Let's keep it simple, focus on our quality of life and the promise of a better future!
This is about US - not about Big Corporations, Dirty Energy and subsidizing Big Polluters.
Together we can make this happen.
It's our money, our planet and our future after all.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Monday, November 7, 2011
Here Comes the Sun
Paul Krugman got this one right --
Here Comes the Sun
Op-Ed Columnist
By PAUL KRUGMAN
For decades the story of technology has been dominated, in the popular mind and to a large extent in reality, by computing and the things you can do with it. Moore’s Law — in which the price of computing power falls roughly 50 percent every 18 months — has powered an ever-expanding range of applications, from faxes to Facebook.
Our mastery of the material world, on the other hand, has advanced much more slowly. The sources of energy, the way we move stuff around, are much the same as they were a generation ago.
But that may be about to change. We are, or at least we should be, on the cusp of an energy transformation, driven by the rapidly falling cost of solar power. That’s right, solar power.
If that surprises you, if you still think of solar power as some kind of hippie fantasy, blame our fossilized political system, in which fossil fuel producers have both powerful political allies and a powerful propaganda machine that denigrates alternatives.
Speaking of propaganda: Before I get to solar, let’s talk briefly about hydraulic fracturing, a k a fracking.
Fracking — injecting high-pressure fluid into rocks deep underground, inducing the release of fossil fuels — is an impressive technology. But it’s also a technology that imposes large costs on the public. We know that it produces toxic (and radioactive) wastewater that contaminates drinking water; there is reason to suspect, despite industry denials, that it also contaminates groundwater; and the heavy trucking required for fracking inflicts major damage on roads.
Economics 101 tells us that an industry imposing large costs on third parties should be required to “internalize” those costs — that is, to pay for the damage it inflicts, treating that damage as a cost of production. Fracking might still be worth doing given those costs. But no industry should be held harmless from its impacts on the environment and the nation’s infrastructure.
Yet what the industry and its defenders demand is, of course, precisely that it be let off the hook for the damage it causes. Why? Because we need that energy! For example, the industry-backed organization energyfromshale.org declares that “there are only two sides in the debate: those who want our oil and natural resources developed in a safe and responsible way; and those who don’t want our oil and natural gas resources developed at all.”
So it’s worth pointing out that special treatment for fracking makes a mockery of free-market principles. Pro-fracking politicians claim to be against subsidies, yet letting an industry impose costs without paying compensation is in effect a huge subsidy. They say they oppose having the government “pick winners,” yet they demand special treatment for this industry precisely because they claim it will be a winner.
And now for something completely different: the success story you haven’t heard about.
These days, mention solar power and you’ll probably hear cries of “Solyndra!” Republicans have tried to make the failed solar panel company both a symbol of government waste — although claims of a major scandal are nonsense — and a stick with which to beat renewable energy.
But Solyndra’s failure was actually caused by technological success: the price of solar panels is dropping fast, and Solyndra couldn’t keep up with the competition. In fact, progress in solar panels has been so dramatic and sustained that, as a blog post at Scientific American put it, “there’s now frequent talk of a ‘Moore’s law’ in solar energy,” with prices adjusted for inflation falling around 7 percent a year.
This has already led to rapid growth in solar installations, but even more change may be just around the corner. If the downward trend continues — and if anything it seems to be accelerating — we’re just a few years from the point at which electricity from solar panels becomes cheaper than electricity generated by burning coal.
And if we priced coal-fired power right, taking into account the huge health and other costs it imposes, it’s likely that we would already have passed that tipping point.
But will our political system delay the energy transformation now within reach?
Let’s face it: a large part of our political class, including essentially the entire G.O.P., is deeply invested in an energy sector dominated by fossil fuels, and actively hostile to alternatives. This political class will do everything it can to ensure subsidies for the extraction and use of fossil fuels, directly with taxpayers’ money and indirectly by letting the industry off the hook for environmental costs, while ridiculing technologies like solar.
So what you need to know is that nothing you hear from these people is true. Fracking is not a dream come true; solar is now cost-effective. Here comes the sun, if we’re willing to let it in.
Here Comes the Sun
Op-Ed Columnist
By PAUL KRUGMAN
For decades the story of technology has been dominated, in the popular mind and to a large extent in reality, by computing and the things you can do with it. Moore’s Law — in which the price of computing power falls roughly 50 percent every 18 months — has powered an ever-expanding range of applications, from faxes to Facebook.
Our mastery of the material world, on the other hand, has advanced much more slowly. The sources of energy, the way we move stuff around, are much the same as they were a generation ago.
But that may be about to change. We are, or at least we should be, on the cusp of an energy transformation, driven by the rapidly falling cost of solar power. That’s right, solar power.
If that surprises you, if you still think of solar power as some kind of hippie fantasy, blame our fossilized political system, in which fossil fuel producers have both powerful political allies and a powerful propaganda machine that denigrates alternatives.
Speaking of propaganda: Before I get to solar, let’s talk briefly about hydraulic fracturing, a k a fracking.
Fracking — injecting high-pressure fluid into rocks deep underground, inducing the release of fossil fuels — is an impressive technology. But it’s also a technology that imposes large costs on the public. We know that it produces toxic (and radioactive) wastewater that contaminates drinking water; there is reason to suspect, despite industry denials, that it also contaminates groundwater; and the heavy trucking required for fracking inflicts major damage on roads.
