Pages

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Cuomo Takes Tough Stance on Nuclear Reactors



Source: The New York Times

By DANNY HAKIM
June 29, 2011
ALBANY - One of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo's top advisers met with the operators of the Indian Point nuclear plant last week and told them that the governor was determined to close the plant.
Mr. Cuomo is not the first politician or the first governor to take that position, but newly passed state legislation will make it easier for him to do so.
The meeting was the first high-level meeting between Entergy, the company that runs Indian Point, and the Cuomo administration, and it was convened at Entergy's request.
Mr. Cuomo has repeatedly taken the position in speeches that he wants to close the plant. But his administration had not delivered the message so directly to the company, or in such strong words, and company officials left the meeting alarmed.
The encounter seemed to mark a heightened determination to close the plant, and recent events put considerable leverage in the governor's hands to make his wish a reality.
On the day of the meeting, lawmakers were in the process of approving legislation to streamline the siting of new power plants in New York, a step that, for the first time in nearly a decade, makes replacing Indian Point and the huge amount of power it generates more feasible. The last siting law expired at the beginning of 2003.
At the same time, the licenses for Indian Point's two reactors expire in 2013 and 2015. The state can derail the process by refusing to provide permits related to the plants' use of water from the Hudson River as a coolant. Last year, the State Department of Environmental Conservation rejected a crucial permit application from Entergy; the company is challenging the move.
For the Cuomo administration, closing Indian Point would be a major step toward reshaping the state's energy policy. Replacing the plant would take years and require a long-term energy strategy. The plant produces 2,000 megawatts and provides 25 percent of the power in New York City and Westchester.
Public worries about the plant, in Buchanan, about 35 miles north of Midtown, flared after the recent catastrophe at the Japanese nuclear plant in Fukushima, and after a report highlighting the Indian Point plant's proximity to a fault line. But replacing it with natural gas plants or other more conventional options could bring its own environmental and emissions concerns.
Josh Vlasto, a spokesman for Mr. Cuomo, said "the governor's long-standing position with respect to closing Indian Point has been clear, and this administration intends to follow through with implementing that policy."
Details of the meeting last week between Entergy and the governor's advisers were provided by people who were briefed on it but who insisted on anonymity because the meeting was private. It took place at the Capitol office of Howard Glaser, the governor's director of state operations. The top Entergy executive at the meeting was Richard Smith, the president of its wholesale commodity business.
James F. Steets, a spokesman for Entergy, issued a general statement defending the plant.
"Indian Point provides 25 percent of N.Y.C.'s and Westchester's power for subways, schools, police stations and firehouses, businesses and homes with virtually no emissions, at lower cost," he said. "Entergy's investment in recent years of more than a half-billion dollars to upgrade safety and security, and rigorous independent inspections by multiple inspectors on site full time, help ensure Indian Point is safe."
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 gives the federal government sole authority to regulate the safety of nuclear plants, but the states have always had the right to approve or disapprove the construction of power reactors, as they can approve or disapprove any power plant. Several states have held referendums on whether to force nuclear plants to close, but no such proposal has ever passed. Vermont is declining to permit continued operation of the Vermont Yankee plant, owned, like Indian Point, by Entergy, for operation beyond the expiration of its license next spring.
Entergy needs a water quality permit from New York as part of the federal relicensing of Indian Point. Last year, the administration of Gov. David A. Paterson denied the permit, but Entergy has requested an administrative hearing, which will take place this year. The company is also contesting the state's denial to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Cuomo administration will preside over the endgame of this process at a critical phase, as Entergy seeks relicensing for Indian Point.
The passage of power plant legislation last week gave the Cuomo administration important new ammunition in its battle. While no large plants have been sited in New York State in more than a decade, the new legislation, by streamlining approvals, makes it easier for energy companies to begin that process.
But David Lochbaum, the director of the nuclear safety project at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group, said the challenge of replacing Indian Point had more to do with transmission of existing power than generating power. Local resistance has prevented the building of new transmission lines to bring power from the north to New York City and its suburbs.
"If you took Indian Point out of the mix, one of the options would be to replace it with more power from upstate New York or Canada, but the power lines are already at capacity," Mr. Lochbaum said. "The power might be there, but not the ability to get it to people who need it."
The Cuomo administration is supporting a plan to connect New York City and New Jersey with transmission lines beneath the Hudson, which could deliver 660 megawatts to Manhattan. That plan, also, is controversial.
The Indian Point plant uses up to 2.5 billion gallons of water from the Hudson per day as a coolant, cycling it back into the river. Richard L. Brodsky, a Westchester Democrat and former assemblyman, has sued the N.R.C. over its issuance of exemptions to Indian Point from health and safety requirements. Mr. Cuomo filed a brief supporting the suit when he was attorney general.

