecticut, and setting up a breast cancer treatment center. However, when she attempted to contact a number of the hospitals in the State, several neglected to even respond. Uncertain where to turn for help, she approached me at yesterday’s gathering. Why are we not making greater efforts to encourage people like this to invest in our State?
Merrick’s upcoming events schedule is also a little sparse but at least he’s willing to travel:
Watch For Merrick At The New Fairfield Clam Fest
August 16, 2009 – 1:00pm
As a participant in the only emergency nuclear evacuation in U.S. History (Three Mile Island- Harrisburg, PA) and as one who has documented the many “minor” nuclear accidents around the country, including quite a few in Connecticut (link coming), as well as the complete lack of a safe place to store the incredibly dangerous spent nuclear materials, not to mentio the lack of any safe way to transport said incredibly dangerous materials to said non-existent place, I am extremely leery of nuclear plants as the solution to our problems of unclean energy and dependence on foreign oil.
Several proposals to dramatically increase subsidies for the industry have emerged and will be debated this fall as the energy and climate bill moves through the Senate and is reconciled in conference with the House bill.
I oppose the expansion of loan guarantees for new reactors:
Earlier this summer, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee adopted S. 949, the 21st Century Energy and Technology Deployment Act, as part of a suite of bills that has now been combined into a larger energy bill, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (ACELA). The main goals of the Clean Energy Technology Deployment provisions, now Title I of ACELA, are to make changes to the existing DOE loan guarantee program and create an independent entity within DOE, known as the Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA), to distribute credit support to the energy industry.
The Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program already has $18.5 billion authorized for Treasury-backed loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates a 50 percent default rate on these loan guarantees. However, this could be just the beginning of billions more in risk as the nuclear industry has already submitted more than $120 billion in loan guarantee requests.
BACKGROUND
For decades, taxpayers have been asked to shoulder much of the cost of nuclear power. Adding more subsidies in the current economic climate will guarantee the loss of billions down the road. Since 1948, the nuclear power industry has received more than $85 billion in generous taxpayer subsidies and continues to risk billions more in liability coverage. In the 1960s and 1970s, billions of dollars were lost in canceled and abandoned reactors. Nuclear power’s past problems, which include cost overruns, issues with regulations, and construction delays, continue to be unresolved.
A recent report by Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School, reviewed three dozen studies on the cost of new reactors since the early 2000s, as well as the cost of currently-built reactors. He found current estimates for new reactors are already four times higher than estimates earlier this decade. Using the numbers from these studies, which ranged from 12 cents per kilowatt-hour to 20 cents per kilowatt-hour for new reactors, he calculated that the cost of building 100 new reactors would range from an additional $1.9 trillion to $4.4 trillion over the life of the reactors, compared to providing the same energy with efficiency and renewable technologies. Furthermore, Cooper affirms that both Wall Street and utilities agree that it will take “massive direct subsidies” in order to build the reactors.
Recently, former NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford stated that federal loan guarantees do not actually lower risk, but merely shift the risk from investors to taxpayers. The risks of cost overruns, availability of cheaper alternatives, cancellation, or an accident remain the same. Even having taxpayers take on all of this risk, however, may be insufficient to maintain a utility’s credit rating. According to a June 2009 Moody’s update, loan guarantees “will only modestly mitigate increasing business and operating risk profile.” As a result, “the likelihood that Moody’s will take a more negative rating position for most issuers actively seeking to build new nuclear generation is increasing.”
As these new analyses demonstrate, the cost and risk of nuclear reactors is increasing and with it the demand for subsidies. Already the nuclear industry has made it clear they are seeking more than $100 billion in federally backed loan guarantees to fund the construction of new reactors. Nuclear power is a mature energy industry that should no longer be subsidized and should secure financing on the private markets. After more than 60 years of subsidies, taxpayers should no longer be asked to bear the risk for nuclear power. We urge you to editorialize against legislative actions to increase subsidies and loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors, including the current structure of the Clean Energy Deployment Administration during the upcoming energy and climate debate.
CONCERNS SPECIFIC TO THE DOE LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM
Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized the Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Guarantee Program to disperse loan guarantees for innovative technologies. While the program was intended for emerging energy technologies, mature energy industries like coal and nuclear that have already received billions of dollars in subsidies for decades, are eligible as well.
Currently, the program has $51 billion in authority with $47 billion earmarked for nuclear energy, coal gasification, coal power generation with carbon capture and storage, and renewable energy and transmission projects. Of the $47 billion, $18.5 billion is allocated for nuclear reactors and $2 billion for the front-end nuclear cycle.
The chief concerns are the following:
High default rate. The Congressional Budget Office considers the risk of default on nuclear loan guarantees to be very high –well above 50%. Payments for defaults from the Loan Guarantee Program come directly from the U.S. Treasury. Additionally, loan guarantees issued under Title XVII carry an extremely high risk because they can provide a guarantee for 100% of a loan worth up to 80% of a project’s total cost. The Department of Energy has issued risky loan guarantees to the energy industry in the recent past. For example, in the late 1970s and early 1980s the DOE offered billions in loan guarantees for the development of synthetic fuels. Administrative failures and market changes caused the loans to default causing taxpayers to lose billions.