Economics 101 tells us that an industry imposing large costs on third parties should be required to “internalize” those costs — that is, to pay for the damage it inflicts, treating that damage as a cost of production. Fracking might still be worth doing given those costs. But no industry should be held harmless from its impacts on the environment and the nation’s infrastructure.
Yet what the industry and its defenders demand is, of course, precisely that it be let off the hook for the damage it causes. Why? Because we need that energy! For example, the industry-backed organization energyfromshale.org declares that “there are only two sides in the debate: those who want our oil and natural resources developed in a safe and responsible way; and those who don’t want our oil and natural gas resources developed at all.”
So it’s worth pointing out that special treatment for fracking makes a mockery of free-market principles. Pro-fracking politicians claim to be against subsidies, yet letting an industry impose costs without paying compensation is in effect a huge subsidy. They say they oppose having the government “pick winners,” yet they demand special treatment for this industry precisely because they claim it will be a winner.
And now for something completely different: the success story you haven’t heard about.
These days, mention solar power and you’ll probably hear cries of “Solyndra!” Republicans have tried to make the failed solar panel company both a symbol of government waste — although claims of a major scandal are nonsense — and a stick with which to beat renewable energy.
But Solyndra’s failure was actually caused by technological success: the price of solar panels is dropping fast, and Solyndra couldn’t keep up with the competition. In fact, progress in solar panels has been so dramatic and sustained that, as a blog post at Scientific American put it, “there’s now frequent talk of a ‘Moore’s law’ in solar energy,” with prices adjusted for inflation falling around 7 percent a year.
This has already led to rapid growth in solar installations, but even more change may be just around the corner. If the downward trend continues — and if anything it seems to be accelerating — we’re just a few years from the point at which electricity from solar panels becomes cheaper than electricity generated by burning coal.
And if we priced coal-fired power right, taking into account the huge health and other costs it imposes, it’s likely that we would already have passed that tipping point.
But will our political system delay the energy transformation now within reach?
Let’s face it: a large part of our political class, including essentially the entire G.O.P., is deeply invested in an energy sector dominated by fossil fuels, and actively hostile to alternatives. This political class will do everything it can to ensure subsidies for the extraction and use of fossil fuels, directly with taxpayers’ money and indirectly by letting the industry off the hook for environmental costs, while ridiculing technologies like solar.
So what you need to know is that nothing you hear from these people is true. Fracking is not a dream come true; solar is now cost-effective. Here comes the sun, if we’re willing to let it in.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Pathetic Charade
Fighting wars on the American credit card and promoting the false solution of "Trickle Down," Koch funded Tea Partiers would have you believe that slashing Social Security, a solvent program is productive.
T'ain't so!
From Just Scrap the Cap --
Let's talk turkey - specifically about those turkeys who want to cut Social Security benefits. Specifically—The members of the Supercommittee, who are once again looking to cut Social Security’s mechanism to keep up with inflation—the COLA—as it looks for a way to reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion. But why are they looking there?
Social Security sure as heck doesn’t cause the deficit. Social Security's trust fund has a $2.6 trillion surplus right now. The program has enough income to pay everyone's benefits in full for another 25 years. If anyone tells you Social Security is going broke, they're blowing more smoke than a chimney. And cutting Social Security’s COLA would have a real impact on today’s retirees (as well as people with disabilities and other beneficiaries) — an impact that is illustrated in the video below, prepared by the Economic Opportunity Institute:
Please consider signing the petition: HERE
T'ain't so!
From Just Scrap the Cap --
Let's talk turkey - specifically about those turkeys who want to cut Social Security benefits. Specifically—The members of the Supercommittee, who are once again looking to cut Social Security’s mechanism to keep up with inflation—the COLA—as it looks for a way to reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion. But why are they looking there?
Social Security sure as heck doesn’t cause the deficit. Social Security's trust fund has a $2.6 trillion surplus right now. The program has enough income to pay everyone's benefits in full for another 25 years. If anyone tells you Social Security is going broke, they're blowing more smoke than a chimney. And cutting Social Security’s COLA would have a real impact on today’s retirees (as well as people with disabilities and other beneficiaries) — an impact that is illustrated in the video below, prepared by the Economic Opportunity Institute:
Please consider signing the petition: HERE
Friday, November 4, 2011
Just wondering.....
Oak Point goes for $55 million, largest property sale in Middleboro history
An Illinois company buys 870-unit, over-55 community
By Alice Elwell
enterprise correspondent
MIDDLEBORO —
The Oak Point over-55 residential complex was sold this week to an Illinois company for $55 million, the largest real-estate sale in Middleboro history, the town assessor said.
Hometown America, a privately held company based in Illinois, purchased the 1,000-acre, 870-unit Oak Point complex. Hometown owns and operates more than 100 manufactured housing communities across the country.
Company Vice President William Glascott said on Wednesday that Oak Point is the fifth community Hometown owns in Massachusetts. The others are Leisurewoods in Taunton; Leisurewoods in Rockland; Oakhill in Attleboro; Miller’s Woods and River Bend, both in Athol.
Asked about the new ownership’s role at Oak Point, Glascott said, “Certainly there are changes with any management transition. Our goal is to limit disruption, maintain level services and possibly improve.”
Glascott said the company will build out to 1,165 units but has no plans for additional expansion. He said he plans to meet with local officials and introduce his company.