Partnership to employ military spouses launched



WASHINGTON | Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:00pm ED
(Reuters) - A program to boost meaningful employment among military spouses was launched on Wednesday at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, with the participation of Jill Biden and the Department of Defense.
The Military Spouse Employment Partnership, the latest development in an effort backed by President Barack Obama's administration to do more to help military families -- the Joining Forces and Hiring our Heroes initiatives -- is aimed at streamlining employers access to military spouses.
Michelle Obama and Biden, the wife of Vice President Joe Biden, have been active as public spokeswomen for the initiative.
U.S. Chamber president and CEO Thomas Donohue said in a statement: "We have a shared goal with the Administration in giving employers access to a diverse and uniquely talented workforce."
"This starts with our nation's veterans and military spouses."
"Those who serve our nation deserve no less," he said. "But it is also the smart thing to do. It's good business."
A total of 72 employers including such Fortune 500 companies as AT&T and Home Depot and government agencies like the Social Security Administration have committed to hiring military spouses, according to a chamber statement.
The group is working to increase the number of partners.
The initiative is helping to identify employers willing to work with military families who often have to deal with frequent relocation and long separations.
Local job fairs hosted by the Chamber of Commerce throughout the country will take place as a part of the initiative, including a Los Angeles job fair involving an estimated 200 employers which will be attended by Great Britain's Prince William and wife Kate Middleton.
A website has been set up to help spouses and would-be employers link up. www.msepjobs.com

On Debt Ceiling: Give Republicans What They Voted For, Let Voters Decide How to Get There



