Jonathan Kantrowitz

George Jepsen, Democratic candidate for Attorney General, today welcomed the endorsement of CSEA/SEIU Local 2001, a labor union representing nearly 25,000 active and retired state, municipal, school district and public-private partnership employees.

“I appreciate the endorsement by CSEA, whose members do such important work for our state. Having the support of so many state employees will help me in my job as Attorney General,” Jepsen said. “I look forward to working with them.”

The endorsement process began in March when the Connecticut State Council of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) mailed questionnaires to candidates seeking the support of its six affiliated unions. Union members met with candidates to discuss issues that are important to Connecticut’s working families. The meetings were followed by interviews with members of CSEA/SEIU Local 2001 and its sister unions in the SEIU State Council, resulting in the union’s endorsement.

Among the union’s diverse membership are transportation planners and inspectors responsible for roads and bridges, teachers and paraprofessionals working with special needs students, commissioned police officers and criminal justice professionals and environmental biologists and engineers.

Jepsen has also received the unanimous endorsement of the 700-member International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 90.

“At a recent meeting, our members voted unanimously to endorse your candidacy for Attorney General for the state of Connecticut,” said Frank J. Halloran, business manager for IBEW Local Union 90.

“Over your many years of public service, you have demonstrated time and again that you understand the needs of working families and have been an advocate for collective bargaining and prevailing wages. When elected we know you will work tirelessly to promote the values that organized labor share with you,” Halloran said.

Jepsen thanked the union for its support. “Having represented the carpenters’ union for nearly 10 years, I know firsthand the issues surrounding the construction and building trades. These are especially challenging times for the construction industry,” Jepsen said.

CSEA/SEIU Local 2001 began as the labor and political advocacy organization for Connecticut State employees in 1941. The Civil Service Employees Affiliates was founded by public workers in municipalities, townships, and school boards in 1969. An affiliation with the SEIU, the nation’s fastest growing labor union, resulted in a single, larger and more effective public sector union for Connecticut.

In the Fourth Quarterly Report released yesterday, the Council of Economic Advisers not only find that the Recovery Act has had a substantial effect on output and employment, but that it is leveraging private capital and making important investments in the future productivity of the country:

The Changing Composition of Recovery Act Stimulus

Congress designed the Recovery Act both to begin spending out quickly and to provide crucial support to the economy over a two-year period.  It has met and is continuing to meet these goals.  The state fiscal relief, payments to seniors, and the emergency unemployment insurance benefits went out almost immediately, and started aiding the economy in the spring and summer of 2009.  The tax cuts also went into effect immediately, but it has been during tax season (the first two quarters of this year) that many Americans have seen concrete signs in the form of reduced tax payments and increased tax refunds.  In previous CEA Recovery Act reports, we have highlighted the state fiscal relief  and the tax cuts and income support provisions  of the Act, and found evidence of their effectiveness.

In today’s quarterly report, we highlight the public investment spending in the Recovery Act.  This is the project spending that not only creates jobs in the short run, but leaves us with an expanded and improved ability to create high-paying jobs in the future.  The Recovery Act includes $319 billion of public investment on everything from basic infrastructure such as roads and bridges to twenty-first century infrastructure such as a smarter electrical grid and universal broadband.  It invests in community health centers, health information technology, education, and job training to improve the health and skills of our citizens — our human capital.  And, it makes unprecedented investments in basic scientific research to enhance innovation and so help retain our competitive edge.  All of these investments will help increase the long-run productivity of our economy and the standard of living of ordinary Americans.

The public investment components of the Recovery Act were always expected to spend out more gradually, because they typically require planning and are often awarded through a rigorous competitive process.  But as of the end of June, roughly two-thirds of the public investment funds included in the Act had been obligated, and more than $86 billion had been outlayed.  Public investment outlays increased by more than 50 percent between the first and second quarters of this year, which explains why the Vice-President has named this summer the “Summer of Recovery.”  As the other stimulus in the Recovery Act gradually winds down over the next few quarters, the public investments will continue at a rapid pace, providing continued support to the economy. 

Leverage Provisions of the Act
 

An innovative feature of the Recovery Act is its focus on partnering public investment with private and other funds.  Much of the Recovery Act investment spending takes the form of matching grants, loan guarantees, interest subsidies, and tax incentives that support and encourage outside investment.  For example, the 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Credit gives private firms that pass the Department of Energy’s competitive process a 30 percent tax credit for their investments in factories to produce solar panels, wind turbines, and other clean energy products.  The Broadband Initiatives Program provides grants and loans to firms and regional authorities to bring internet access to rural communities.  And, the Build America Bond program subsidizes the interest cost of state and local government borrowing for schools, transportation, and other vital projects, so that these entities are encouraged to invest in local infrastructure.