Oak Point is an over-55 community of freestanding manufactured homes clustered in small neighborhoods. There is a club house, fitness center and ballroom. Owners buy their units, lease the property and pay a monthly maintenance fee.
“I am hopeful (Hometown America) will be as good as Gary and Don have been. They’re a hard team to beat,” Oak Point resident Regina Moriarty said about the previous owners.
“We’ve been very happy here and we’d like to stay,” she said. “I look forward to it being the same way it always has been.”
Gary Darman, the former principal partner of Oak Point, said he is leaving Middleboro after developing Oak Point for the last 30 years.
At 67, Darman said he’s not ready to slow down and will focus his time on retail development.
He is the developer behind Colony Place in Plymouth – destined to possibly be the largest open air plaza in the state. He said he is planning a cluster of auto dealerships at the plaza and has several new tenants lined up. Darman also has eight to 10 more plazas in the works, but nothing slated for Middleboro.
Darman said he and Oak Point partner Don Smith have mixed emotions leaving Middleboro.
“There will be a period of adjustment for me, for Don, for everybody involved, including the residents,” he said.
Town Assessor-Appraiser Barbara Erickson praised the previous owner.
“I think he did a nice job at Oak Point and I would like to see him come back to Middleboro with a retail project. We still have a lot of undeveloped commercial property,” Erickson said.
Joseph F. Freitas Jr., former member of the Planning Board, was an Oak Point supporter from the outset.
“I hope the new owners are as conscientious as Gary Darman,” he said this week.
Lincoln D. Andrews is a former selectman and planning board member who saw the project through most of its permitting.
“The new owner has a high standard to meet in terms of the integrity and support that Gary Darman has given the town,” said Oak Point, under Darman’s management, had a longstanding history of donating to the community. The new owner indicated that might continue.
“We want to be involved with the community, and we will evaluate everything when the time comes,” Glascott said.
If Oak Point sold for $55 million, doesn't the appraised value utilized by the Assessors represent fair market value?
Just wondering....
http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=184784
Valuation: 817,400 [land]
http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=101122
Valuation: 363,400 [land]
http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=101123
Valuation: 171,600
http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=196
Valuation: 347,700
http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=184180
Valuation: 63,400 [land]
http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=101120
Valuation: 408,400
http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=101424
Valuation: 4,141,800
http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=184785
Valuation: 21,055,100 [codes not included within legend provided]
An Illinois company buys 870-unit, over-55 community
By Alice Elwell
enterprise correspondent
MIDDLEBORO —
The Oak Point over-55 residential complex was sold this week to an Illinois company for $55 million, the largest real-estate sale in Middleboro history, the town assessor said.
Hometown America, a privately held company based in Illinois, purchased the 1,000-acre, 870-unit Oak Point complex. Hometown owns and operates more than 100 manufactured housing communities across the country.
Company Vice President William Glascott said on Wednesday that Oak Point is the fifth community Hometown owns in Massachusetts. The others are Leisurewoods in Taunton; Leisurewoods in Rockland; Oakhill in Attleboro; Miller’s Woods and River Bend, both in Athol.
Asked about the new ownership’s role at Oak Point, Glascott said, “Certainly there are changes with any management transition. Our goal is to limit disruption, maintain level services and possibly improve.”
Glascott said the company will build out to 1,165 units but has no plans for additional expansion. He said he plans to meet with local officials and introduce his company.
Oak Point is an over-55 community of freestanding manufactured homes clustered in small neighborhoods. There is a club house, fitness center and ballroom. Owners buy their units, lease the property and pay a monthly maintenance fee.
“I am hopeful (Hometown America) will be as good as Gary and Don have been. They’re a hard team to beat,” Oak Point resident Regina Moriarty said about the previous owners.
“We’ve been very happy here and we’d like to stay,” she said. “I look forward to it being the same way it always has been.”
Gary Darman, the former principal partner of Oak Point, said he is leaving Middleboro after developing Oak Point for the last 30 years.
At 67, Darman said he’s not ready to slow down and will focus his time on retail development.
He is the developer behind Colony Place in Plymouth – destined to possibly be the largest open air plaza in the state. He said he is planning a cluster of auto dealerships at the plaza and has several new tenants lined up. Darman also has eight to 10 more plazas in the works, but nothing slated for Middleboro.
Darman said he and Oak Point partner Don Smith have mixed emotions leaving Middleboro.
“There will be a period of adjustment for me, for Don, for everybody involved, including the residents,” he said.
Town Assessor-Appraiser Barbara Erickson praised the previous owner.
“I think he did a nice job at Oak Point and I would like to see him come back to Middleboro with a retail project. We still have a lot of undeveloped commercial property,” Erickson said.
Joseph F. Freitas Jr., former member of the Planning Board, was an Oak Point supporter from the outset.
“I hope the new owners are as conscientious as Gary Darman,” he said this week.
Lincoln D. Andrews is a former selectman and planning board member who saw the project through most of its permitting.
“The new owner has a high standard to meet in terms of the integrity and support that Gary Darman has given the town,” said Oak Point, under Darman’s management, had a longstanding history of donating to the community. The new owner indicated that might continue.
“We want to be involved with the community, and we will evaluate everything when the time comes,” Glascott said.
If Oak Point sold for $55 million, doesn't the appraised value utilized by the Assessors represent fair market value?