Source: The Huffington Post

By Robert L. Borosage
June 29, 2011
Yesterday, Senator Bernie Sanders committed common sense on the floor of the US Senate. It's amazing that he wasn't cited for an ethics violation.
Sanders called on the president to leave the beltway, go across the country and talk sense to the American people about the cruel obscenities of the Republican position on lifting the debt ceiling. Threatening to blow up the economy by forcing the US to default on its debts if they don't get their way, Republicans are demanding over $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years with no, nada, zero contribution from increased taxes on the wealthy, Wall Street, or the big corporations.
Sanders lays out the today's reality: corporations and the wealthy are making out like bandits, the middle class is getting crushed and poverty is spreading. Yet Republicans are insisting that the corporations and wealthy be exempt from any sacrifice, and instead all deficit reductions come from slashing programs for the elderly, the sick, the poor, and the young. To date, their leadership won't even agree to mandate cuts in the Defense Department despite the fact that its budget has more than doubled since Bush came into office -- not counting the money spent on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
This is, as Sanders says, unconscionable. He calls instead for the common sense standard of shared sacrifice:
Mr. President, please listen to the overwhelming majority of the American people who believe that deficit reduction must be about shared sacrifice. The wealthiest Americans and the most profitable corporations in this country must pay their fair share. At least 50 percent of any deficit reduction package must come from revenue raised by ending tax breaks for the wealthy and eliminating tax loopholes that benefit large, profitable corporations and Wall Street financial institutions. A sensible deficit reduction package must also include significant cuts to unnecessary and wasteful Pentagon spending.
Every Democrat in the Congress should join Sanders in this common sense proposition. And every concerned citizen should respond to Sanders' plea, go to his web site, and send the president a letter urging him not to surrender to the Republican bullying.
In fact, a one to one ratio of spending cuts to top end tax hikes is already a compromise. As a percentage of the economy, revenues are at the ,lowest levels since the 1950s while tax avoidance by corporations and the rich is at perverse levels. The wealthiest 400 Americans have as much wealth as 150 million Americans. And they pay a lower effective tax rate than the chauffeurs who drive them to work or the teachers who instruct their kids or the cops who patrol their streets. Given that the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan account for nearly half of the deficits projected for the next 10 years, with the costs of the economic collapse caused by Wall Street's excesses accounting for most of the rest, a sensible policy would have top end tax hikes and taxes on Wall Street gaming bear the bulk of deficit reduction.
Moreover, the rich and the big corporations have recovered nicely from the Great Recession -- but they aren't generating jobs in the US. They are sitting on trillions in cash; or worse, investing abroad and eliminating jobs here at home. Businesses aren't short of cash; they are short of customers. Cutting government spending and laying off contractors and federal employees will cost far more jobs than giving the money to the wealthy or corporations will create.
Of course, as House Majority Leader Eric "if you don't do it my way, I won't play anymore" Cantor demonstrated by walking out of the deficit negotiations, shared sacrifice is anathema to Republicans. Whether from the corruption of campaign donations or the callousness of ideology, they march in virtual lockstep in defending tax breaks for the rich and corporations and demanding spending cuts from the vulnerable.
But the debt limit must be raised. It is unimaginable that even the Tea Party cowed House Republicans would be so irresponsible as to force the US into default if they don't get their way.
So I suggest Democrats make a generous offer. Accept the deficit numbers projected by the budget passed with the unanimous support of House Republicans and supported by all but a handful of Senate Republicans. Since the two sides can't agree on what mix of taxes and spending should be involved in reaching those deficit figures, leave that for appropriators and the political process. Let the American people decide if they want to elect more legislators committed to gutting Medicare or more committed to taxing millionaires.
We can't let the deficit spin out of control, so Democrats should compromise completely and embrace the Republican deficit limits for the next 10 years. They voted for adding about $8 trillion to the nation's debt in the ten years from 2012 to 2022. Democrats should be magnanimous and concede. Accept what Republicans voted for, and lift the debt ceiling by that amount, with strict enforcement procedures. (The dirty little secret here, of course, is that the House plan, according to CBO estimates, actually adds to projected deficits in the first 10 years. Its drastic cuts in Medicaid and domestic spending are countered virtually dollar for dollar by more tax breaks for the wealthy and the corporations. A more generous estimate by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities suggests the House plan would cut less than $400 billion over 10 years from projected deficits.
In return for this concession -- a total embrace of the Republican deficit goals -- Democrats should ask for one small reciprocal concession: that the goals be kept in place for the decade, but over the next year, a major effort be made -- through extending the payroll tax cuts, aid to forestall the layoffs of teachers and police, a jobs corps for returning veterans, investment in rebuilding our decrepit infrastructure and in new energy -- to put people back to work.
That's the deal. Democrats concede the deficit constraints that Republicans supported unanimously for ten years -- and raise the debt ceiling only that amount. Republicans concede to a package of spending and tax cuts over the next year to put Americans back to work and get the economy going. And we let the voters decide who they trust with deciding how to meet those limits over the next years.
Rep Paul Ryan, the media darling who was author of the House Budget Plan, once appeared to support this course. He called his plan "not a budget, but a cause." When asked if he thought his proposals might be enacted before the election, he replied: "At the end of the day we might just have to have a debate or a decision in this country about two futures. In a later speech, he 
argued
: "If we don't get agreements in the intervening time because of politics or whatever, at least in 2012 they'll have a real choice."
But to get there, Democrats have to rouse themselves from their lethargy, and stand up as Sanders did to make it clear, publicly and loudly, that they are not prepared to go along with a debt ceiling deal that is all spending cuts, or 3 to 1 spending cuts. That would rob voters of the "real choice" they deserve. It would allow Republicans to claim bipartisan support for cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education and everything from food stamps to college Pell grants, while sustaining tax breaks for the wealthiest and tax havens and subsidies for the corporations.
So join Sanders' cause. Go to his website and send the president a letter telling him to insist on shared sacrifice. And join the effort to get Democrats to stand up loudly -- give the Republicans their deficit limits, but let voters decide how to get there.