Failure of self financing. In addition, although the loan guarantee program is designed to be self-financing, the Government Accountability Office in a February 2007 report stated that appropriations will likely be needed to cover the expenses of the program.( ) And while the DOE is tasked with estimating the administrative and the subsidy cost (the net present value of the anticipated costs of defaults) of the loans, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the Department of Energy will likely underestimate these costs.
CONCERNS SPECIFIC TO CEDA
Per the Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) included in the Senate Energy bill, S. 1462, TCS has several concerns:
Wrong focus. By including high-risk, high-cost mature technologies, like nuclear power that private markets would not back even prior to the credit crisis, CEDA misses the mark.
Exempts Loan Guarantees from Strong Congressional Oversight. Among the more egregious provisions in the bill is the exemption of CEDA from annual appropriations process and the set aside of $10 billion from the US Treasury for its creation.
Taxpayer exposure for defaults. Additionally, the bill lacks sufficient oversight and accountability mechanisms and places no limit on the amount of loan guarantees CEDA can distribute. If the bill moves forward, taxpayers could easily lose billions in defaulted loan guarantees and other forms of credit.
Congress must maintain strict oversight and not provide authority for further risky loan guarantees. The federal government must learn from past mistakes and exercise caution with the program or risk jeopardizing billions in taxpayer dollars through the financing of risky projects.
Former Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis has teamed up with former Nevada Republican Party Executive Director Chuck Muth to form a federal political action committee (PAC) for the purpose of “daschling” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in next year’s Nevada U.S. Senate race. The new “Dump Reid PAC” will combine Muth’s in-state network of grassroots activists with Anuzis’ out-of-state fundraising network for a one-two punch designed to defeat Sen. Reid in the 2010 election.
It could mean losing our 60 vote filibuster-proof super-majority in the Senate, but so what? The super-majority hasn’t proven the least bit effective yet – and Senate Majority Leader Reid has been more of an impediment to progress than an asset.
I would still vote for him, of course, over a conservative Republican, but will not grieve his loss.
Pharmaceutical industry ads praise Himes
Pharmaceutical companies pushing congressman for future help
By MariAn Gail Brown
STAFF WRITER
Updated: 08/01/2009 10:16:05 PM EDT
..(S)nappy, eye-catching brochures landing in mailboxes in Connecticut’s 4th Congressional District that trumpet U.S. Rep. Jim Himes’ health-care stance..:
“A strong Connecticut starts with good health care” reads one. “When health care is unaffordable, families suffer,” another notes. “Jim Himes is working to fix the system…”
Another mailing states that “more Connecticut families are getting the care they need, thanks to Jim Himes.”
Similar statements…are being echoed in newspaper ads and cable television spots, too.
…But the rub is Himes has not crafted any health-care bills, staked out any bold new policy initiatives or outlined anything substantive that suggests specific health-care reforms he back…
So where does the former banking executive get off linking himself to the health-care debate? The answer is simple: he isn’t.
Himes has nothing to do with these health-care missives to his constituents. He hasn’t approved them. He never saw them before they hit the mail, the newspapers and television, he and his staffers say. Nor is he paying for them. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the Healthcare Leadership Council are…
One hundred thousand households in the 4th Congressional District received one of or all three of the mailings about Himes…
So these entities support “heath care reform,” and are happy that Jim Himes does, or will. They don’t mind praising his non-existent efforts. Why are they doing this?
We support providing all Americans with access to high-quality, affordable
health insurance coverage, with a focus on private health insurance expansions. PhRMA supports private health insurance expansions as the best way to promote competition, choice, and innovation. Specifically, providing individuals and families a choice between competing private plans – with appropriate rules and consumer protections – holds promise toward delivering a health care system that improves both affordability and access for uninsured and under-insured Americans. We also support initiatives focused on enrolling those already eligible for but not enrolled in existing programs as a practical means of making real progress.
America’s Major Healthcare Companies and Organizations, Crossing
all Health Sectors, Call Upon Congress to Avoid Ideological Extremes,
Pass Centrist, Bipartisan Health Reform Bill
Industry Leaders Affirm Commitment to “Robust” Health Reform Legislation;
Say Effort Shouldn’t Be Impeded by Politically Divisive Issues
WASHINGTON – More than 40 of the nation’s most prominent healthcare companies and organizations told congressional leaders today that health reform will not be successful if it is “politically polarizing” and wears “the label of either ideological extreme.” Industry leaders praised the ongoing work of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Blue Dog Coalition to “develop a bipartisan, centrist bill that achieves essential health system improvements and reflects the values and concerns of patients and taxpayers.”
In a letter authorized by Healthcare Leadership Council members — executives from leading hospitals, health plans, medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, academic health centers, health distributors and other for-profit and nonprofit sectors — industry leaders said their “shared commitment to improve the affordability, accessibility and quality of our healthcare system has never been stronger.”