Just wondering....
http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=184784
Valuation: 817,400 [land]
http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=101122
Valuation: 363,400 [land]
http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=101123
Valuation: 171,600
http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=196
Valuation: 347,700
http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=184180
Valuation: 63,400 [land]
http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=101120
Valuation: 408,400
http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=101424
Valuation: 4,141,800
http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=184785
Valuation: 21,055,100 [codes not included within legend provided]
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Beacon Hill: Why?
Phew!
Beacon Hill, obsessed with Gambling Lobbyists, backroom deals and unspoken promises, ignoring scandals, indictments cronyism and public cynicism has finally noticed that there just might be things....you know....the People's business that needs to be conducted.
Who woke them up? What forced them to hear a public outcry when they couldn't even pass an expanded BOTTLE BILL because leadership is too invested in special interests?
House passes pension bill, upping the minimum retirement age, but stopping short of Senate’s changes
By Stephanie Ebbert, Globe Staff
The state House of Representatives today unanimously approved a plan to tighten the state’s pension provisions and raise the age that lawmakers and public employees are eligible for retirement. The move follows passage of a similar plan by the Senate earlier this fall. Both plans would only affect future hires, not current employees or retirees.
The House version passed today would boost the retirement age from 55 to 57 and could ultimately save $6.4 billion over 30 years, House lawmakers estimate. The Senate version went farther, raising the minimum age for retirement to 60. [How about eliminating pensions and contributing to Social Security, just like the common folks, the taxpayers?]
The Legislature is looking to change the public employee pension system to shrink an estimated $20 billion unfunded liability and to protect the fund for future years.
The bill comes two years after state leaders eliminated loop holes in the state’s pension system, a first step in controlling costs.
Among the perks that were ended in 2009 were a “one day, one year” provision that allowed elected officials to boost their pension by an entire year of service, even if they only worked one day in a calendar year. It also eliminated lawmakers’ practice of collecting a “termination allowance” if they failed to win reelection.
Earlier this week, a House committee passed a version of the bill that included language exempting anyone who was vested in the system before the 2009 law took effect.
But the final bill that passed by the House last night contained no such language.
Rep. John W. Scibak, a South Hadley Democrat who chairs the Joint Committee on Public Service and championed the pension bill, said the stricken language was not an attempt to undo the 2009 reforms.
“This bill is much stronger than what we did a couple years ago,” said Scibak. “I don’t think we should be distracted by the procedural process.”
Neither Scibak nor Seth Gitell, a spokesman for the House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, would say why that language was inserted in the committee’s version but not the final version.
Even after the language was removed from the bill, Scibak filed an amendment that would have allowed elected officials with six years’ service by 2009 to be considered fully vested – even though they do not satisfy the new, 10-year minimum, required by the 2009 law. That amendment was not taken up today.
A separate amendment that did pass calls for employees who shift positions late in their careers to work for at least a year before becoming eligible for a larger pension. The provision appeared to take aim at an attempt by a former Weymouth mayor to boost his pension after he briefly filled in as fire chief just before retiring.
House and Senate lawmakers must now rectify the differences in the two bills.
Did you forget that it was after this? ---
Bill would allow nonprofits into state retirement savings plan.
By Michael Norton
State House News Service
BOSTON — The House on Wednesday voted 143-7 to approve a bill allowing non-profit entities, which represent about 14 percent of the state’s workforce, to access retirement savings plans managed by the state Treasury.
Treasurer Steven Grossman said the legislation, if passed into law, would open up retirement savings options for many smaller non-profit employers currently unable to afford the cost of setting up savings plans. Grossman said the Treasury was not aware of any other state that offers a similar option. [That means Massachusetts taxpayers should absorb the costs why?]
The Treasury currently oversees a deferred compensation plan for about 300,000 people and that plan has close to $5 billion in assets. Grossman said the added costs of administering the plan in a segregated fund for non-profits would be “tiny” given the infrastructure already in place to manage $5 billion in assets.
Which means the costs are what? Tiny? Means what?
“I’m very much hoping that this will move quickly through the Senate,” said Grossman, identifying Sen. Jack Hart (D-South Boston) as the bill’s chief proponent in that branch. [Senator Hart testified in 2010 about how wonderful slot barns were as long as they were some where, any where, far away, in places like...well....maybe Middleboro....or maybe that other town in western Massachusetts whose name he couldn't remember...ah! The best and the brightest!]
The bill (H 3754) was approved with no debate and after Reps. Garrett Bradley (D-Hingham) and James Cantwell (D-Marshfield) spoke in favor of the proposal.
Bradley said the bill (H 3754) would make available new pre-tax retirement savings opportunities for employers that lack the cash overhead to set up retirement plans. "No state money is involved," he said.
The bill requires the treasurer to obtain approval from the Internal Revenue Service for the plan and to ensure that the plan complies with the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
“We have a strong sense that this will be viewed positively by the I.R.S.,” he said.
The bill contains language ensuring public bidding on plan management, Grossman said.
Asked his advice for employees who don’t work for non-profits and whose employers do not offer retirement savings plans, Grossman said that’s a public policy matter worth further consideration.
“There are huge gaps out there,” Grossman said. “That’s a conversation for another day. I certainly am cognizant of the financial insecurity that many people feel while approaching retirement.”
Grossman’s predecessor, Tim Cahill, pressed for a similar bill in 2009. At the time, Massachusetts Nonprofit Network officials said less than one in five non-profit employees had a retirement plan and the a lack of retirement and other benefits at non-profits hindered their ability to recruit top workers.