Tax standoff blocks progress in debt talks

President Obama speaks to workers at the Alcoa Davenport Works Factory in Bettendorf, Iowa, June 28, 2011. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
President Obama speaks to workers at the Alcoa Davenport Works Factory in Bettendorf, Iowa, June 28, 2011.
Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque
WASHINGTON | Tue Jun 28, 2011 5:05pm EDT
(Reuters) - Democrats and Republicans on Tuesday showed no sign of resolving an impasse over taxes that has stalled budget negotiations and could threaten the country's top-notch credit rating.
The two sides will not make progress on a deal to extend the U.S. borrowing authority as long as Democrats continue to push for tax increases, the Senate's top Republican said.
"The path forward ... seems to be blocked by the insistence on raising taxes in the middle of an economic slowdown," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said at a news conference, one day after meeting with President Barack Obama.
Democrats accused Republicans of protecting perks for the wealthy at the expense of efforts that would allow the country to avoid a catastrophic default.
"Republicans walked away from the negotiating table to save tax breaks for corporate jets," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said on the Senate floor.
The Treasury Department has warned it will run out of money to pay the country's bills if Congress does not raise the $14.3 trillion debt limit before August 2.
Even if a deal is reached soon, lawmakers will need time to turn the proposal into legislative language, sell it to their constituents, and pass it through the House of Representatives and the Senate -- a process likely to take weeks.
"The last thing anyone wants is to have some kind of agreement down at the White House behind closed doors parachuted in and say, 'Well, representatives and senators, you've got three days to think this over and vote on it.' That's wrong and we're not going to allow that," said Republican Senator Jon Kyl, who was involved in discussions that collapsed last week over tax increases.
Financial markets have shown little sign of concern so far, but that could change as the August 2 deadline approaches.
DEAL NOT LIKELY SOON
A deal does not appear likely any time soon. Obama has met separately with McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Washington, but no follow-up meetings have been set, aides said.
Obama will meet with Senate Democrats on Wednesday, according to the White House, but that appeared to be news to Reid. "I didn't know I was going to be visiting with him tomorrow," he told reporters.
Aides from both parties suggested there would be little reason to hold meetings as long as the two sides remain at odds over tax increases.
Democrats say the $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion in spending cuts that the two sides have tentatively identified must be augmented by $400 billion in new tax revenue over the coming 10 years. That money would come by closing a range of tax breaks for hedge-fund managers, private jets and specific business sectors.
"We believe there is the opportunity here for a substantial compromise on a significant deficit reduction agreement that is done in a way that's balanced," White House spokesman Jay Carney said aboard Air Force One.
As Obama spoke at a manufacturing plant in Iowa, Republicans and business groups said that one of the tax breaks he would like to end -- the "last in, first out" inventory accounting method -- would hurt job creation efforts at a time when the unemployment rate remains stuck at 9.1 percent.
Republicans want the savings from ending tax breaks to go toward lower income-tax rates, rather than deficit reduction.
The two sides have also struggled to find mutually agreeable ways to slow the growth of health costs, which are projected to nearly double over the coming decade.
Republican Tom Coburn, one of the Senate's foremost fiscal conservatives, and Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent who usually votes with Democrats, proposed gradually raising the eligibility age for the Medicare program to 67 from 65, and paring benefits for wealthy retirees.
That plan would save more than $600 billion over 10 years, but it was flatly rejected by Democratic leaders.

Return to RebuildTheDream.com


WATCH LAUNCH EVENT HIGHLIGHTS

Watch highlights from last night's Rebuild the Dream launch event--then share it with everyone you know by using the sharing links on the right. And don't forget to sign up to host a house meeting (just click the "host" button), so that you can bring your friends and neighbors in to the movement.




See the full livestream of the launch event below:
 


Watch a special message from AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka:
 

