Clipmarks | Federal subsidies Clips

McCain Plans Federal Health Cuts

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 02:55:43 GMT

clipped by: prin1

McCain Plans Federal Health Cuts

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank, estimates that the McCain plan would cost the government $1.3 trillion over 10 years. The plan would allow as many as five million more people to have insurance, it estimates.

Sen. Obama also would rely on some Medicare savings to pay for his health-care plan, which would offer subsidies to help consumers pay for premiums. The Tax Policy Center estimates that his plan would cost $1.6 trillion over 10 years and cover 34 million more people.

Bailout Vote Fails In the House

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:21:52 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: Yes, Clinton's surpluses gave way to Bush deficits (due largely, it's worth noting, to the 2001 recession that was in place when Clinton left office). And yes, the Bush administration (and a complacent GOP Congressional majority) presided over a lamentable and inexcusable bloating of the federal government. But the idea that this was a significant contributing factor to the mortgage/credit crisis strains the limits of creative causality.

Even so, Pelosi's partisan rant - ill-timed, illogical, and irrelevant as it was - doesn't seem like a particularly good reason for intended Yeas to tank the bill.

Update: A full transcript of Pelosi's speech (which was significantly longer than the clip in the video) is available in the extended entry.

Clip Source: www.suitablyflip.com

With 0:00 left on the clock, the current vote is 205-228. The tally wobbled around a bit after the buzzer since the vote wasn't formally closed, but the Yeas never got up to the necessary 218.

Update: John Boehner, Roy Blunt, and Eric Cantor are blaming Nancy Pelosi's partisan comments about the bill today for souring a dozen GOP Congressmen who had planned to vote for the bill and didn't.

Here's the video of Pelosi's comments, from which I've transcribed the following (with what was presumably the offending passage emphasized):

Pelosi's contention that deregulation caused the mortgage crisis is dumb enough, but the idea that increased government spending during the Bush years was a primary cause is simply idiotic. To the extent that funding included enlarged subsidies to federal mortgage vehicles like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, then government spending did have a hand in it, as those subsidies artificially encouraged home ownership among people who couldn't afford to own homes.

Tags: boehner, blunt, cantor, pelosi, bush/paulson rescue bill

In 2002 (!!!!) An Attempt to Save The Coming Market Crisis Was Made

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:43:58 GMT

clipped by: sahara
clipper's remarks: Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope my colleagues will stand up for American taxpayers and investors by cosponsoring the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.

Clip Source: www.house.gov

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
July 16, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This legislation restores a free market in housing by repealing special privileges for housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). These entities are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie), and the National Home Loan Bank Board (HLBB). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone

Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie, Freddie, and HLBB have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions.

Tags: politics, money

Bailout Blowback Warning in 2003!

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:45:54 GMT

clipped by: sahara
clipper's remarks: One of the major government privileges granted to GSEs is a line of credit with the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion dollars. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a huge unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt. The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase GSE debt. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve.

Clip Source: www.house.gov

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
September 10, 2003

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Subsidies Distort the Housing Market

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on the Treasury Department’s views regarding government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). I would also like to thank Secretaries Snow and Martinez for taking time out of their busy schedules to appear before the committee.

I hope this committee spends some time examining the special privileges provided to GSEs by the federal government. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received 13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone. Today, I will introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act, which removes government subsidies from the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the National Home Loan Bank Board.

On an Upstate Wind Turbine Project, Opinions as Varied as the Weather

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:25:06 GMT

clipped by: CohoctonWindWatch

Clip Source: www.nytimes.com

People oppose it for various reasons, too. They hate the thought of giant turbines marring the primal Catskill vistas. They see wind as a new energy rip-off dependent on federal subsidies. They think turbines create noise and annoying flickers of light. They think the company won’t pay enough to the town, that the turbines could cause fires that would be difficult to control, that they will kill birds and bats. They say it will hurt property values, that they don’t want it in their “viewscape” or in their backyards.