Beacon Hill, obsessed with Gambling Lobbyists, backroom deals and unspoken promises, ignoring scandals, indictments cronyism and public cynicism has finally noticed that there just might be things....you know....the People's business that needs to be conducted.
Who woke them up? What forced them to hear a public outcry when they couldn't even pass an expanded BOTTLE BILL because leadership is too invested in special interests?
House passes pension bill, upping the minimum retirement age, but stopping short of Senate’s changes
By Stephanie Ebbert, Globe Staff
The state House of Representatives today unanimously approved a plan to tighten the state’s pension provisions and raise the age that lawmakers and public employees are eligible for retirement. The move follows passage of a similar plan by the Senate earlier this fall. Both plans would only affect future hires, not current employees or retirees.
The House version passed today would boost the retirement age from 55 to 57 and could ultimately save $6.4 billion over 30 years, House lawmakers estimate. The Senate version went farther, raising the minimum age for retirement to 60. [How about eliminating pensions and contributing to Social Security, just like the common folks, the taxpayers?]
The Legislature is looking to change the public employee pension system to shrink an estimated $20 billion unfunded liability and to protect the fund for future years.
The bill comes two years after state leaders eliminated loop holes in the state’s pension system, a first step in controlling costs.
Among the perks that were ended in 2009 were a “one day, one year” provision that allowed elected officials to boost their pension by an entire year of service, even if they only worked one day in a calendar year. It also eliminated lawmakers’ practice of collecting a “termination allowance” if they failed to win reelection.
Earlier this week, a House committee passed a version of the bill that included language exempting anyone who was vested in the system before the 2009 law took effect.
But the final bill that passed by the House last night contained no such language.
Rep. John W. Scibak, a South Hadley Democrat who chairs the Joint Committee on Public Service and championed the pension bill, said the stricken language was not an attempt to undo the 2009 reforms.
“This bill is much stronger than what we did a couple years ago,” said Scibak. “I don’t think we should be distracted by the procedural process.”
Neither Scibak nor Seth Gitell, a spokesman for the House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, would say why that language was inserted in the committee’s version but not the final version.
Even after the language was removed from the bill, Scibak filed an amendment that would have allowed elected officials with six years’ service by 2009 to be considered fully vested – even though they do not satisfy the new, 10-year minimum, required by the 2009 law. That amendment was not taken up today.
A separate amendment that did pass calls for employees who shift positions late in their careers to work for at least a year before becoming eligible for a larger pension. The provision appeared to take aim at an attempt by a former Weymouth mayor to boost his pension after he briefly filled in as fire chief just before retiring.
House and Senate lawmakers must now rectify the differences in the two bills.
Did you forget that it was after this? ---
Bill would allow nonprofits into state retirement savings plan.
By Michael Norton
State House News Service
BOSTON — The House on Wednesday voted 143-7 to approve a bill allowing non-profit entities, which represent about 14 percent of the state’s workforce, to access retirement savings plans managed by the state Treasury.
Treasurer Steven Grossman said the legislation, if passed into law, would open up retirement savings options for many smaller non-profit employers currently unable to afford the cost of setting up savings plans. Grossman said the Treasury was not aware of any other state that offers a similar option. [That means Massachusetts taxpayers should absorb the costs why?]
The Treasury currently oversees a deferred compensation plan for about 300,000 people and that plan has close to $5 billion in assets. Grossman said the added costs of administering the plan in a segregated fund for non-profits would be “tiny” given the infrastructure already in place to manage $5 billion in assets.
Which means the costs are what? Tiny? Means what?
“I’m very much hoping that this will move quickly through the Senate,” said Grossman, identifying Sen. Jack Hart (D-South Boston) as the bill’s chief proponent in that branch. [Senator Hart testified in 2010 about how wonderful slot barns were as long as they were some where, any where, far away, in places like...well....maybe Middleboro....or maybe that other town in western Massachusetts whose name he couldn't remember...ah! The best and the brightest!]
The bill (H 3754) was approved with no debate and after Reps. Garrett Bradley (D-Hingham) and James Cantwell (D-Marshfield) spoke in favor of the proposal.
Bradley said the bill (H 3754) would make available new pre-tax retirement savings opportunities for employers that lack the cash overhead to set up retirement plans. "No state money is involved," he said.
The bill requires the treasurer to obtain approval from the Internal Revenue Service for the plan and to ensure that the plan complies with the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
“We have a strong sense that this will be viewed positively by the I.R.S.,” he said.
The bill contains language ensuring public bidding on plan management, Grossman said.
Asked his advice for employees who don’t work for non-profits and whose employers do not offer retirement savings plans, Grossman said that’s a public policy matter worth further consideration.
“There are huge gaps out there,” Grossman said. “That’s a conversation for another day. I certainly am cognizant of the financial insecurity that many people feel while approaching retirement.”
Grossman’s predecessor, Tim Cahill, pressed for a similar bill in 2009. At the time, Massachusetts Nonprofit Network officials said less than one in five non-profit employees had a retirement plan and the a lack of retirement and other benefits at non-profits hindered their ability to recruit top workers.
Making "Entitlement" a Dirty Word
Medicare and Social Security - both programs funded by tax contributions - have become Dirty Words.