The CEA’s report collected information from 15 agencies on the nature and extent of these leverage provisions in the Recovery Act.  We find that roughly $100 billion of Recovery Act funds use leverage, and that these provisions are encouraging co-investment in a wide range of areas.  The greatest use of these innovative provisions are in the areas of clean energy, economic development, and building construction.  We estimate that the $100 billion of Recovery Act funds will partner with close to $300 billion of other funds, the majority of which are from the private sector.  That is, $1 of Recovery Act funds is matched by $3 of other funds.  All told, the $100 billion investment from the Recovery Act will support more than $380 billion of total investment spending.

Jobs Impact
 

In our report, we estimate the impact of the Recovery Act on job creation in two ways.  Our model-based approach uses multiplier estimates similar to those used by the Congressional Budget Office to estimate how the Recovery Act tax cuts and outlays to date likely translate into employment effects.  This approach indicates that the Recovery Act has raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by 2.5 million jobs as of the second quarter of 2010.  The projection approach uses statistical procedures to project the likely path of employment based on the information available through the end of the first quarter of 2009.  This yields a substantially larger number:  it suggests that employment as of the second quarter is 3.6 million higher than it otherwise would have been.  By this estimate, the Recovery Act has met the President’s goal of saving or creating 3.5 million jobs — two quarters earlier than anticipated.

Our review of a wide range of other estimates of the employment effects of the Act shows that our model-based estimate is similar to that of outside experts.  There is obviously a great deal of uncertainty around any jobs estimate.  But, our compendium of outside estimates shows that respected analysts across the ideological spectrum, as well as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, agree that the Act has had a significant beneficial effect on employment and output over the past year.

by Christina Romer the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers

The federal government supports the use of biofuels—transportation fuel produced usually from renewable plant matter, such as corn—in the pursuit of national energy, environmental, and agricultural policy goals. Tax credits encourage the production and sale of biofuels in the United States, while federal mandates specify minimum amounts and types of biofuel usage each year through 2022. Tax credits effectively lower the private costs of producing biofuels relative to the costs of producing their substitutes, gasoline and diesel fuel. Together, the credits and mandates increase domestic supplies of energy and reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, albeit at a cost to taxpayers and consumers. For example, in fiscal year 2009, the biofuel tax credits reduced federal excise tax collections by about $6 billion below what they would have been if the credits had not been in effect.

Roughly 11 billion gallons of biofuels were produced and sold in the United States in 2009, and ethanol produced from corn accounted for nearly all of that total. Blenders of transportation fuels receive a tax credit of 45 cents for each gallon of ethanol that is combined with gasoline and sold. Although the credit is provided to blenders, most of it ultimately flows to producers of ethanol and to corn farmers—in the form of higher prices received for their products.

But biofuels, especially ethanol, have become controversial in recent years, as the social (higher food prices) and environmental impacts (pesticides, conversion of forests to farms, fuels used to produce ethanol etc.) of increased corn farming and diversion of corn products are assessed.

Most of the rest of the biofuel sold in the United States consists of biodiesel, which is made largely from soybean oil but is also produced from animal fats and recycled plant oils. Until recently, the producers of such biodiesel received a tax credit of $1 per gallon. Although that credit expired in December 2009, CBO included it in the analysis to provide information about the value of the credit should policymakers decide to reinstate it. In the future, cellulosic ethanol—made from plant wastes such as corn stalks—could account for a significant share of domestic production of biofuels. Its producers are eligible for a tax credit of $1.01 per gallon if it is produced and blended with gasoline; even with that credit, however, cellulosic ethanol is not commercially viable today and is produced in very limited quantities.

In a study prepared at the request of the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure of the Senate Committee on Finance, The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) assesses the incentives provided by the biofuel tax credits for producing different types of biofuels and analyzes whether they favor one type of biofuel over others. In addition, we estimate the cost to U.S. taxpayers of reducing the use of petroleum fuels and emissions of greenhouse gases through those tax credits; we also analyze the interaction of the credits and the biofuel mandates. CBO’s main conclusions are the following:

* The incentives that the tax credits provide to producers of biofuels differ among the fuels. After adjustments for the different energy contents of the various biofuels and the petroleum fuel used to produce them, producers of ethanol made from corn or other similar feedstocks receive 73 cents to provide an amount of biofuel with the energy equivalent to that in one gallon of gasoline. On a similar basis, producers of cellulosic ethanol receive $1.62, and producers of biodiesel would receive $1.08 (if that credit were extended).
* The costs to taxpayers of reducing consumption of petroleum fuels differ by biofuel. Such costs depend on the size of the tax credit for each fuel, the changes in federal revenues that result from the difference in the excise taxes collected on sales of gasoline and sales of biofuels, and the amount of biofuels that would have been produced if the credits had not been available. The costs to taxpayers of using a biofuel to reduce gasoline consumption by one gallon are $1.78 for ethanol and $3.00 for cellulosic ethanol. The cost of reducing an equivalent amount of diesel fuel (that is, a quantity having the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline) using biodiesel is $2.55, based on the tax policy in place through last year.
* Similarly, the costs to taxpayers of reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the biofuel tax credits vary by fuel: about $750 per metric ton of CO2e (that is, per metric ton of greenhouse gases measured in terms of an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide) for ethanol, about $275 per metric ton of CO2e for cellulosic ethanol, and about $300 per metric ton of CO2e for biodiesel. Those estimates do not reflect any emissions of carbon dioxide that occur when production of biofuels causes forests or grasslands to be converted to farmland for growing the fuels’ feedstocks (the raw material for making the fuel). If those emissions were taken into account, such changes in land use would raise the cost of reducing emissions and change the relative costs of reducing emissions through the use of different biofuels—in some cases, by a substantial amount.