Tags: industrial wind, wind turbines, alternative energy, environment

Whoring for Her Big Wind Investments

Thu, 14 Aug 2008 03:03:09 GMT

clipped by: bmeuppls
clipper's remarks: Naturally, the Pickens Big Wind plan is proudly endorsed by Do-Nothing Pelosi’s friends at the obstructionist Sierra Club. Through another company, Mesa Power, Pickens has committed upwards of $12 billion in wind farms on the Texas panhandle. CEFC and Mesa Power are separate entities. But what benefits one piece of the Pickens puzzle benefits them all. The wind venture, as Pickens himself acknowledges, depends on permanent federal subsidies. Speaker Pelosi bought between $50,000 and $100,000 of stock in Pickens’ CLNE Corp. in May 2007 on the day of the initial public offering:

“She, and other investors, stand to gain a substantial return on their investment if gasoline prices stay high and municipal, state and even the Federal governments start using natural gas as their primary fuel source. If gasoline prices fall? Alternative fuels and the cost to convert fleets over to them becomes less and less attractive.”

Clip Source: michellemalkin.com

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called congressional Republicans who want up-or-down drilling votes “hand maidens of the oil companies.” Let’s call Pelosi what she is: House girl of the Big Wind boondogglers.

Though she seemingly backtracked on labeling drilling a “hoax” this week, Pelosi refuses to consider GOP energy proposals that don’t include massive government subsidies for eco-fantastical alternatives that have never panned out.

Which brings us to Madame Speaker’s 2007 financial disclosure form. Schedule III lists “assets and ‘unearned income’” of between $100,001-$250,000 from Clean Energy Fuels Corp. - Public Common Stock.” Clean Energy Fuels Corp. is a natural gas provider founded by T. Boone Pickens. Yep, that T. Boone Pickens– former oilman-turned-wind power evangelist whose ads touting a national wind campaign are now as ubiquitous as Viagra promos.

Tags: politics, energy

The Five GOP Senators Killing The Energy Issue For Americans

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:05:55 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: The WSJ explains that by "riding voter discontent over high gas prices, the GOP has made antidrilling Democrats this summer's headlines." But, along comes the Gang of 10, complete with five GOP senators who are quite eager to stick it to conservatives and cave in to the Democrats.

The plan is a Democratic giveaway. New production on offshore federal lands is left to state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hurdles are huge. And the bill bars drilling within 50 miles of the coast -- putting off limits some of the most productive areas. Alaska's oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is still a no-go.

The highlight is instead $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and federal handouts for alternative fuels and renewables. The Gang of 10 intends to pay for all this in part by raising taxes on . . . oil companies! The Republican Five has potentially given antidrilling Democrats the political cover they need to neutralize energy through November.

Clip Source: www.gopusa.com

A report in Investor's Business Daily (IBD) sums up the situation perfectly: "If you thought Republicans were no longer 'The Stupid Party,' then you haven't met the senators who may have just destroyed the GOP's biggest hope this election year: the drilling issue."

Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Bob Corker of Tennessee, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John Thune of South Dakota — remember their names if things go badly for the GOP this November.

The "compromise" they are promoting is actually a wholesale giveaway to Democrats. Touted as a drilling plan, it actually imposes about $84 billion in new taxes on oil companies and keeps the offshore and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling bans.

The Wall Street Journal described the issue in this way: "Politics has its puzzling moments. John McCain and most of the GOP experienced one late last week. That was when five of their own set about dismantling the best issue Republicans have in the upcoming election."

Tags: drilling issue, sens. chambliss, isakson, corker, graham, thune

Magical Thinking vs. Reality

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:02:45 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: amount to $1.05 to $1.38 per gallon, or 42 to 55 percent of ethanol's wholesale market price.

Ethanol does not reduce gasoline prices. If you lived in urban areas that used reformulated gasoline last summer -- that's the environmentally "clean" gasoline required for areas with air pollution problems -- you might have paid up to 60 cents a gallon more for gasoline.

That's because the federal government required oil refineries to use 4 billion gallons of ethanol in 2006, regardless of price, and gas pump prices last summer reflected the fact that ethanol was twice as expensive as conventional gas in wholesale markets, and far more costly to deliver.

The truth is that if ethanol has commercial merit, it doesn't need the subsidy. And if it doesn't, no amount of subsidy will bestow it.