Just keep watching because the seething anger of Republicans (and ATR) about the safety net - the Depression Era programs designed to lend a helping hand that are self-supporting, are on the chopping block.
When we can abandon the most effective programs in our history and relegate the 'least among us' to further impoverishment, what does that say about the Republican Party?
The Republicans didn't seem to have a problem with utilizing the surpluses in those programs to fight wars on the 'credit card.'
When the U.S. spends more for 'defense' than all other industrialized nations combined, maybe we should re-consider our priorities.
Boehner open to revenue increases but calls for significant entitlement reforms as part of debt plan
By Bobby Caina Calvan, Globe Staff
WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner said today he is willing to entertain additional revenues as part of a plan to cut the nation’s deficit, but he declined to provide specifics.
“I do think there’s room for revenues” to be considered, the Ohio Republican said, “but there is clearly a limit to the revenues that may be available.”
Republicans have been steadfast in demanding that only spending cuts be used to narrow the nation’s projected budget deficit. A bipartisan supercommittee is required to identify $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade but is bogged down over whether to include revenue increases as part of the equation.
Boehner, in behind-the-scenes negotiations with President Obama this summer, reportedly agreed to consider $800 billion in revenue increases as part of a $4 trillion comprehensive plan that included changes to Medicare and Social Security. Those talks faltered.
Last week, Democrats on the debt panel offered to reduce Medicare spending, in exchange for new tax revenues of up to $1.3 trillion. Republicans promptly rejected the idea. Republicans had countered with their own plan – without raising taxes – but was in turn rejected by Democratic leaders.
Boehner, in a roundtable with reporters today, said he would “respect the work” of the debt-slashing supercommittee, adding that “it would be unfair” not do so.
The panel, which includes Senator John Kerry, has until Nov. 23 to present a deficit-cutting plan to Congress amid growing anxiety that the rifts within the committee might be too wide.
Boehner said that it was important for the bipartisan 12-member panel to succeed in trimming at least $1.2 trillion from the nation’s deficit. But he stopped short of saying whether any plan coming from the supercommittee would receive an automatic stamp of approval.
Democrats must be willing to put Medicare and other expensive entitlement programs on the table, he said. “Without real reform on the entitlement side, how do you put revenues on the table?”
Boehner declined to get into specifics about what revenues he would be willing to allow, nor did he cite specific cuts.
If the debt committee does not reach a deal palatable to the rest of Congress, automatic cuts will be triggered in 2013 in spending for defense and domestic programs.
Earlier this week, the panel was urged by members of a now-disbanded bipartisan presidential debt commission to make deeper cuts than the $1.2 trillion threshold, or the country would again find itself in the same predicament. That could cause the public and the international community, amid global economic upheaval, to lose faith in Washington’s ability to lead and solve the country’s problems, the panel was told.
Just keep watching because the seething anger of Republicans (and ATR) about the safety net - the Depression Era programs designed to lend a helping hand that are self-supporting, are on the chopping block.
When we can abandon the most effective programs in our history and relegate the 'least among us' to further impoverishment, what does that say about the Republican Party?
The Republicans didn't seem to have a problem with utilizing the surpluses in those programs to fight wars on the 'credit card.'
When the U.S. spends more for 'defense' than all other industrialized nations combined, maybe we should re-consider our priorities.
Boehner open to revenue increases but calls for significant entitlement reforms as part of debt plan
By Bobby Caina Calvan, Globe Staff
WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner said today he is willing to entertain additional revenues as part of a plan to cut the nation’s deficit, but he declined to provide specifics.
“I do think there’s room for revenues” to be considered, the Ohio Republican said, “but there is clearly a limit to the revenues that may be available.”
Republicans have been steadfast in demanding that only spending cuts be used to narrow the nation’s projected budget deficit. A bipartisan supercommittee is required to identify $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade but is bogged down over whether to include revenue increases as part of the equation.
Boehner, in behind-the-scenes negotiations with President Obama this summer, reportedly agreed to consider $800 billion in revenue increases as part of a $4 trillion comprehensive plan that included changes to Medicare and Social Security. Those talks faltered.
Last week, Democrats on the debt panel offered to reduce Medicare spending, in exchange for new tax revenues of up to $1.3 trillion. Republicans promptly rejected the idea. Republicans had countered with their own plan – without raising taxes – but was in turn rejected by Democratic leaders.
Boehner, in a roundtable with reporters today, said he would “respect the work” of the debt-slashing supercommittee, adding that “it would be unfair” not do so.
The panel, which includes Senator John Kerry, has until Nov. 23 to present a deficit-cutting plan to Congress amid growing anxiety that the rifts within the committee might be too wide.
Boehner said that it was important for the bipartisan 12-member panel to succeed in trimming at least $1.2 trillion from the nation’s deficit. But he stopped short of saying whether any plan coming from the supercommittee would receive an automatic stamp of approval.
Democrats must be willing to put Medicare and other expensive entitlement programs on the table, he said. “Without real reform on the entitlement side, how do you put revenues on the table?”
Boehner declined to get into specifics about what revenues he would be willing to allow, nor did he cite specific cuts.
If the debt committee does not reach a deal palatable to the rest of Congress, automatic cuts will be triggered in 2013 in spending for defense and domestic programs.