Senior Hunger: Sanders vs. Paul


Uploaded by  on Jun 21, 2011

Robin Hood…in Reverse


The local and federal GOP are trying to push tax cuts for the wealthy and corporate greed while proposing major cuts to programs for poor people, sick people, senior citizens and education. We pray President Obama and the Democratic leadership stand firm. Also please watch this great interview today on the topic:  
By Domenico Montanaro, Political Reporter, NBC News
Republicans dug in their heels on the debt ceiling today, once again dismissing Democrats’ attempts at raising revenue as tax increases.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who met with President Obamayesterday and called it a “useful” meeting, said at a Senate stakeout he was “perplexed” by why the president “thinks tax increases … would be a good idea in this economy.”
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) added, once again, “We will not agree to raise taxes.”
Kyl directly went after some of the specifics that Democrats have floated, like an inventory accounting provision called “Last In, First Out,” or LIFO, saying they would all affect “small businesses.”
He also claimed Democrats want to raise gas taxes, which he called “antithetical” to the release of some oil from the strategic oil reserve.
“It’s bad for economic growth,” he said, echoing McConnell. He added, the “last thing we want to do is saddle” businesses with “more taxes.”
Democrats argue they do not want to raise taxes, but get rid of some tax deductions for the rich, close tax loopholes like for corporate jets, and cut some subsidies and Defense spending.
Suffice it to say, Democrats and Republicans remain at an impasse on the talks. They are about $1 trillion away from the $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion figure they want to get to in order to cover the government through the 2012 elections.
Since the talks led by Vice President Biden broke down last week, the two parties have engaged in a public-relations battle with familiar talking points — Republicans argue that Democrats want to raise taxes on small businesses; Democrats argue that the GOP is simply looking out for the rich.
McConnell spokesman Don Stewart dismissed the issue of corporate jets, in particular, noting that will not close the gap.
“It’s hundreds of billions in tax hikes,” he said emphatically, repeating it over and over for the growing crowd of reporters in the hallways here. “You’re not writing this down,” he said lightheartedly imploring one reporter. “Is anyone Twittering this?”
Asked if he’d call it an “impasse,” Stewart responded, “We’d call it, ‘They insist on tax hikes. And that can’t pass Congress.’”
President Obama is scheduled to meet tomorrow with Senate Democratic leaders at the White House. There is no meeting with McConnell or other Republicans slated yet.
Both Democratic and Republican leadership aides dismissed a rumor that debt ceiling deadline would be extended beyond Aug. 2. That’s still the working date leadership of both parties is working with.

Mr. President, You Need a New Role Model


Uploaded by  on Jun 27, 2011
President Obama seems to be taking his economic policies straight from the Jimmy Carter playbook -- more spending, more government - and he's gotten nearly identical results: a stagnant economy, high unemployment, and high energy costs. Yet Democrats and the president are proposing more of the same. Deficit spending and burdensome government regulations didn't work then, and they're not likely to work now. It's past time for the president to lead, realize his administration's policies are making our economic situation worse, and work with Republicans to develop legislation that will allow businesses to create jobs and lessen our enormous debt.

Lieberman, Coburn Reveal Bipartisan Proposal to Save Medicare, Reduce Debt


Jun 28 2011


(WASHINGTON, DC) – Today, Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) revealed their bipartisan proposal to save Medicare and reduce the debt. The Lieberman/Coburn proposal would save more than $600 billion over 10 years, based on reviews of Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates, and up to an additional $100 billion savings from implementing the program integrity provisions. Attached is the background material detailing the proposal.
“We can’t balance our budget without dealing with mandatory spending programs like Medicare. We can’t save Medicare as we know it. We can only save Medicare if we change it. And that’s what the Medicare Reform Plan Tom Coburn and I are proposing will do,” said Senator Lieberman. “Our plan contains some strong medicine but that’s what it will take to keep Medicare alive, but we believe our plan administers that medicine in a fair way. It asks just about everybody to give something to help preserve Medicare. But it asks wealthier Americans to give more than those who have less.”
“Our plan recognizes that continuing Medicare as it is currently structured is a financial impossibility. Medicare as we know it may not exist in five years if Congress does not take steps now to preserve the program. Every year we wait makes the inevitable task of structural reform more difficult. I’m encouraged Senator Lieberman has put a serious and significant Medicare reform proposal on the table,” Dr. Coburn said. “I understand these choices are difficult for members of Congress. I would encourage my colleagues to realize our partisan lines in the sand are being washed away by a rising tide of debt. Taking Medicare off the table won’t protect seniors. Doing nothing and letting seniors fend for themselves is the least compassionate and least responsible option. Our plan will preserve Medicare for current and future enrollees by taking important steps to realign the program with its original intent.”

The proposal also:
• Extends the solvency of Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) by allocating half of the savings from the proposal to the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.
• Reduces Medicare’s 75-year unfunded liabilities by an estimated $10 trillion and significantly reduces the fiscal impact of Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D on the federal budget.
• For the first time in the history of the Medicare program, the proposal will provide seniors with an annual out-of-pocket-maximum benefit within the Medicare program to protect them from bankruptcy in the event of a major illness or long term health condition.
• Contains a three year fix to the Medicare physician reimbursement formula that is paid for and will bring stability and payments to the Medicare provider system, ensuring access for seniors.
• Preserves Medicare as a government program for current and future enrollees.
Additional background:
Summary of the Lieberman-Coburn proposal here.
Coinsurance chart outlining the unified annual deductible and catastrophic limit here.
A summary of savings in the Lieberman-Coburn proposal here.
Chart displaying total Medicare financing here.
What others are saying about the Coburn-Lieberman proposal.