Clip Source: www.cato.org

Ethanol will not lead to energy independence. If all the corn produced in America in 2005 were dedicated to ethanol production (and only 14.3 percent of it was), U.S. gasoline consumption would have dropped by only 12 percent. For corn ethanol to completely displace gasoline in this country, we would need to appropriate all U.S. cropland, turn it over to ethanol production, and then find 20 percent more land on top of that.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration believes the practical limit for domestic ethanol production is about 700,000 barrels per day -- in 2030. In 23 years, that will translate into about 6 percent of the U.S. transportation fuels market.

According to a 2005 report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, corn ethanol costs an average of $2.53 to produce -- several times what it costs to produce a gallon of gasoline. Without subsidies, costs would be higher still.

International Institute for Sustainable Development last fall found that ethanol subsidies

Tags: expensive, wasteful, ethanol, subsidies, fed mandated

Rural airlines take flight: Service is too costly; passengers are too few

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:02:10 GMT

clipped by: ckissel

Clip Source: www.lvrj.com

High fuel costs, lousy airline balance sheets and a shortage of suitable planes have left more towns than ever without scheduled air service this year, despite the government spending more than $100 million annually to subsidize routes to isolated airports.

The federal government's Essential Air Service program, a temporary idea that grew out of airline deregulation in 1978, had problems before the latest spate of economic turbulence crippled the nation's airline industry

But a near 100 percent spike in the price of fuel since last year and an economic downturn that has caused fewer Americans to travel has wreaked havoc on the airlines' ability to service small town routes, even with generous taxpayer subsidies.

At least 37 communities nationwide that have lost their only link to the nation's air transportation network this year. That's more than in any year in the history of the Essential Air Service program.

Understanding the full cost of a nuclear power plan

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:46:56 GMT

clipped by: deb2012
clipper's remarks: History has taught us that civilian nuclear programs can -- and do -- lead to the production of nuclear weapons as happened in India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. The presence of nuclear power plants has provoked acts of aggression, even war. Israel bombed nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria. The U.S. went to war in Iraq at least on the pretext that the country was developing nuclear weapons. The concerns surrounding Iran's nuclear intentions are indicative of the blurred line between civilian and military nuclear activities.

Iran's uranium enrichment program has inspired 14 other Middle Eastern countries to express an interest in acquiring nuclear power programs, a poorly-disguised cover story for nuclear weapons posturing.

Clip Source: www.alternet.org

Nuclear is too slow but, more importantly, far too expensive. The industry's own estimates now put the price tag for a single new reactor at more than $12 billion.

Moody's Investors Services Special Report issued in May 2008 projects that a power company announcing new reactor construction will see its credit rating downgraded by more than 25 percent because of the increasing financial risks that splitting the atom brings to a business profile.

This leaves the American taxpayer to foot the bill, continuing the federal subsidies pattern of decades. Experts at the Rocky Mountain Institute have calculated that the nuclear power industry has been supported by more than half a trillion dollars in federal subsidies since its inception. Renewable energy, by contrast, is a footnote, receiving just a 10 percent share of all energy spending over the past 60 years.

Clip Source: www.alternet.org

If cumbersome construction timelines and obscene costs are not enough to deter nuclear proponents, then the security risks should be

Tags: nuclear, energy

S&L Scandal Tidbits

Sat, 05 Jul 2008 20:04:39 GMT

clipped by: katsteevns
clipper's remarks: * The rip-off began in 1980 when the government raised the federal insurance on S&L's from $40,000 to $100,000 even though the typical savings account was only around $6000.
* Some of the seized assets were a buffalo sperm bank, a racehorse with syphilis, and a kitty litter mine.
* James Fail invested $1000 of his own money to purchase 15 failing S&L's. The government reimbursed him $1.85 billion in federal subsidies.
* It sometimes took over 7 years to close failing S&L's by the government.
* When S&L owners who stole millions went to jail, their sentances were typically one-fifth that of the average bank robber.
* The goverment bail out will cost the taxpayers around $1.4 trillion dollars when it is over.
* If the White House had stepped in and bailed out the S&L's in 1986 instead of delaying until after the 1988 elections, the cost might have been only $20 billion.
* With the money lost from the S&L scandals, the government could have provided

Clip Source: www.inthe80s.com

Savings and Loan Scandal

Here are some facts on the infamous S&L scandal of the eighties which we are still paying for.