Federal biofuel mandates require vendors of motor fuels to produce or blend specified minimum volumes of the different fuels with gasoline and diesel fuel; the annual targets are scheduled to rise through 2022. In the past, those requirements have not directly increased the quantity of biofuels sold in the United States because the combination of underlying economic conditions and the biofuel tax credits has caused the use of biofuels to exceed the mandated quantities. In the future, the scheduled rise in mandated volumes would require the production of biofuels in amounts that are probably beyond what the market would produce even if the effects of the tax credits were included.

Among likely Democratic primary voters, businessman Lamont leads former Stamford Mayor Malloy 46 – 37 percent, with 16 percent undecide, a new Quinnipiac University poll finds.

This is the first survey of likely primary voters and cannot be compared with earlier surveys of registered voters. That didn’t stop Malloy Campaign Manager Dan Kelly: “Today’s Quinnipiac Poll confirms what we’ve been feeling every day for the past few weeks: Dan’s got the momentum.” Au contraire, my friend, au contraire. CTBob paints the true picture:

In a very telling trend line of registered Democrats, Lamont actually increased his lead over Malloy since the previous poll. Because both polls used registered Democrats, it gives a more accurate picture. Lamont’s lead over Malloy increased from 17 points to 20 points since the June 10th poll. And the June 10th poll was conducted BEFORE the televised June debate between Dan Malloy and Ned Lamont. So Malloy LOST three points after the last debate!

Malloy gets a 50 – 8 percent favorability among likely Democratic voters, with 40 percent who haven’t heard enough to form an opinion. Lamont’s favorability is 60 – 12 percent.

Democratic contenders Ned Lamont and Dan Malloy top any of the three possible Republican candidates for Governor of Connecticut by margins of 11 percentage points or more among registered voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Democrats lead in any possible general election matchups among registered voters:
• Lamont over Foley 45 – 33 percent;
• Lamont over Fedele 49 – 27 percent;
• Lamont over Griebel 49 – 25 percent;
• Malloy over Foley 44 – 33 percent;
• Malloy over Fedele 49 – 26 percent;
• Malloy over Griebel 51 – 25 percent.

“The Democrats haven’t won a race for Governor in Connecticut in 24 years. Could this be their year? Both Ned Lamont and Dan Malloy have double digit leads over all the Republicans, including frontrunner Tom Foley. The Democratic candidates benefit from the state’s Democratic registration advantage and they are better known than the Republican contenders,” said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz, PhD.

“Democrats also could be helped by the divisiveness of the Republican primary battle, which seems nastier than the Democratic campaign,” Dr. Schwartz added.

Among likely Republican primary voters, former ambassador Tom Foley leads with 48 percent, followed by Lt. Gov. Mike Fedele with 13 percent and businessman Oz Griebel with 7 percent, the independent Quinnipiac University poll finds. Another 32 percent are undecided. This is the first survey of likely primary voters and cannot be compared with earlier surveys of registered voters.

A total of 41 percent of Connecticut likely Republican primary voters have heard “a lot” or “some” about Foley’s two past arrests, while 58 percent have heard “not much” or “nothing at all.” Only 30 percent of these primary voters say the arrest controversy makes them less likely to vote for Foley, as 55 percent say it doesn’t make a difference. Foley’s past arrests are a private matter, 48 percent say, while 28 percent say they are a legitimate issue.

By a 45 – 9 percent margin, Connecticut Republican primary voters have a favorable opinion of Foley, with 42 percent who haven’t heard enough to form an opinion. For Fedele, 73 percent haven’t heard enough. For Griebel, 81 percent haven’t heard enough to form an opinion.
Among those Republican likely primary voters who select a candidate, 73 percent say they might change their mind before the August 10 primary.

“One month before the primary, Foley has a huge lead over Lt. Gov. Mike Fedele and Oz Griebel. The governor’s race is overshadowed by the Senate battle between Linda McMahon and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and the controversy over Foley’s arrests is not having much impact,” Dr. Schwartz said. “So Foley has been unharmed and voters still don’t know much about Fedele or Griebel.