Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

That’s what Daffy Duck used to say (and still does for all I know).

But I’m addressing it today against the 11 Democrats who voted against extending unemployment benefits. (Twenty-one Republicans voted in favor). 7 of the 11nay-saying Democrats lost their bid for reelection, and one is retiring. This was their farewell vote – Lovely, huh?

Of the 3 Democratic reprobates who will be in the new Congress, one deserves special note – Heath Shuler. We in the 4th District know him as Jim Himes other possible choice for Speaker of the House.

Many of the long-term unemployed are older workers. The same people who want to cut off their unemployment benefits also want to make them wait longer before they qualify for Social Security.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

A broad review of current research on nuclear power economics has been published in the Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy (JRSE) is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal published by the American Institute of Physics. The report concludes that nuclear power will continue to be a viable power source but that the current fuel cycle is not sustainable. Due to uncertainty about waste management, any projection of future costs must be built on basic assumptions that are not grounded in real data.

Reprocessing and recycling of spent fuel is an alternative to the “once-through” policy mandated by the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act. While it would minimize high-level radioactive waste and recover additional value from the fuel, the option is controversial because of the risk of weapon proliferation and the significant cost of fuel recovery. Analyses supporting the once-through option assume a continuation in current waste management policies, although they rely on disposal at Yucca Mountain, which has now been deemed unsuitable by the current administration. Analyses supporting a closed fuel cycle, in which unused fuel is recovered and recycled, assume progress in developing new recovery technologies and an increase in uranium costs due to international competition for resources.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Purpose

The purpose of the Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors Act, also called the DREAM Act, is to help those individuals who meet certain requirements, have an opportunity to enlist in the military or go to college and have a path to citizenship which they otherwise would not have without this legislation. Supporters of the DREAM Act believe it is vital not only to the people who would benefit from it, but also the United States as a whole. It would give an opportunity to undocumented immigrant students who have been living in the U.S. since they were young, a chance to contribute back to the country that has given so much to them and a chance to utilize their hard earned education and talents.

Who would qualify?

The following is a list of specific requirements one would need in order to qualify for the current version of the DREAM Act.

- Must have entered the United States before the age of 16 (i.e. 15 and younger)
- Must have been present in the United States for at least five (5) consecutive years prior to enactment of the bill
- Must have graduated from a United States high school, or have obtained a GED, or have been accepted into an institution of higher education (i.e. college/university)
- Must be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of application
- Must have good moral character

What’s next?

If the DREAM Act passes, an undocumented individual meeting those qualifying conditions stated above, would have to do the following:

- Apply for the DREAM Act (Since the legislation has not yet passed, there are no specific guidelines on how to apply)
- approved and granted Conditional Permanent Residency, the individual would have to do one of the following:
- Enroll in an institution of higher education in order to pursue a bachelor’s degree or higher degree or
- Enlist in one of the branches of the United States Military
- Within 6 years of approval for conditional permanent residency, the individual must have completed at least two (2) years of one of the options outlined in the previous step
- Once 5 ½ years of the 6 years have passed, the individual will then be able to apply for Legal Permanent Residency (dropping the conditional part) and consequently will be able to apply for United States Citizenship
Those who have already completed at least 2 years of college education towards a bachelor’s degree or higher degree, will still have to wait the 5 ½ years in order to apply for Legal Permanent Residency even though you may have already obtained a degree.

Students who do not complete the requirements will be disqualified .

Organizing for America-Connecticut (OFA-CT) State Director Kellie Dupree released the following statement today urging prompt bipartisan Congressional action on the DREAM Act:

“In the four weeks remaining until the 111th Congress adjourns, our elected leaders have an opportunity and responsibility to address a number of important issues facing our country – including the DREAM Act. Not only would the DREAM Act reward individuals who want to work hard to receive a higher education or to serve America as a member of our nation’s armed forces, it would prevent young people from being punished for the actions of their parents.

“The DREAM Act is exactly the type of common sense legislation that Americans want Congressional leaders to act on this month. That’s why the DREAM Act is supported by the vast majority of Americans today, and that’s why the legislation received strong bipartisan support in 2006 when then-Senator Barack Obama co-sponsored the bill. The DREAM Act was passed by the Senate that year – with the support by a number of Republican Senators that are still serving today – and there is no reason why the legislation shouldn’t receive the same kind of support from Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle in the coming weeks.

“OFA supporters in Connecticut call on Congress to put aside partisan politics and support the DREAM Act in this session.”

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Credit card offers have grown increasingly complicated since 2000, when Congress required issuers to start disclosing pricing information on credit card offers. But instead of providing clarity to consumers about the true cost of their credit cards, issuers responded to this mandate by adding a confusing array of numbers to their offers, new Center for Responsible Lending (CRL) research finds.

To see the full report

Specifically, CRL’s research finds that the total count of numeric disclosures in credit card direct-mail offers increased 250% from 1999 to 2009, and at the peak in early 2009 the average credit card offer contained 33 figures. Much of the increased complexity in offers came from new penalty rates and fees.

CRL also finds that offer complexity varied widely among issuers: In most years, the most complex offer had 6 to 8 times as many numbers as the simplest offer. This suggests that it has been issuer choice, not regulation, that has made credit card terms more confusing.

The new CARD act enacted last year appears to have made credit card contracts simpler, suggesting the law is having the intended effect of creating fair, understandable terms. But credit card pricing remains far more complicated than just a decade ago, thwarting consumers’ ability to comparison shop. CRL recommends that regulators monitor industry practices carefully to determine whether more action is needed to enhance clarity.