Earlier this week, the panel was urged by members of a now-disbanded bipartisan presidential debt commission to make deeper cuts than the $1.2 trillion threshold, or the country would again find itself in the same predicament. That could cause the public and the international community, amid global economic upheaval, to lose faith in Washington’s ability to lead and solve the country’s problems, the panel was told.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Another Coal Ash Spill
You won't hear about the Destructionist Environmental Policies being perpetrated by the Republican controlled House of Representatives on MSM.
As our Democracy has been bought and sold by Dirty Energy and others, the risk to our drinking water and our environment escalates.
Don't breathe a sigh of relief that you're protected from Coal Ash Spills. There is no protection in Massachusetts!
Check out the photo collage, reminiscent of the TVA spill in Harriman, Tennesee. Pretty disgraceful - and totally avoidable if the right policies were in place to protect water supplies.
Coal Ash Spills in Lake Michigan
—By Kate Sheppard
Check out this photo that Mark Hoffman of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal snapped on Monday of a dam collapse at a coal ash pond:
Check out these images: LINK
The Journal Sentinel reports that a large section of a bluff used to contain coal ash at the We Energies Oak Creek Power Plant broke on Monday, dumping ash and dirt into Lake Michigan. As you can see in the photo, a truck and some heavy machinery were also pushed into the lake. One of the first responders in the area noted that the debris "stretched 120 yards long and 50 to 80 yards wide at the bottom." A spokesman for the company told the paper that the dam probably did contain coal ash, but said that they'd stopped dumping it there "several decades ago."
The spill calls to mind the catastrophic dam break at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston Fossil Plant in Harriman, Tennessee, back in December 2008. That spill dumped 1.1 billion gallons of coal slurry, and prompted the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider how coal waste is handled. Although the EPA was on course to reclassify coal leavings as "hazardous waste" that needed special handling, that rule has been stuck in bureaucratic wrangling for more than two years. So for now, it's still perfectly legal to store coal ash waste in retention ponds that are likely not lined or particularly well maintained.
Another coal ash spill—this time in Lake Michigan
How many more coal ash spills need to happen before Americans are protected by coal ash safeguards? The latest happened Monday in Oak Creek, Wis., at the We Energies Oak Creek Power Plant.
And since the TVA disaster, the industry has been lobbying hard to block the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from establishing new protections, arguing that states are doing a fine job regulating coal ash. As a result, communities across the nation remain at risk and unprotected.
Just two weeks ago the industry successfully lobbied the U.S. House of Representatives to pass a bill stripping the EPA of the authority to protect Americans from coal ash.
Monday's collapse on Lake Michigan is particularly troublesome because We Energies has known for years that its management of coal ash at this facility was a threat to human health. Indeed, they have been providing bottled water to neighbors whose wells have been contaminated.
New Lake Michigan Coal Ash Spill Raises Old Concerns
On Monday, a bluff surrounding a Milwaukee, Wisconsin-based power plant collapsed, sending a cascade of debris and coal ash waste from the power plant into Lake Michigan. No injuries were reported by We Energies, the company who owns the power plant, but the environmental assessment will likely be less optimistic. We Energies, a subsidiary of Wisconsin Energy Corporation (NYSE: WEC), has confirmed that the debris that made it into the river likely contained coal ash.
As of Monday afternoon, a “fuel sheen” appeared on the surface of Lake Michigan as a result of the bluff collapse. Cleanup crews from Clean Harbor were contracted by We Energies to help contain the spread of the sheen, and will be deploying about 1,500 feet of boom to help contain the waste on the surface. Shortly after the accident, residents living up to a mile away from the site along the lake were already reporting debris washing onshore.
As we have reported extensively in the past, coal ash contains countless toxic substances, including mercury, hexavalent chromium, arsenic, and cadmium. It has also been reported to be more radioactive as nuclear waste. In spite of these findings, the EPA has yet to issue any firm stance on whether or not coal ash will be regulated as a “toxic waste,” partly due to the fact that the coal industry has unleashed a cadre of lobbyists to Washington to fight to protect their coal ash interests.
The EPA’s delay in issuing a ruling on coal ash has allowed the Republican-controlled Congress to gain the upper hand on the issue. In early fall 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that would prohibit the EPA from regulating coal ash, and preventing them from classifying the substance as “hazardous.” Instead of EPA regulations, the bill would allow states to issue their own standards on coal ash and prevent any federal standards.
The House legislation was put forward by Republican West Virginia Congressman David McKinley, who has received more than $275,000 from the mining industry during his four years in Congress, making them his highest single donor industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
McKinley said that the regulation from the EPA would result in a loss of jobs in the coal industry, yet estimates show that the EPA’s standards would actually create as many as 28,000 new jobs in America.
Less than a week after the House bill passed, the U.S. Senate took up similar legislation sponsored by Republican North Dakota Senators John Hoeven ($147,000 in campaign contributions from the mining industry) and Kent Conrad ($827,000 in campaign contributions from the energy sector.)
Two Democratic Senators, Joe Manchin and Jay Rockefeller from West Virginia also signed on as co-sponsors of the bill. Manchin has received $367,000 from mining interests throughout his career, and Rockefeller has received $288,000 from mining companies.
The Senate bill would enact the same measures as the House bill, although the Democratic majority in the Senate is unlikely to pass the bill, or even bring it to a vote, and President Obama has vowed to veto the bill.