But, the letter said, a politically polarizing bill will divide the American people and will not provide stable, long-term reform.
The industry leaders wrote, “We believe that sustainable health reform – reform that can win the support of the American people and be sustainable for years to come – cannot wear the label of either ideological extreme, but must come from the political center. A reform bill that is politically polarizing is one that will have difficulty winning broad public acceptance and will be subject to constant upheaval. Thus, we strongly support ongoing efforts in Congress such as those by members of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Blue Dog Coalition to develop a bipartisan centrist bill that achieves essential health system improvements and reflects the values and concerns of patients and taxpayers.”
In the letter, the companies and organization said Congress should focus on aspects of health reform that enjoy strong bipartisan support, including insurance market reforms to eliminate pre-existing condition barriers, an individual responsibility to have insurance, healthcare payment reforms, investments in wellness and prevention and expanded use of health information technology. These reforms, they said, constitute a strong health reform bill and should not be sidetracked by controversial proposals, such as the government health plan option, that do not enjoy broad support.
The letter states, “Progress toward genuine, necessary reforms should not be impeded by politically-divisive issues such as the proposed creation of a new government-run health insurance program. The adoption of insurance market reforms accomplishes the goal of accessible, affordable coverage without threatening the financial viability of physicians and hospitals and undermining the employer-based system that serves over 160 million Americans.”
HLC members include Abbott, Aetna, Amerinet, AmerisourceBergen, Aptuit, Ascension Health, Assurant Health, AstraZeneca, Baxter International, Baylor Health Care System, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, Cardinal Health, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Covidien, CVS Caremark, Eli Lilly and Company, Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady Health System, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Health Care Service Corporation, Healthways, Ikaria, Johnson & Johnson, Lahey Clinic, Marshfield Clinic, Mayo Clinic, MedAssets,Inc., Medtronic, MemorialCare Medical Centers, Merck & Company, Inc., New York-Presbyterian Hospital, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, Inc., Pfizer, Inc., Premier, Inc. sanofi-aventis, Texas Health Resources, Theragenics, Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, VHA, Inc. and WellPoint, Inc.
Two great reports from 2004 explain the Tom Foley experience in Iraq. The first is Baghdad Year Zero by Naomi Klein
…I couldn’t help but think about something Senator John McCain had said back in October. Iraq, he said, is “a huge pot of honey that’s attracting a lot of flies.” The flies McCain was referring to were the Halliburtons and Bechtels, as well as the venture capitalists who flocked to Iraq in the path cleared by Bradley Fighting Vehicles and laser-guided bombs. The honey that drew them was not just no-bid contracts and Iraq’s famed oil wealth but the myriad investment opportunities offered by a country that had just been cracked wide open after decades of being sealed off, first by the nationalist economic policies of Saddam
I was also reminded of the most common explanation for what has gone wrong in Iraq, a complaint echoed by everyone from John Kerry to Pat Buchanan: Iraq is mired in blood and deprivation because George W. Bush didn’t have “a postwar plan.” The only problem with this theory is that it isn’t true. The Bush Administration did have a plan for what it would do after the war; put simply, it was to lay out as much honey as possible, then sit back and wait for the flies.
The honey theory of Iraqi reconstruction stems from the most cherished belief of the war’s ideological architects: that greed is good. Not good just for them and their friends but good for humanity, and certainly good for Iraqis. Greed creates profit, which creates growth, which creates jobs and products and services and everything else anyone could possibly need or want. The role of good government, then, is to create the optimal conditions for corporations to pursue their bottomless greed, so that they in turn can meet the needs of the society….
Bremer had two lieutenants on the economic front: Thomas Foley and Michael Fleischer, the heads of “private sector development” for the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). Foley is a Greenwich, Connecticut, multimillionaire, a longtime friend of the Bush family and a Bush-Cheney campaign “pioneer” who has described Iraq as a modern California “gold rush.” Fleischer, a venture capitalist, is the brother of former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. Neither man had any high-level diplomatic experience and both use the term corporate “turnaround” specialist to describe what they do. According to Foley, this uniquely qualified them to manage Iraq’s economy because it was “the mother of all turnarounds.”
But the Bush plan, was completely misguided and totally illegal. In the end, Tom Foley accomplished nothing.
Reuters confirms earlier reports that Tom Foley, the Coalition Provisional Authority official in charge of economic policy, has given up on a plan to privatize 150 state-owned companies. The plan, submitted to the Interim Governing Council last fall, was shelved by that body. Many Iraqis feared that the state firms would be sold cheaply to foreign concerns, but Foley insists that the plan all along was to sell them to Iraqis. This statement contradicts the economic plans announced in August, in which the CPA said there would be no licensing or restrictions placed on foreign firms investing in Iraq, and that they would be allowed to own 100% of Iraqi companies and to expatriate profits immediately…
As I have said in the past, the entire plan contravened the international law concerning occupied territories, which does not permit an occupier to make alterations in the character of the occupied society or to change civil law.