About the Center for Responsible Lending

The Center for Responsible Lending is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and policy organization dedicated to protecting homeownership and family wealth by working to eliminate abusive financial practices. CRL is affiliated with Self-Help, one of the nation’s largest community development financial institutions.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

A new report from the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities concludes that film and TV industry tax subsidies, like those in place in Connecticut, are costly and ineffective. As noted in the report’s appendix, CT is losing $41 million in revenues to these tax subsidies, nearly three times more than the state’s tax subsidies for research and development ($15 million). These subsidies don’t “pay for themselves” in increased state revenues, as sometimes claimed by proponents – CT receives an estimated 7 cents in state revenues for each dollar spent on the subsidies (see appendix 3). In the midst of an unprecedented state budget deficit, Connecticut has imposed no limits on the funds that can be lost to the film and TV subsidies – the state’s funding obligations are open-ended.

CT’s subsidies don’t merely reduce the amount a production company would ordinarily pay in taxes. CT’s film production tax credit covers up to 30% of eligible production expenses. Unlike other Connecticut business tax credits, this credit does not simply reduce the taxes an entertainment production company owes Connecticut (dollar-for-dollar), but also can be sold by production companies with insufficient tax liability to use up all the credits. Credits have, in fact, been sold to companies wholly unrelated to the entertainment industry. So Connecticut is “on the hook” for a subsidy of up to 30% of a company’s qualifying production costs, whether or not that company owes any Connecticut taxes.

CT Voices for Children’s 2009 report on CT’s subsidies

More on the state’s growing, unevaluated, and unaccountable use of business tax credits

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today after Republicans in the House blocked extending unemployment insurance, which would have extended unemployment insurance for millions of Americans and injected demand into the economy:

“The American people, struggling with high unemployment, continue to look to their leaders for a lifeline until they can get back to work. Today, Democrats voted to extend unemployment insurance to Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own; unfortunately, Republicans did not.

“Our first priority is to create jobs; the American people want to get back to work. Unemployment Insurance is a proven economic booster, returning $2 into the economy for every $1 invested. We will continue to work for an emergency short-term extension to get families through the holidays and to work for longer term solutions as well.”

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

While the 2008 electorate was the most diverse in American history, and voters gave the majority of their votes to Democrats, the 2010 midterm election experienced unusually high participation from older and wealthier voters who strongly favored Republican candidates, according to an analysis released by the national voting rights group Project Vote.

The analysis by Dr. Lorraine Minnite showed that, while voting for the most part followed predictable historic trends for midterm elections across the country, a few distinct features of the 2010 voting population stand out that contributed to the results:

- Across the country, senior citizens turned out in force, with the number of ballots cast by voters over 65 increasing by 16 percent. While making up only 13 percent of the U.S. resident population, Americans in this age group constituted 21 percent of 2010 voters. This age group also significantly increased their support of Republican candidates, from 49 percent in 2006 to 59 percent in 2010.
- The number of ballots cast by Americans from households making over $200,000 a year increased by 68 percent compared to 2006.
- Relative to 2008, minority and youth voters dropped out of the voting population at higher rates than whites, undoing much of the gain in demographic parity achieved in 2008.
- Women—already one of the most reliable voting groups—increased their share of the electorate, and significantly increased their support of the Republican Party.

“It is fair to say that 2010 was the year of older, rich people,” Dr. Minnite writes in the study.

The memo includes state-specific analysis and tables for several states, including Texas. In Texas, the total number of ballots increased at a higher rate than the national average: 13 percent, compared to five percent in national House balloting. Texas saw increases in minority voting, with both African Americans and Latinos increasing their share of the electorate over 2006 levels.

“As in most midterm elections, the people who voted in 2010 were not really representative of the American people,” says Michael Slater, executive director of Project Vote. “This study raises serious questions about which constituencies candidates choose to court and engage as they look ahead to 2012, since the electorate, as a whole, is shifting away from the views and values of the older, wealthier white conservatives who dominated the 2010 election.”

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Failing to support Democrats in their efforts to achieve economic justice.

First, he has refused to endorse Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of The House, despite the fact that her only opponent is notorious Blue Dog Democrat Heath Shuler. Second, he has attacked Pelosi:

Himes cited comments made by Pelosi earlier this month upon the release of a series of recommendations by a White House fiscal commission led by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson that call for dramatic changes to Social Security and Medicare, including raising the retirement age.

Pelosi, who was elected last week to be House minority leader, called the plan “unacceptable.”

“Don’t start trashing the process before it’s done,” Himes told Rotarians in his hometown.

I have already quoted Paul Krugman, who agrees with Pelosi, on this:

Paul Krugman feels the same way:

Actually, though, what the co-chairmen are proposing is a mixture of tax cuts and tax increases — tax cuts for the wealthy, tax increases for the middle class. They suggest eliminating tax breaks that, whatever you think of them, matter a lot to middle-class Americans — the deductibility of health benefits and mortgage interest — and using much of the revenue gained thereby, not to reduce the deficit, but to allow sharp reductions in both the top marginal tax rate and in the corporate tax rate.

It will take time to crunch the numbers here, but this proposal clearly represents a major transfer of income upward, from the middle class to a small minority of wealthy Americans. And what does any of this have to do with deficit reduction?

Let’s turn next to Social Security. There were rumors beforehand that the commission would recommend a rise in the retirement age, and sure enough, that’s what Mr. Bowles and Mr. Simpson do. They want the age at which Social Security becomes available to rise along with average life expectancy. Is that reasonable?

The answer is no, for a number of reasons — including the point that working until you’re 69, which may sound doable for people with desk jobs, is a lot harder for the many Americans who still do physical labor.