The new spill in Milwaukee could change the tone in Washington regarding the regulation of coal ash, but that will remain to be seen. After all, a disastrous incident in Tennessee nearly three years ago – where 1.7 million cubic yards of coal ash spilled into the environment – hasn’t changed the direction of coal ash legislation.
As our Democracy has been bought and sold by Dirty Energy and others, the risk to our drinking water and our environment escalates.
Don't breathe a sigh of relief that you're protected from Coal Ash Spills. There is no protection in Massachusetts!
Check out the photo collage, reminiscent of the TVA spill in Harriman, Tennesee. Pretty disgraceful - and totally avoidable if the right policies were in place to protect water supplies.
Coal Ash Spills in Lake Michigan
—By Kate Sheppard
Check out this photo that Mark Hoffman of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal snapped on Monday of a dam collapse at a coal ash pond:
Check out these images: LINK
The Journal Sentinel reports that a large section of a bluff used to contain coal ash at the We Energies Oak Creek Power Plant broke on Monday, dumping ash and dirt into Lake Michigan. As you can see in the photo, a truck and some heavy machinery were also pushed into the lake. One of the first responders in the area noted that the debris "stretched 120 yards long and 50 to 80 yards wide at the bottom." A spokesman for the company told the paper that the dam probably did contain coal ash, but said that they'd stopped dumping it there "several decades ago."
The spill calls to mind the catastrophic dam break at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston Fossil Plant in Harriman, Tennessee, back in December 2008. That spill dumped 1.1 billion gallons of coal slurry, and prompted the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider how coal waste is handled. Although the EPA was on course to reclassify coal leavings as "hazardous waste" that needed special handling, that rule has been stuck in bureaucratic wrangling for more than two years. So for now, it's still perfectly legal to store coal ash waste in retention ponds that are likely not lined or particularly well maintained.
Another coal ash spill—this time in Lake Michigan
How many more coal ash spills need to happen before Americans are protected by coal ash safeguards? The latest happened Monday in Oak Creek, Wis., at the We Energies Oak Creek Power Plant.
And since the TVA disaster, the industry has been lobbying hard to block the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from establishing new protections, arguing that states are doing a fine job regulating coal ash. As a result, communities across the nation remain at risk and unprotected.
Just two weeks ago the industry successfully lobbied the U.S. House of Representatives to pass a bill stripping the EPA of the authority to protect Americans from coal ash.
Monday's collapse on Lake Michigan is particularly troublesome because We Energies has known for years that its management of coal ash at this facility was a threat to human health. Indeed, they have been providing bottled water to neighbors whose wells have been contaminated.
New Lake Michigan Coal Ash Spill Raises Old Concerns
On Monday, a bluff surrounding a Milwaukee, Wisconsin-based power plant collapsed, sending a cascade of debris and coal ash waste from the power plant into Lake Michigan. No injuries were reported by We Energies, the company who owns the power plant, but the environmental assessment will likely be less optimistic. We Energies, a subsidiary of Wisconsin Energy Corporation (NYSE: WEC), has confirmed that the debris that made it into the river likely contained coal ash.
As of Monday afternoon, a “fuel sheen” appeared on the surface of Lake Michigan as a result of the bluff collapse. Cleanup crews from Clean Harbor were contracted by We Energies to help contain the spread of the sheen, and will be deploying about 1,500 feet of boom to help contain the waste on the surface. Shortly after the accident, residents living up to a mile away from the site along the lake were already reporting debris washing onshore.
As we have reported extensively in the past, coal ash contains countless toxic substances, including mercury, hexavalent chromium, arsenic, and cadmium. It has also been reported to be more radioactive as nuclear waste. In spite of these findings, the EPA has yet to issue any firm stance on whether or not coal ash will be regulated as a “toxic waste,” partly due to the fact that the coal industry has unleashed a cadre of lobbyists to Washington to fight to protect their coal ash interests.
The EPA’s delay in issuing a ruling on coal ash has allowed the Republican-controlled Congress to gain the upper hand on the issue. In early fall 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that would prohibit the EPA from regulating coal ash, and preventing them from classifying the substance as “hazardous.” Instead of EPA regulations, the bill would allow states to issue their own standards on coal ash and prevent any federal standards.
The House legislation was put forward by Republican West Virginia Congressman David McKinley, who has received more than $275,000 from the mining industry during his four years in Congress, making them his highest single donor industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
McKinley said that the regulation from the EPA would result in a loss of jobs in the coal industry, yet estimates show that the EPA’s standards would actually create as many as 28,000 new jobs in America.
Less than a week after the House bill passed, the U.S. Senate took up similar legislation sponsored by Republican North Dakota Senators John Hoeven ($147,000 in campaign contributions from the mining industry) and Kent Conrad ($827,000 in campaign contributions from the energy sector.)
Two Democratic Senators, Joe Manchin and Jay Rockefeller from West Virginia also signed on as co-sponsors of the bill. Manchin has received $367,000 from mining interests throughout his career, and Rockefeller has received $288,000 from mining companies.
The Senate bill would enact the same measures as the House bill, although the Democratic majority in the Senate is unlikely to pass the bill, or even bring it to a vote, and President Obama has vowed to veto the bill.
The new spill in Milwaukee could change the tone in Washington regarding the regulation of coal ash, but that will remain to be seen. After all, a disastrous incident in Tennessee nearly three years ago – where 1.7 million cubic yards of coal ash spilled into the environment – hasn’t changed the direction of coal ash legislation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