The Savings and Loan scandal is the largest theft in the history of the world.
Deregulation eased restrictions so much that S&L owners could lend themselves money.
The Garn Institute of Finance, named after Senator Jake Garn, co-authored the deregulation of the industry and received $2.2 million from industry executives.
Neil Bush, George Bush's son, never servered time in jail for his part in running an S&L into the ground.
Represenative Fernard St. Germain, who was head of the House of Representatives banking, co-authored the deregulation and was voted out of office after other questionable dealings and was sent back to D.C. as an S&L lobbiest.
Charles Keating, when asked if massive lobbying efforts had influenced the government officials, he replies "I certainly hope so."

Independence in 1776 to Dependence on 1,776

Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:02:05 GMT

clipped by: Rustee

Clip Source: www.cato-at-liberty.org

I recently updated data I presented last year on the total number of federal subsidy programs.

As the chart shows, the number of subsidy programs has increased 25 percent since 2000.

It turns out that the federal government currently operates 1,776 subsidy programs. These include subsidies for states, cities, individuals, non-profit groups, and businesses.

Tags: government, taxes

MORE "Splash and Dash" Scam On U.S.Taxpayers

Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:21:17 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: - Manning Feraci, vice president of federal affairs at the National Biodiesel Board: “Ultimately when you dig down it gets to the point that you would have to have access to IRS information…Taxpayer information is confidential, so we can’t have access to it…”

Clip Source: newenergynews.blogspot.com

WHEN

The practice has been going on since the B99 subsidy was implemented in 2004, costing U.S. taxpayers more each year.

WHERE

Most of the biodiesel that comes through U.S. ports for splash and dash treatment comes from palm oil sources in Asia and sugar cane sources in South America.

WHY
- The tax credit allowance was instituted to incentivize U.S. farmers to grow biodiesel crops that could be added to petrodiesel in 1% or 20% mixtures as a preservative.
- The profits reaped by exploiting U.S. subsidies is allowing foreign producers to sell in Europe, driving European producers out of business.

- The National Biodiesel Board has urged Congress to sustain the subsidy.

Congressman Shadegg: “In 2007 this subsidy cost the American taxpayer $300 million, and it’s projected to cost the American taxpayers $600 million next year… We really haven’t found out the names of the companies who are profiting from it…I think the bad actors are the members of Congress who are allowing this to happen.”

Tags: international biodiesel producers, u.s. tax credits, biodiesel subsidy

Reality Check (or) Boudreaux's wager

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:04:28 GMT

clipped by: willhelm
clipper's remarks: Here's a letter that I sent a few weeks back to the New York Times.

Don Boudreaux

Clip Source: cafehayek.typepad.com

I'm flabbergasted by the faith that people - left, right, and center - put in politics and in the candidates du jour. Millions of Americans today famously believe that a President Obama will fundamentally "change" America (into what, though, is unclear). And today, David Brooks suggests that a President McCain might well quash special-interest-group politics and turn Uncle Sam's attention chiefly to the general interest

These are delusions. I'll bet $100 that, regardless of which candidate wins the White House, in 2013 the federal budget will still contain agricultural subsidies and tariffs that take billions of dollars from the many to give to the few - that a majority of Members of Congress will continue to successfully sponsor earmarks - that the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare will be no smaller than they are today - and that partisan bickering will be every bit as much a part of the daily news as it is now.

Politics delivers Svengalis, not salvation.

Tags: politics

Alternative-energy tax credits still up in air

Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:02:44 GMT

clipped by: CohoctonWindWatch

Clip Source: www.delawareonline.com

Delaware's two big wind-power initiatives face an uncertain future as millions of dollars in federal subsidies are being held up in Congress.

While Congress has managed to overcome delays in the past, there is no guarantee the credit will be in effect when the Bluewater project construction ramps up, said Brian Yerger, a Wilmington-area renewable power analyst.

Tags: industrial wind, alternative energy, wind credits